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…3940424445…325

Comments

  • #1232
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Legally as defined it is not discrimination and emotive terms like discrimination are pointless.

    Denying people equal rights is an emotive subject. A minority suffering discrimination who have to ask the majority to approve the granting of equal rights is emotive, especially when folks in the majority start telling them they're not asking politely enough, maybe we'll punish them with more discrimination for being uppity.


  • #1233
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Daith wrote: »
    There was that whole decriminalization of homosexual activities I guess.

    Or do you just mean current examples? :P

    Current because after all that was passed rightly into law that homosexuality was not a criminal offence.?

    In the context of discrimination regarding marriage equality and civil partnership rights.


  • #1234
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    spikeS wrote: »
    I thought they brought it in last referendum, if they didn't I am surprised Rte show yes side stuff, they know the no side is their audience I am surprised they don't just pander to them

    Huh?

    The vast majority of the country support it. It's likely therefore that most of RTE's viewers do too.


  • #1235
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    spikeS wrote: »
    That's already there and why we need the yes vote to win so they can be on equal footing

    No, you are completely wrong here. Feel free to PM or ask about the adoption issues but equating a yes vote with adoption is not correct.


  • #1236
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Current because after all that was passed rightly into law that homosexuality was not a criminal offence.?

    After having to reach the EU because the Supreme Court felt that decriminalizing homosexuality was an attack on marriage in our constitution!

    Again, just because something is legal does not mean it can't be discriminatory. History has show there is plenty of laws that were seen to discriminate.


  • Advertisement
  • #1237
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    seamus wrote: »
    There has to be a limit to this right? Because there will also be viewpoints out there that homosexuality is a disease engineered by the lizard people to reduce the human population and SSM is an attempt to dilute the institution of marriage and as a result cause less babies.

    The BAI requires that debates are "balanced", which usually means finding the most reasonable/respectable groups from both sides of the debate.

    The problem with SSM is that the "most reasonable" group on the anti-side are still absolutely bat**** crazy and irrational, but because balance is required, RTE have to provide them with airtime. I'm not sure if the Catholic church itself has refused to provide a spokesperson on this matter, as it would seem to me that if you were looking for a group who is opposed to SSM but capable of some level of decorum and reason, it would be the church rather than Iona.

    That would be the same church who thinks I'm intrinsically disordered, and that my relationship is part of Satan's plan to destroy the world?.
    Sure.


  • #1238
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Daith wrote: »
    It is discrimination. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it isn't.

    Apparently the yes side can't use the word discrimination now.

    Use discrimination terms freely, it is no skin off my nose either way
    sup_dude wrote: »
    So basically, only the law exists and humans only exist within law. Anything outside of law does not and should not exist. Right.

    So let me get this straight, on one hand you are saying we should respect the law of State and if the referendum is carried we should introduce marriage equality.

    But on the other hand the law of the land doesn't really matter that much so we could always ignore the result if it went the wrong way ????

    Persons are defined in law so yes.
    sup_dude wrote: »
    Used to be illegal for women to work once married. But that's not discrimination I guess.

    Its sure as hell legally discrimination now though isnt it


  • #1239
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    Daith wrote: »
    No, you are completely wrong here. Feel free to PM or ask about the adoption issues but equating a yes vote with adoption is not correct.

    I am saying it won't make it so gay people can adopt as that is the case already but it does make it easier as they can no longer discriminate due to not being a married couple. It's a good thing

    It's a good side effect of the marriage referendum going through


  • #1240
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

    So let me get this straight, on one hand you are saying we should respect the law of State and if the referendum is carried we should introduce marriage equality.

    But on the other hand the law of the land doesn't really matter that much so we could always ignore the result if it went the wrong way ????

    Persons are defined in law so yes.

    No, I'm saying that just because it's law, doesn't mean it's not discrimination. Just because it's law, doesn't mean it's right or correct.


  • #1241
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Use discrimination terms freely, it is no skin off my nose either way

    I thought it was very emotive subject.

    I believe in gay equality
    Just not gay marriage

    Discrimination is an emotive term
    Use it freely.

    Sensing a pattern here.
    spikeS wrote: »
    I am saying it won't make it so gay people can adopt as that is the case already but it does make it easier as they can no longer discriminate due to not being a married couple. It's a good thing

    It's a good side effect of the marriage referendum going through

    Ok I'm probaly sealioning you or something but you are wrong in this. I really hope you're not telling people that the referendum will make it easier for couples to adopt.


  • Advertisement
  • #1242
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    This is very silly talk and reasoning. The majority has not spoken, the majority has actually yet to make themselves known and the majority will not be known until after referendum day.
    It's not all. Let the majority speak and make themselves known now through a vote and save all this money and time and the giving of national tv platforms to those would seek to deny others of equal rights. Look at the poll at the top of this page for a hint on what the result will be.
    Thats democracy in action its great isnt it :) I suspect that homosexuals are in the minority in this country and will heavily rely on heterosexual public support to get this across the line.
    It's not about homosexuals or heterosexuals, it's about human beings. The majority of human beings will support the minority of human beings who are being treated unequally.


  • #1243
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    spikeS wrote: »
    I am saying it won't make it so gay people can adopt as that is the case already but it does make it easier as they can no longer discriminate due to not being a married couple. It's a good thing

    It's a good side effect of the marriage referendum going through

    I like you (I don't.) You seem to be following the same tactics as Iona, but modified for the digital age. Try and come across as supporting equal marriage but instead only muddy the waters about what the issues are.


  • #1244
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    especially when folks in the majority start telling them they're not asking politely enough, maybe we'll punish them with more discrimination for being uppity.

