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

30-01-2015 09:36AM

spikeS wrote: »

Regenerus was an academic peer reviewed study it's as valid as the others

Your misinformation and lies have no basis at all - and being peer reviewed does not make something valid. The process of peer review is the process by which we check if something is valid - whether the methodologies and conclusions are sound - and so forth.

Peer review found that particular study to be a farce. Yet you ignore the results of peer review and merely act like having BEEN peer reviewed lends it credibility.

You simply do not understand peer review. Or worse - you do understand it - but are willfully misrepresenting it for an agenda.

30-01-2015 09:36AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I don't need to offer a single explanation for my beliefs or opinions.

A very convenient cop out for someone who does not HAVE such explanations. Weird that you would come specifically on to a discussion and debate forum touting those opinions all the same - if your intention was never to add substance of any form to them. Have you considered a blog format rather than a forum? Much better for one directional soap boxing.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I hold the belief that man & woman should marry and have children end of discussion period.

Well bully for you then because there are men and women who live together without getting married and have no children, without getting married and have children, and getting married but never have children. Three categories of people that do not do what you declare from your pedestal that they "should" do.

But while you sit there dictating what everyone "should" be doing in your totalitarian world view of conformity - you are blatantly and transparently unable to justify that "should" or lend it any basis whatsoever. Your entire position appears to be "It should be, because it just should, so there".

But by all means PLEASE get a room FULL of married childless couples - and get on the stage in front of them telling them what you feel they SHOULD be doing with their lives. Just please ensure I am there at the time to watch.

And you can "End Discussion" any time you want - but you do not get to dictate to me when it is over.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Sure nice post deconstruct there but to be blunt again I believe in the importance and inviolability of marriage or to use another word sanctity

Oh it is abudently clear what you believe in for sure. No requirement to repeat it at all. Soap boxing just gets repetitive. People - given this is a discussion forum after all and not a soap box - are inquiring as to the substance behind that belief. And when we do so you either refuse to give it, can not answer questions, or dodge posts entirely by either ignoring them or by running out of the thread and taking your ball home, before slinking back in hoping the people you ignored/dodged won't notice.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

The fact that I believe marriage should be between man and wife only means that same sex marriage would most definitely violate that belief.

A belief that has absolutely no apparent basis other than a fetish for maintaining the status quo it seems.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

It's not my fault if all you see are a string of words and cant understand that.

Oh I perfectly understand the string of words - which is why I was able to call them out as being empty bluster to maintain a front on a baseless position.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Also, seeing as alot of people quote me its easy to miss questions in such a fast moving thead

Which is not what you did with me and several other posters. You stormed out of the thread to dodge all those posts - and returned later not replying to ANY of them. Not just a handful you missed due to difficulties keeping up. You merely blatantly ignored and dodged them.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

And you would do well to understand that it is not a religious view

Contradicting yourself now. You said in two posts that your religious background has influenced your view. Now you are saying the opposite.

Flem31 · 30-01-2015 10:02AM

floggg wrote: »

Nobody is saying you change the Constitution(!) or legislation on a whim to appease every demand of a minority. That is not what minority protection is about.

How will you be able to stop it.
What clever wording in the Constitution would vindicate some minority demands/rights but not others.

And how would a minority be defined, how many would be needed.
I have no issue with your idea, but also see many trips down to the Four Courts to test it out to see where it is applicable or where it isn't.

Bannasidhe · 30-01-2015 10:02AM

ToddyDoody wrote: »

I'm voting no... For the children.

You do that.

It's nice to see a well informed voter who is willing to cast a vote in a Referendum to 'protect' children from a piece of legislation that will be law by the time they cast their vote...

Begs the question why are you even bothering to vote since it will have zero impact on children?

I'm personally voting yes... for the dressmakers and wedding planners.

Daith · 30-01-2015 10:18AM

ToddyDoody wrote: »

I'm voting no... For the children.

I'm voting Yes.....For the children.

seamus · 30-01-2015 10:27AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm personally voting yes... for the dressmakers and wedding planners.

Don't forget the tailors. There'll be a Louis Copeland in every county and they'll all be out the doors

Ghost Buster · 30-01-2015 10:33AM

spikeS wrote: »

Most of the ones posted here are from liberal pro gay academia are they not biased

Not being anti something isn't being pro something.
I wouldn't say Im Pro Gay. Im indifferent to how others live their private lives.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 30-01-2015 10:41AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Well bully for you then because there are men and women who live together without getting married and have no children, without getting married and have children, and getting married but never have children. Three categories of people that do not do what you declare from your pedestal that they "should" do.

I'll try and be a bit clearer then seeing as how you had difficulty understanding what I said (or are choosing to try twist it).

When I say a man and woman should marry and should have children.

Where in that above sentence does it decree or dictate to anyone that they must have children as you like to try and twist it ?

Deleted User wrote: »

And you can "End Discussion" any time you want - but you do not get to dictate to me when it is over.

But I do because I dont discuss my reasoning further, same way yo dictate whether or not to engage with me

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh I perfectly understand the string of words - which is why I was able to call them out as being empty bluster to maintain a front on a baseless position.

No what you did was try and over reach on a point that didnt need to be over reached in the first place and fell down on your own empty rant.

I don't need bluster or empty words to maintain or justify my position you seem to also fail to understand this and also fail to understand I am not alone in this thinking.

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is not what you did with me and several other posters. You stormed out of the thread to dodge all those posts - and returned later not replying to ANY of them. Not just a handful you missed due to difficulties keeping up. You merely blatantly ignored and dodged them.

You seem to be under some very misguided impression that I feel a need to "dodge" questions in the first point. I don't by the way

Deleted User wrote: »

Contradicting yourself now. You said in two posts that your religious background has influenced your view. Now you are saying the opposite.

Can you quote me where I said my religious background was the main influence of my view?

You simply can't because your trying to twist things again , gg :rolleyes:

I mean we've even had serious multiple suggestions on this thread that the no side shouldnt even be allowed to voice their opinions equally to the yes side , that the no side shouldnt be given air time at all and that we essentially do away with the democratic / constitutional process in the first place and if we answer no then we can roll again till we get a yes all to suit the pro gay agenda :rolleyes:

Attacking the poster (or anyone pro status quo) and not the post has become par for the course in this thread, for me and a few others.

Follow the pro gay agenda or else bully boy type of approach.

Daith · 30-01-2015 10:51AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

When I say a man and woman should marry and should have children.

Where in that above sentence does it decree or dictate to anyone that they must have children as you like to try and twist it ?

It also doesn't say that men and women must get married.

What are your requirements for marrying?

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Follow the pro gay agenda or else bull boy type of approach.

It's the pro equality agenda thanks!

Ctrl Alt Delete · 30-01-2015 10:53AM

Daith wrote: »

It also doesn't say that men and women must get married.

What are your requirements for marrying?

Because I never said that men and women must get married either (more trying to twist words pointlessly).

In relation to your second point that entirely depends on where your living really but like I said marriage should be between a man and woman.

Daith · 30-01-2015 10:54AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

That depends on were your living really but like I said marriage should be between a man and woman.

Should be but doesn't have to be?

Like they should have children but don't have to?

Not seeing how two men marrying don't fit your requirements here.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 30-01-2015 10:57AM

Daith wrote: »

Should be but doesn't have to be?

Like they should have children but don't have to?

Not seeing how two men marrying don't fit your requirements here.

Yes should as is in a man and woman are free to enter into marriage or procreate.

And in fairness you have been one of the more intelligible posters here and Im not going to point out the obvious answer which you well know as to how man / man or woman / woman marrying and being unable to procreate does not compare to man and a woman being married.

Zubeneschamali · 30-01-2015 10:59AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Can you quote me where I said my religious background was the main influence of my view?

What else have you got?

Zubeneschamali · 30-01-2015 11:00AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Im not going to point out the obvious answer which you well know as to how man / man or woman / woman marrying and being unable to procreate does not compare to man and a woman being married.

Please do point that out, and I'll bring up my Dad's second marriage again.

