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…4344464849…325

Comments

  • #1352
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    When you are going to accuse someone of not understanding what they say at least make sure you have the basic intelligence to check the actual meaning first (even if big words over 5 letters are hard for you) :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    sanctity - 2. ultimate importance and inviolability EG "the sanctity of human life"

    sacrosanct - adjective (especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.

    synonyms: respected, inviolable, inviolate, unimpeachable, unchallengeable, invulnerable, untouchable, inalienable, set apart, protected, defended, secure, safe, unthreatened "the rights of parents are sacrosanct for this government"



    See the above types of posted started yesterday as well. Like I said yesterday it doesnt particularly bother me its expectant when you discuss some in the sphere of the gay agenda you come under attack both subtle and not so subtle

    Pardon me when I ask was your use of the word "expectant" a slip of the finger?


  • #1353
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    According to others here the majority are in favor so I dont see a major issue.

    It's not a dangerous precendent, because guess what that precendent was set LONG ago the majority is always going to be asked to decide on the minority.

    Though its a mute semantic point but the minority isn't the minority if it won, it was the majority deciding on itself.

    Actually in a modern egalitarian republic of the kind we claim to be, the majority should never be in a position to vote on the rights of the minority. The constitution should be drafted in such a way so as to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    As was asked of you before, should we be allowed vote on the rights of black people under Irish law?

    Arguably are constitution does do that in the present case, but the Government is unwilling to test that by legislating and letting the legislation be tested through an Article 26 reference.


  • #1354
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Actually, people change their minds all the time.

    In 1986, Divorce was rejected 63.5 to 36.5. In 1996, divorce was adopted, 50.3% to 49.7%. That's a 14% swing in just 10 years - people really did change their minds.

    The vote swing was 14% but people's attitudes didn't change as much as that in 9 years. In 1986 the yes side had the lead until the final week when the shock tactics were brought out by the no side which played on people's fears. Ireland was far more accepting of the idea of divorce in 1986 than the final result suggests.

    Something more relevant re 1995 Referendum was that only about five counties in Ireland had overall yes votes but that was sufficient to wipe out the overall No's in the rest of the country.
    In the forthcoming referendum, it may be similar.


  • #1355
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Also, you said "have children" which means the same as procreate, does it not?

    Perhaps he meant to add "for dinner" afterwards?


  • #1356
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

    I hold the belief that man & woman should marry and have children end of discussion period.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »



    I didnt use the word procreate did I ?
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Hang on adoption is now defined the same as procreation now ????

    The very act of adoption is an oxymoron of the word procreation.

    So did you or didn't mean procreation? Or was it intended to be interpreted whichever way suited you best?


  • Advertisement
  • #1357
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    floggg wrote: »
    The constitution should be drafted in such a way so as to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    Nice idea in principle but would be open to all sorts of interpretations by minorities of all sorts (not just on this issue)


  • #1358
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Flem31 wrote: »
    Nice idea in principle but would be open to all sorts of interpretations by minorities of all sorts (not just on this issue)

    It isn't just a nice idea it is fundamental moving forward. Potential complications are no reason not to attempt to buttress the protection of minorities.


  • #1359
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    reprise wrote: »
    Meh.

    I know a non-sequitur when I see it.

    Clearly you do not.

    Either it is a rational argument, or it is not. If not, why not?


  • #1360
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


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

    It is not discrimination by the person who refuses to conduct the SSM, but it is discrimination by the state because it is solely on the basis of gender & sexual orientation. In the past the state has been found to be in breach of international law on human rights.


  • #1361
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    It isn't just a nice idea it is fundamental moving forward. Potential complications are no reason not to attempt to buttress the protection of minorities.

    Ok then, new Constitution comes in and minority rights must be upheld

    Example 1
    I am from mainland Europe and I have driven there for 30 years.
    I come to Ireland and don't understand this need to drive on the right side of the road. I organise myself and find say 30,000 like minded individuals and we get the right to drive on the left.

    Example 2
    I like guns and I particularly like the Gatling gun (Josey Wales film is my favourite film). Anyway, this country has no right to tell me I cannot have a Gatling gun, so because the majority are intolerant of my love of guns, I get a petition organised and I get the gun.

    I deliberately chose two extreme examples, but if the Constitution reflects the right that the minority should not be bullied by the majority, it cannot be restricted to just social policy, but impact all aspects of life.

    That's why I said nice idea in principle, but if it ever came into being, the courts would be full of individuals and groups looking for their own particular set of values to be vindicated.


  • Advertisement
  • #1362
    jack1000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 66 ✭✭jack1000


    I will vote yes.


  • #1363
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Flem31 wrote: »
    Ok then, new Constitution comes in and minority rights must be upheld

    Example 1
    I am from mainland Europe and I have driven there for 30 years.
    I come to Ireland and don't understand this need to drive on the right side of the road. I organise myself and find say 30,000 like minded individuals and we get the right to drive on the left.

    Example 2
    I like guns and I particularly like the Gatling gun (Josey Wales film is my favourite film). Anyway, this country has no right to tell me I cannot have a Gatling gun, so because the majority are intolerant of my love of guns, I get a petition organised and I get the gun.

    I deliberately chose two extreme examples, but if the Constitution reflects the right that the minority should not be bullied by the majority, it cannot be restricted to just social policy, but impact all aspects of life.

    That's why I said nice idea in principle, but if it ever came into being, the courts would be full of individuals and groups looking for their own particular set of values to be vindicated.

    Those examples don't make any sense.

    Firstly, neither example bears any relationship to how our legal and political systems work.

    Secondly, you aren't taking about rights or about discrimination. Just because you want to do something, doesn't mean you have the right to do it.

    Driving on the right side of the road isn't a right. Neither is owning a gatling gun (in this country anyway).

    In each case, the State has laid down particular rules which apply equally to all citizens without regard to race, colour, creed gender etc - but does rules don't infringe on anybody's rights.


  • #1364
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    spikeS wrote: »
    Once the children and parents act comes in the adoption board can use this a priority

    Married couples
    CP couples
    Single people

    If the marriage referendum fails gay couple are still lower on the list and can be discrimated against, We need the marriage referendum to pass so gay couples are in the married couple section and that way the adoption board cannot discriminate against them.

    The YES vote will not make it so gay couple can adopt as they will already be able but will make it a hell of a lot easier and equal.

    What? Where are you getting this info that there is a list of who can be priortised? I've never heard this before. I doubt its true. Please provide links to back this up.

    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



  • #1365
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    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 ?

    Well no because you wouldnt be constutionally recognised or protected. So you dont have the same rights or privileges.

    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



  • #1366
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    What? Where are you getting this info that there is a list of who can be priortised? I've never heard this before. I doubt its true. Please provide links to back this up.

    Married couples always get priority, children and parent's act won't change that. So it's still harder to adopt as a guy couple unfortunately, once the referendum goes though that priority get evened.


  • #1367
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    spikeS wrote: »
    Married couples always get priority, children and parent's act won't change that. So it's still harder to adopt as a guy couple unfortunately, once the referendum goes though that priority get evened.


    You have a source for all this?


  • #1368
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    Nodin wrote: »
    You have a source for all this?

    They always said married couples get priority, if it's not true can you show it, gay couples won't get that priority till the referendum gets passed.


  • #1369
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    floggg wrote: »
    Those examples don't make any sense.

    Firstly, neither example bears any relationship to how our legal and political systems work.

    Secondly, you aren't taking about rights or about discrimination. Just because you want to do something, doesn't mean you have the right to do it.

    Driving on the right side of the road isn't a right. Neither is owning a gatling gun (in this country anyway).

    In each case, the State has laid down particular rules which apply equally to all citizens without regard to race, colour, creed gender etc - but does rules don't infringe on anybody's rights.

    It would have helped if you had read my entire post and read that I had called them two extreme examples.

    In Ireland today, neither are applicable but if (and I am quoting you)
    "The constitution should be drafted in such a way so as to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority."

    No matter how that is phrased in any constitution someone will use it as a justifiable reason to look for their own particular brand of what they think is acceptable.

    I am not making any reference to LBGT or this referendum, just merely pointing out that when the Constitution is changed to reflect minority views, then it leaves it open to all different interpretations.

    I never said it was a good thing, just that it leaves the Constitution more open to the "law of unintended consequences" that it already is.


  • #1370
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Flem31 wrote: »
    It would have helped if you had read my entire post and read that I had called them two extreme examples.