    Just for clarity I have never said gays should "ask nicely". I can understand how it must feel like that at times though.

    TBH I think the pro gay agenda has rightly done a brilliant job on getting it to this point without doing the "cap in hand" approach


  • #1245
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »



    Its sure as hell legally discrimination now though isnt it

    So it's only the legal thing that matters. That's what I meant with my last post. It's only discrimination if the law says it is?


  • #1246
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Legally as defined it is not discrimination and emotive terms like discrimination are pointless.

    For example can you cite me any examples of an EU Commission judgement against the Irish State for discrimination of homosexuals ?

    What? At present straight couples are free to marry, the law discriminates against gay couples by not providing equal access.

    Its really not that difficult.


  • #1247
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    sup_dude wrote: »
    So it's only the legal thing that matters. That's what I meant with my last post. It's only discrimination if the law says it is?

    No. It's still discrimination. But it's ok because you're allowed to discriminate, legally.


  • #1248
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    K4t wrote: »
    It's not all. Let the majority speak and make themselves known now through a vote and save all this money and time and the giving of national tv platforms to those would seek to deny others of equal rights.

    So in other words to suit your agenda lets treat the other side unequal and get our way via bully boy tactics and to hell with any process once I get what I want, exemplifying you cant understand the basic meaning of quality.

    Hopefully, you pop up on TV and radio making similiar points during a debate because it's really easy points.
    K4t wrote: »
    Look at the poll at the top of this page for a hint on what the result will be.

    To be plainly blunt. You are delusional if you think this poll will resemble the actual referendum result, at this stage I would feel safe in saying that the uphill part has to be done by the yes side.
    K4t wrote: »
    It's not about homosexuals or heterosexuals, it's about human beings. The majority of human beings will support the minority of human beings who are being treated unequally.

    But it is about homosexuals and being able or unable to marry, lets not convalute the issue.


  • #1249
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    What? At present straight couples are free to marry, the law discriminates against gay couples by not providing equal access.

    Its really not that difficult.

    It's like I asked yesterday. If a magic wand was waved and you had all the equal rights and standings of a married couple as civil partners would you be happy?


  • #1250
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    But it is about homosexuals and being able or unable to marry, lets not convalute the issue.

    The issue is one of equality.

    For equality or against.

    That's it.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    It's like I asked yesterday. If a magic wand was waved and you had all the equal rights and standings of a married couple as civil partners would you be happy?

    No, separate but equal is not equal.


  • #1251
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    spikeS wrote: »
    But what reason would you have for it to be bad, why would you be against it?

    Climate change.

    Kn this debate, I'm OK with it because it's a referendum and both arguments should be put forward.

    But look at how the "need for balance" has resulted in fringe views like climate change deniers getting undeserved legitimacy by putting arm chair quacks on TV to debate real scientists who know what they are taking about, and giving the impression that both sides are equally credible.

    They way the BAI have applied the rules is also questionable, and has resulted in Broadcasters being censured for expressing their personal views or for not having opposing views represented at interviews conducted at Pride.


  • Advertisement
  • #1252
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    It's like I asked yesterday. If a magic wand was waved and you had all the equal rights and standings of a married couple as civil partners would you be happy?

    That question was answered multiple times yesterday. The short answer: no.


  • #1253
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    No. It's still discrimination. But it's ok because you're allowed to discriminate, legally.

    Please show me the legal definition or where I am discriminating against gay people for not agreeing with them being allowed to marry ???


  • #1254
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    It's like I asked yesterday. If a magic wand was waved and you had all the equal rights and standings of a married couple as civil partners would you be happy?

    So in essence if civil partnership was the exact same institution as marriage but not the same name?


  • #1255
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    It's like I asked yesterday. If a magic wand was waved and you had all the equal rights and standings of a married couple as civil partners would you be happy?

    If they were allowed to take the bus as long as they stayed in their own section would it be equal?


  • #1256
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Please show me the legal definition or where I am discriminating against gay people for not agreeing with them being allowed to marry ???

    That's our point. You're only going by what's legal but the world doesn't work like that. It's legal in some countries to stone a woman to death for having sex before marriage but for men, it's okay. Is this discrimination?


  • #1257
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Daith wrote: »
    No, separate but equal is not equal.

    I would argue that it is equal standing but respects marriage being between a man and a woman.

    After all, you would have the same rights, privaliges as any married straight couple, legally being recognised as a civil partnership too so whats the problem ?


  • #1258
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    sup_dude wrote: »
    That's our point. You're only going by what's legal but the world doesn't work like that. It's legal in some countries to stone a woman to death for having sex before marriage but for men, it's okay. Is this discrimination?

    No thats called Sharia law in Islam and has nothing to do with the topic really but it's their culture and their way of life. You argue people have no right to tell gays what to do surely it would be same here in that case no ?

    The rule of law is what the world turns on like it or lump it.

    Whats to stop you going up North and getting married and having the same rights under the Civil Partnership Bill in the South ?


  • #1259
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Please show me the legal definition or where I am discriminating against gay people for not agreeing with them being allowed to marry ???

    You're confusing legality and discrimination. Two different things.


  • #1260
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    I would argue that it is equal standing but respects marriage being between a man and a woman.

    After all, you would have the same rights, privaliges as any married straight couple, legally being recognised as a civil partnership too so whats the problem ?

    Why should we respect that when that's what we want to change?


  • Advertisement
  • #1261
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    I would argue that it is equal standing but respects marriage being between a man and a woman.

    After all, you would have the same rights, privaliges as any married straight couple, legally being recognised as a civil partnership too so whats the problem ?

    I would argue that black people have to get one bus and white people another. They still have all the same things and get to where they are going.

    What's the problem?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement