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

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

1…3031333536…325

Comments

  • #962
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    I have given you reasons several times but you refuse to listen.

    I think the argument that for same sex couples To be allowed marry as some married couples don't have children, amongst your weakest. For my other reasons, please refer to my posts earlier in the thread.

    That's not my argument, that's just a flaw in yours. You say marriage is just for man and a woman and its purpose is to procreate. You have no offered one valid reason as to why this only applies when talking about SSM


  • #963
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,160 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Whosthis wrote: »
    Have all of the political parties come out in support of the referendum yet? I can't imagine any of them publicly supporting the no campaign but it would be interesting to see if any of them stay silent.

    All of the political parties with representatives in the Oireachtas along with the Greens support a Yes vote, I don't think any parties outside of the far-right parties like the Christian Solidarity Party are supporting a No vote.


  • #964
    komodosp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,657 ✭✭✭komodosp


    I'll be voting No in the first referendum and Yes in the second.


  • #965
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    No, I have contributed already, but its a faster thread than I have time for. I am merely stating my impression that it is quite a hostile thread. Your closing note being quite exemplary.

    That's interesting because I found your opening salvo to me to be dismissive, insulting and unwarrantedly aggressive. Shall I know spend the remainder of the debate obfuscating from the core issues by banging on about hurt feelZ?


  • #966
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    I have given you reasons several times but you refuse to listen.

    I think the argument that for same sex couples To be allowed marry as some married couples don't have children, amongst your weakest. For my other reasons, please refer to my posts earlier in the thread.

    You do, though it utterly undermines any claim that marraige is about procreation?


  • Advertisement
  • #967
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    That's interesting because I found your opening salvo to me to be dismissive, insulting and unwarrantedly aggressive. Shall I know spend the remainder of the debate obfuscating from the core issues by banging on about hurt feelZ?

    I often find one or two worded posts haughty, arrogant and dismissive and indicative of the person posting.


  • #968
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    I often find one or two worded posts haughty, arrogant and dismissive and indicative of the person posting.

    Perhaps then the lesson is to stop prejudging people?:cool:


  • #969
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    You do, though it utterly undermines any claim that marraige is about procreation?

    If you say so.


  • #970
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Perhaps then you the lesson is to stop prejudging people?:cool:

    http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131026044528/simpsons/images/3/36/Martin_and_bart_shake_hands.png


  • #971
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    If you say so.

    Its not me. Its logic.

    Marriage is either for procreation in which case all those who whether by will or misfortune ought not to be able to be party to it, or it isn't.


  • Advertisement
  • #972
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    floggg wrote: »
    Its eloquently written, but actually not very well argued at all.

    it assumes gender to e the defining feature of marriage, without offering any evidence or further argument in support of that contention. It then uses that assumption to form the basis of an argument against change.

    It makes the same mistake regarding human nature and its supposed expression through gender, reciting some eloquent but ultimately baseless, subjective and meaningless phrases about what the author considers to be human nature.

    And of course it completely misstates what is said in the Constitution regarding marriage - which makes no reference to gender in regard to marriage.

    Its central argument regarding human nature is really an eloquent, but quite transparent way of setting up heterosexual relationships as superior, and thus contains the corollary implication that same sex relationships are inferior and that gay people are not truly capable of living the human experience (nice that).

    In short, misguided musings which mistake subjective beliefs as universal truths and which clearly evidences the authors view of same sex relationships as inferior.

    The eloquently phrased and coded arguments will go down very well with those who are already believers in his message.

    Not the meaning I got at all. I don't know where you got the impression he felt heterosexual relationships were superior and you are losing the run of yourself with your rant thereafter. He does mention the uniqueness of the relationship and it's place in the constitution, and in marriage which IMO implicitly endorses resultant family where that occurs.


  • #973
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Its not me. Its logic.

    Marriage is either for procreation in which case all those who whether by will or misfortune ought not to be able to be party to it, or it isn't.

    Nice try. Pass.


  • #974
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    Nice try. Pass.

    Pass? AKA you, like every other individual who clings to that argument have no response to offer.


  • #975
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Nice try. Pass.

    So you're just going to ignore reason here and instead of coming up with a reasonable argument for yourself and recognise the major flaw in your reasoning, you're just going to say "Pass". Can you answer my post above please?


  • #976
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Pass? AKA you, like every other individual who clings to that argument have no response to offer.
    sup_dude wrote: »
    So you're just going to ignore reason here and instead of coming up with a reasonable argument for yourself and recognise the major flaw in your reasoning, you're just going to say "Pass". Can you answer my post above please?

    As I have said, I am not going down a rabbit hole again on a non-issue.


  • #977
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    As I have said, I am not going down a rabbit hole again on a non-issue.

    I am sorry but you can't just unilaterally designate something a non-issue without any explanation just because you either can't or won't engage.

    What an absurd thing to try and do.


  • #978
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    reprise wrote: »
    As I have said, I am not going down a rabbit hole again on a non-issue.


    If it was a non-issue, why did you bring it up?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94046744&postcount=963


  • #979
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    I am sorry but you can't just unilaterally designate something a non-issue without any explanation just because you either can't or won't engage.

    What an absurd thing to try and do.

    :confused:

    But I really did explain it before.

    I'll do it again - it's a non-issue.


  • #980
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    :confused:

    But I really did explain it before.

    I'll do it again - it's a non-issue.

    It isn't a non-issue. It has been repeatedly raised by countless people opposed to recognizing equal marriage and has just as often been completely defeated.

    OF course it is a issue.


  • #981
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    It isn't a non-issue. It has been repeatedly raised by countless people opposed to recognizing equal marriage and has just as often been completely defeated.

    OF course it is a issue.

    Worthy of a referendum?


  • Advertisement
  • #982
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    :confused:

    But I really did explain it before.

    I'll do it again - it's a non-issue.

    I was addressing you before when you brought it up. You did not explain it at all. Why is it only a problem when it comes to SSM?


  • #983
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    I was addressing you before when you brought it up. You did not explain it at all. Why is it only a problem when it comes to SSM?

    Why is what a problem?


  • #984
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Why is what a problem?

    You know what. Your argument is that marriage is between man and woman with the purpose to reproduce. Why is this only a problem when it comes to SSM? Why is it not an issue for couples who can't reproduce?


  • #985
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    You know what. Your argument is that marriage is between man and woman with the purpose to reproduce. Why is this only a problem when it comes to SSM? Why is it not an issue for couples who can't reproduce?

    It's not a problem. It's a non-issue. It's not being voted on.


  • #986
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    reprise wrote: »
    It's not a problem. It's a non-issue.


    Then why did you bring it up?


  • #987
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    It's not a problem. It's a non-issue.

    Then what is it you're trying to say? It's only not okay for gays to get married because they can't reproduce?


  • #988
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    It's not a problem. It's a non-issue.

    Are you voting no reprise? Can you please do me the courtesy of listing the reasons why, especially as it is my family who will be effected.


  • #989
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Then what is it you're trying to say? It's only not okay for gays to get married because they can't reproduce?

    No, I'm pretty sure I never said that.


  • #990
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    No, I'm pretty sure I never said that.

    Then what are you saying?


  • Advertisement
  • #991
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    reprise wrote: »
    No, I'm pretty sure I never said that.

    Yes, by bringing up this letter
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94046291&postcount=939


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement