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…6364666869

Comments

  • Options
    #1952
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Can you really not deferentiate between incest and homosexuality, or are you purposely bringing up something irrelevant and purposeless?

    They are entirely different concepts. I brought it up to demonstrate the inherent foolishness of Kiwi's argument that all minority rights be catered for, simply to avoid the big bad majority oppressing them.


  • Options
    #1953
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I'm not employing it as a slippery slope argument.

    I'm employing the example to counter your hair-brained notion that all minorities must have their desires catered for as a human right and that challenging these rights be forbidden.

    Equality isn't a hair brained notion.


  • Options
    #1954
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    floggg wrote: »
    Cop yourself on. I thought you were smarter than that.

    What did I say to cause such an outburst?


  • Options
    #1955
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    floggg wrote: »
    Equality isn't a hair brained notion.

    So all potential marriage combinations between consenting adults should be allowed, yes?


  • Options
    #1956
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    floggg wrote: »

    Banning all people under the age of 15 from marrying or everybody from marrying their cousins is not inequality or discrimination. It's treating everybody in the same situation in the same.

    That "treating everyone the same" argument can be used to defend the status quo re mariage. The current rules of civil marriage apply to every single person identically. So no need for a change on equality grounds.

    Is that the kind of ammo you want to give to the No side?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1957
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    So all potential marriage combinations between consenting adults should be allowed, yes?

    I suggest you go back and read my previous post that explains why the ban on incestuous marriages isn't an equality issue.

    I this stage I can only conclude you are intentionally ignoring the very clear difference in the situations.


  • Options
    #1958
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    They are entirely different concepts. I brought it up to demonstrate the inherent foolishness of Kiwi's argument that all minority rights be catered for, simply to avoid the big bad majority oppressing them.

    She didn't say that.

    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    So all potential marriage combinations between consenting adults should be allowed, yes?

    He didn't say that.

    SSM = Same Sex Marriage, not Same old fcuking Straw Man.


  • Options
    #1959
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    Genuinely? I'm flabbergasted if you are being serious in this post, or on a sort of ironic train of thought for kicks... Sometimes seeing people's thought patterns regarding gay people and marriage is just awful. I expected something a little above that because I know you're an intelligent poster, IHI.

    You'll see my reason for posting outlined in the posts above.

    But I am intrigued as to the intense reaction to my mention of a potential alternative relationship type that some (albeit very few) consenting adults may wish to pursue. Why do people react to cousin/sibling marriage as if it is "unnatural" or "wrong"? Who are you to judge? Who are we to say they can't get married?


  • Options
    #1960
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    That "treating everyone the same" argument can be used to defend the status quo re mariage. The current rules of civil marriage apply to every single person identically. So no need for a change on equality grounds.

    Is that the kind of ammo you want to give to the No side?

    It is treating every individual the same only in a very literal and absurd sense. It is not however applying equal treatment to people in a heterosexual relationship and people in a homosexual relationship, even though the essential nature of both relationships is the same, or substantially similar.

    Moreover, there is no objectively justifiable reason for the differing treatment - not one sensible argument can be advanced as to why the state should do so. E.g. see recent US cases where the arguments against marriage equality have all been dismissed - with one judge commenting the arguments advanced "were not those of serious people."

    I would make a similar comment about your absurdly literal interpretation of "equality" above. It is not an argument of serious people, and I wonder if you are being genuine in making it. At times it seems you are a reasoned poster, and yet others you seem to be trolling for kicks (e.g. the incest nonsense).

    Its either that or you just fundamentally don't grape the basic nature of equality law, minority protections, liberal democracies, and have no logical consistency, or in many instances, simply logic, to your thought processes.


  • Options
    #1961
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    You'll see my reason for posting outlined in the posts above.

    But I am intrigued as to the intense reaction to my mention of a potential alternative relationship type that some (albeit very few) consenting adults may wish to pursue. Why do people react to cousin/sibling marriage as if it is "unnatural" or "wrong"? Who are you to judge? Who are we to say they can't get married?

    Take your red herring elsewhere please. Its not relevant at all. And we are sick of having to talk about incest or bestiality every time our rights are being debated.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1962
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Muise... wrote: »
    She didn't say that.

    She did
    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!


  • Options
    #1963
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    floggg wrote: »
    Take your red herring elsewhere please. Its not relevant at all. And we are sick of having to talk about incest or bestiality every time our rights are being debated.

    What, in your opinion, is wrong with civil marriage between first cousins?


  • Options
    #1964
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    She did

    No - she was talking about protecting rights against ridiculous challenges. You said she wanted to cater for all minorities no matter what.


  • Options
    #1965
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Muise... wrote: »
    No - she was talking about protecting rights against ridiculous challenges. You said she wanted to cater for all minorities no matter what.
    ...a minority group

    Is what Kiwi said - she do not qualify it.


  • Options
    #1966
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,583 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    floggg wrote: »

    I would make a similar comment about your absurdly literal interpretation of "equality" above. It is not an argument of serious people, and I wonder if you are being genuine in making it. At times it seems you are a reasoned poster, and yet others you seem to be trolling for kicks (e.g. the incest nonsense).

    I think that all of this came about from attempting to point out the flaws in Kiwi in IE's suggested legislation (flaws which you have also commented on).

    The examples could have been better chosen and argued, but they were, as far as I can see, hypothetical examples of how that legislation would be inappropriate.


  • Options
    #1967
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Ah lads we're getting bogged down in immaterial detail here. We're having a referendum on same sex marriage not incestuous marriage. Perhaps, in time, relationships between relatives will become socially acceptable, as same sex relationships have become, but that's not today.


  • Options
    #1968
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    Pure derailment and leading into answers that attempt to prove that gay marriage isn't really 'right' after all.


  • Options
    #1969
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    Pure derailment and leading into answers that attempt to prove that gay marriage isn't really 'right' after all.

    I'm in favour of SSM and brought up sibling mariage as an example of alternative minority views not catered for in law (despite it being a valid alternative relationship between consenting adults).

    I am intrigued though by the way posters are dismissive and, from my point of view, repulsed by sibling marriage. They think it odd and unnatural and presumably "wrong" despite it involving consenting adults.


  • Options
    #1970
    TomoBhoy
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭TomoBhoy


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I'm in favour of SSM and brought up sibling mariage as an example of alternative minority views not catered for in law (despite it being a valid alternative relationship between consenting adults).

    I am intrigued though by the way posters are dismissive and, from my point of view, repulsed by sibling marriage. They think it odd and unnatural and presumably "wrong" despite it involving consenting adults.

    but the thing is even if you get married you Cannot be brother and sister, even your cousin is pretty taboo, incest is not the issue here, just let 2 people who love one another(not blood related) get married and let them suffer like the rest of us poor fools! #Straights4Equality


  • Options
    #1971
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I'm in favour of SSM and brought up sibling mariage as an example of alternative minority views not catered for in law (despite it being a valid alternative relationship between consenting adults)..

    Yeah. Next stop after that is paedophilia on the Same Old Crap express. Had no idea you were one of Frans bridgade before now, funny enough.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1972
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yeah. Next stop after that is paedophilia on the Same Old Crap express. Had no idea you were one of Frans bridgade before now, funny enough.

    No it's not. Relationship between consenting adults shouldn't be considered taboo, or linked, as you just have, with the awfulness of paedophillia and child abuse.


  • Options
    #1973
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,017 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    What, in your opinion, is wrong with civil marriage between first cousins?

    Its irrelevant to the discussion. Have you not bought in horses yet?

    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
    #1974
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No it's not. Relationship between consenting adults shouldn't be considered taboo, or linked, as you just have, with the awfulness of paedophillia and child abuse.

    Taboo is immaterial; they should not be considered on a thread about something completely different, in your dogged pursuit of an argument.


  • Options
    #1975
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yeah. Next stop after that is paedophilia on the Same Old Crap express. Had no idea you were one of Frans bridgade before now, funny enough.

    It's a relationship between two consenting adults that is considered taboo. Honestly it's nothing evenly remotely close to pedophilia and I highly doubt that IHI is attempting to use the slippery slope argument, rather he's pointing out a similarity to how same sex relationships were viewed in the past.


  • Options
    #1976
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Its irrelevant to the discussion. Have you not bought in horses yet?

    It's insulting to compare a relationship between consenting adults with bestiality Joey. Not nice.


  • Options
    #1977
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No it's not. Relationship between consenting adults shouldn't be considered taboo, or linked, as you just have, with the awfulness of paedophillia and child abuse.


    I didn't link them, I pointed out the boring and predictable series of remarks which comes from the anti- side time and time again. Don't misrepresent what I stated please.


  • Options
    #1978
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,017 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    It's insulting to compare a relationship between consenting adults with bestiality Joey. Not nice.

    I'm illustrating that you are going down the ridiculously stupid and pointless and irrelevant slippery slope argument very easily.

    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
    #1979
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    It's insulting to compare a relationship between consenting adults with bestiality Joey. Not nice.

    Please, save the feigned indignation.

    if you feel strongly about incestuous marriage, start a thread. its got nothing to do with this issue. you have been involved in enough of these threads to know that though.

    you also know its only brought up to try and tie up the issue in debating false equivalences, red herrings, and to link it to other issues to cause confusion and construct baseless slippery slope arguments.

    so the only question here is why are you bringing it up.

    for somebody who claims to be broadly in favour of marriage equality, you are doing a very good impression of somebody from the no side who knowingly trots out distortions, lies, and mistruths.


  • Options
    #1980
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,945 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I'm in favour of SSM and brought up sibling mariage as an example of alternative minority views not catered for in law (despite it being a valid alternative relationship between consenting adults).

    No it's not relevant to this topic. Much like when you pointed out we should't be talking about religion because it's not relevant either.

    I don't think there's anything wrong with starting a new topic though!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1981
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No it's not. Relationship between consenting adults shouldn't be considered taboo, or linked, as you just have, with the awfulness of paedophillia and child abuse.

    By my last post I meant, can you genuinely not see the problems with incest and how they don't apply to SSM, or are you just ignoring it?
    Incest is a different argument. There are very strong, factual based arguments against it, which I am not going to go through in this thread as it's not relevant. Same sex marriage does not have these arguments against it. It has no real argument against it except petty opinions.


Advertisement