Daith · 30-01-2015 11:00AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

which you well know as to how man / man or woman / woman marrying and being unable to procreate does not compare to man and a woman being married.

I didn't think you had to procreate?

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Where in that above sentence does it decree or dictate to anyone that they must have children as you like to try and twist it ?

floggg · 30-01-2015 11:01AM

Flem31 wrote: »

How will you be able to stop it.
What clever wording in the Constitution would vindicate some minority demands/rights but not others.

And how would a minority be defined, how many would be needed.
I have no issue with your idea, but also see many trips down to the Four Courts to test it out to see where it is applicable or where it isn't.

floggg wrote: »

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.

It seems you aren't reading my post, don't understand the subject matter and are thoroughly unfamiliar with Constitutional law (fair enough on not being familiar with Const law, though you probably shouldn't try to debate on Constitutional matters then).

Minority protections would and should never define a "minority" or exhaustively set out their rights. It should guarantee their equality though and provide them with redress mechanisms.

As I said previously, our Constitution arguably already does that, and this referendum is not necessary - a point of view a number of legal scholars and professionals would concur with.

So for example, our constitution never mentions travellers, yet it undoubtedly protects their right from unjust attack. It is not perfect, but it is certainly preferable to subject minority rights to public votes. Many of the world's greatest civil rights advances would arguably have been voted down if left to public votes to decide.

And nobody has ever said that any minority group should ever be able to do whatever it wants or demands - hence the absurdity of your driving on the right example.

The constitution recognises an express framework of rights, the most important being equality, access to courts, natural justice etc which sets out the type of egalitarian society we wish to live in, and which is then to be fleshed out by the legislature through the enactment of laws and the courts through interpretation of the Constitution and identification of unenumerated or implied rights.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 30-01-2015 11:03AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Please do point that out, and I'll bring up my Dad's second marriage again.

Please do feel free to repeat an absolutely pointless example that only agrees with me that a woman and man should be able to marry if they choose.

Daith wrote: »

It also doesn't say that men and women must get married.

What are your requirements for marrying?

Of course I didnt sure why would I insist someone must get married. Entering in a marriage is a free choice between a man and a woman and that is all it requires.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 30-01-2015 11:05AM

Daith wrote: »

I didn't think you had to procreate?

You are now being deliberately obtuse as well you know

Daith · 30-01-2015 11:06AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Entering in a marriage is a free choice between a man and a woman and that is all it requires.

And how is it different than the free choice of a man marrying a man or woman marrying a woman if that is all it requires?

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

You are now being deliberately obtuse as well you know

No, I'm just quoting you.

Zubeneschamali · 30-01-2015 11:07AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Please do feel free to repeat an absolutely pointless example that only agrees with me that a woman and man should be able to marry if they choose.

So you think a man and woman who have no chance of procreating should be allowed to marry.

Now, why shouldn't two women be allowed to marry? Without dragging in this procreation red herring which you do not apply to opposite sex couples?

Ctrl Alt Delete · 30-01-2015 11:07AM

Daith wrote: »

And how is it different than the free choice of a man marrying a man or woman marrying a woman if that is all it requires?

Because marriage between a man and a woman is [INSERT WORD HERE]

Daith · 30-01-2015 11:08AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Because marriage between a man and a woman is [INSERT WORD HERE]

The exact same as between a man and man and woman and woman.

You have yet to explain the difference.

floggg · 30-01-2015 11:10AM

ToddyDoody wrote: »

I'm voting no... For the children.

Which children exactly are you thinking of?

The children being raised by heterosexual couples/single parents who would be completely unaffected by a yes vote?

The children in need of a loving and stable home who may be adopted or fostered by gay couples regardless of the result?

The adopted, fostered or biological children being raised by gay parents who will legally disadvantaged (through the denial of the full recognition of their relationship with both parents) by a no vote?

The gay children who you will by telling by voting no that they and their future relationships are not seen as unequal and unworthy of equal recognition by the Irish people and State?

Ctrl Alt Delete · 30-01-2015 11:10AM

Daith wrote: »

The exact same as between a man and man and woman and woman.

You have yet to explain the difference.

Because I'm not allowed use certain words on this thread without it somehow being brought back to a religious basis :rolleyes:

Daith · 30-01-2015 11:11AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Because I'm not allowed use certain words on this thread without it somehow being brought back to a religious basis :rolleyes:

Which still doesn't explain any difference between them.

Sofiztikated · 30-01-2015 11:12AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I'll try and be a bit clearer then seeing as how you had difficulty understanding what I said (or are choosing to try twist it).

When I say a man and woman should marry and should have children.

Where in that above sentence does it decree or dictate to anyone that they must have children as you like to try and twist it ?

should
ʃʊd/Submit
verb
1.
used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

I mean we've even had serious multiple suggestions on this thread that the no side shouldnt be allowed to voice their opinions equally to the yes side and we do away with the democratic / constitutional process in the first place to suit the pro gay agenda :rolleys:

What a lot of people are asking is for you to what brings you to your opinions. You have state that it is your opinion that it should only be man and woman that should marry, but when asked for reasons why you think this, you are claiming people are attacking you.

Yes side proponents have given you reasons as to why they believe homosexual marriage should be allowed. The no side has not, or at least have not given points that pertain to the argument.

It's like arguing with someone that maintains that the grass in a particular field is red.

"That grass is red."
"What? No it's not, it's green."
"No it's red."
"It's green. It's similar in shade to the grass in the other fields."
"Red"
"Why do you think it is red?"
"Because it's red."
"Are you confusing colours? Are you medically defined as colour blind?"
"It's red because you are insulting me."
"Look, *gives scientific explanation of chlorophyll* and that's why it's green.
"It's red because sandwiches are nice."
"What? That doesn't even make sense."
"Stop insulting me."

People want to understand why you are voting no (or think it's red), and they are trying to explain to you why they believe you are incorrect.

And yes, some of the yes side are loud, and obnoxious, and shout all over people. Some people are assholes, no matter what they believe in.

Does Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve getting married undermine my marriage? Not one bit. ‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex' Under law, I will still be married to my wife. All it will change, is that the 2 lads across the road will be afforded the same rights, under law, as myself and my wife, and the majority of couples on our estate.

Why do you believe otherwise?

floggg · 30-01-2015 11:16AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Yes should as is in a man and woman are free to enter into marriage or procreate.

And in fairness you have been one of the more intelligible posters here and Im not going to point out the obvious answer which you well know as to how man / man or woman / woman marrying and being unable to procreate does not compare to man and a woman being married.

Obvious doesn't mean well made or correct.

Tell me, do you think an infertile man and woman marrying and being unable to procreate does not compare to fertile man and fertile woman being married?

Ave Sodalis · 30-01-2015 11:16AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

You seem to be under some very misguided impression that I feel a need to "dodge" questions in the first point. I don't by the way

Follow the pro gay agenda or else bully boy type of approach.

You aren't dodging questions? Really? Because I asked for an answer for mine a few pages back three times.

Also, it's follow the yes campaign or come up with a valid, well thought out reason for voting no. Neither you nor anyone else has done this.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Because I'm not allowed use certain words on this thread without it somehow being brought back to a religious basis :rolleyes:

Well it's either religious or it's not.

CTRL ALT DELETE, a poster got a warning earlier in the thread for not explaining himself. Do you know why? Because this is a discussion forum and if you post on it, you're generally expected to continue to discuss. Stop making crappy excuses to not explain something you've said.

Ave Sodalis · 30-01-2015 11:18AM

floggg wrote: »

Tell me, do you think an infertile man and woman marrying and being unable to procreate does not compare to fertile man and fertile woman being married?

Apparently, as it's between a man and a woman, it's fine because that excuse only applies to a gay couple. It's only important someone is able to procreate if they're gay. That doesn't apply at any other time.

jobbridge4life · 30-01-2015 11:18AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

And why do I owe you an apology for how society at large as made you feel

You owe me an apology for telling me that I didn't understand the gradual nature of progress relating to gay rights as opposed to a wonderful straight 'friend of the gays' like your self.

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

Comments