    In Ireland today, neither are applicable but if (and I am quoting you)
    "The constitution should be drafted in such a way so as to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority."

    No matter how that is phrased in any constitution someone will use it as a justifiable reason to look for their own particular brand of what they think is acceptable.

    I am not making any reference to LBGT or this referendum, just merely pointing out that when the Constitution is changed to reflect minority views, then it leaves it open to all different interpretations.

    I never said it was a good thing, just that it leaves the Constitution more open to the "law of unintended consequences" that it already is.
    Judging by the polls, the constitutional change reflects majority views.

    Judge Liam McKechnie, ruling on a surrogacy custody battle some time ago, ruled that the biological mother was not the birth mother for the purposes of Article 41. In that context, the existing Constitution does not protect the biological parental link, contrary to what Iona are saying.


  • #1371
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    Judging by the polls, the constitutional change reflects majority views.

    Judge Liam McKechnie, ruling on a surrogacy custody battle some time ago, ruled that the biological mother was not the birth mother for the purposes of Article 41. In that context, the existing Constitution does not protect the biological parental link, contrary to what Iona are saying.

    :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #1372
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    spikeS wrote: »
    They always said married couples get priority, if it's not true can you show it, gay couples won't get that priority till the referendum gets passed.

    Do you have a source for what you are saying?

    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



  • #1373
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    spikeS wrote: »
    They always said married couples get priority, if it's not true can you show it, gay couples won't get that priority till the referendum gets passed.

    I'm asking you to back up this post -
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94059264&postcount=1241
    Do you have a source that backs it?


  • #1374
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Apparently countries with marriage equality have lower rates of lone-parenthood.

    http://www.gaire.com/db2-images/22566570_lone_parents.png


  • #1375
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Do you have a source for what you are saying?

    Do you, married couples get priority have you a source saying they will still discriminate once their is gay married couples?

    Discrimination law means once they referendum comes in it will finally be equal when adopting, you cannot deny if the referendum passes gay couples will have a far easier time adopting, they can still adopt if the referendum fail but it will be way harder unfortunately


  • #1376
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    Nodin wrote: »
    I'm asking you to back up this post -
    Do you have a source that backs it?

    Do you have one they will be allowed to discrimate against gay married couples once the referendum passes? If it fails they won't be a married couple so will be behind a male/female married couple.

    We need the referendum to pass for an equal adoption chance for gay couples


  • #1377
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    spikeS wrote: »
    Do you have one they will be allowed to discrimate against gay married couples once the referendum passes? If it fails they won't be a married couple so will be behind a male/female married couple.

    We need the referendum to pass for an equal adoption chance for gay couples

    You're the one making claims, not me. Please back it up.


  • #1378
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    Nodin wrote: »
    You're the one making claims, not me. Please back it up.

    Common logical sense, married couples get priority in adoption, if the referendum fails gay couples are not married and are a lower priority but if it passes anti discrimination law makes it so gay and straight married couples are equal and adoption is far easier.


  • #1379
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Zen65 wrote: »
    Clearly you do not.

    Either it is a rational argument, or it is not. If not, why not?

    I found this persuasive:

    http://goo.gl/U27D7W

    http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/networkcommentaryfinal_en.pdf
    Reviewing the situation in 2002, the Court observes that Article 12 secures the fundamental right of a man and woman to marry and to found a family. The second aspect is not however a condition of the first and the inability of any couple to conceive or parent a child cannot be regarded as per se removing their right to enjoy the first limb of this provision.


  • #1380
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    spikeS wrote: »
    Do you, married couples get priority have you a source saying they will still discriminate once their is gay married couples?

    Discrimination law means once they referendum comes in it will finally be equal when adopting, you cannot deny if the referendum passes gay couples will have a far easier time adopting, they can still adopt if the referendum fail but it will be way harder unfortunately

    I will repeat my question

    Do you have a source for what you are saying?

    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



  • Advertisement
  • #1381
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    spikeS wrote: »
    Do you have one they will be allowed to discrimate against gay married couples once the referendum passes? If it fails they won't be a married couple so will be behind a male/female married couple.

    We need the referendum to pass for an equal adoption chance for gay couples

    Where is your source for claims about priority lists?

    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



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement