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…4849515354…325

Comments

  • #1502
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    You said that your view on marriage was partially based on religious reasons.

    Partial, as in teachings of values from growing up as a kid. Not actual teachings of the church itself or I wouldnt have had a kid out of wedlock would I :P:P


  • #1503
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    0

    You see in your eagerness to be so dismissive of me, you cannot see that I plainly am not being dismissive of your points, but thats good if little quips like saying I probably "believe gays sholdnt be allowed to vote" make you feel better.

    Gays of course should be allowed vote and I've not once even remotely suggested that gays shouldnt be allowed vote.

    But like I said feel free to come up with random assumptions and statements like the above, they do nothing to me other than prove your absolute blindness.

    Nobody is being dismissive of you. EVERYBODY is trying to get you to actually explain your points. That would be the opposite of dismissive. Oddly, you're still refusing to do that


  • #1504
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Silly me for thinking this thread was starting to show some hope :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    So lets pose a simple question based on your post above:

    Because you want something to happen I am now no longer able to express my representation of my view via voting in a legal referendum because it is enforcement.

    Surely, you can see you are now being contradictory and looking to enforce your views on others to suit your agenda ????

    I find it strange but typical of this thread that there has been many examples of posters looking and seeking equality for gays but yet seem to have such failings on the basic understandings or concept of equality.

    I think you are trying a little too hard to establish victim-hood here.

    I never argued that you can't use your vote as you see fit - and I can't really see where you got such an idea from my post.

    I simply wanted you to be honest with yourself and us as to what you are doing in exercising your vote in the manner which you intend (though I cannot force you to do so).

    Its difficult to reconcile your statement that you recognise your view on marriage is personal and should not be forced on others, with your stated intent to exercise your vote in order to enshrine your view on marriage into law.

    Your intended actions contradict your words.

    The fact remains you are still free to vote as you wish, and there is nothing I can do to stop that.

    I am however entirely free to point out the absurdity and hypocritical nature of any statements you make seeking to explain or justify you actions.


  • #1505
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Ok, then. Why is marriage a privileged institution? Why, exactly, should I pay more tax to support same sex marriage, what precisely is the benefit to me?
    What precisely is the benefit to you for your taxes to support any childless marriage?

    Perhaps all people should be forced to divorce once their youngest child hits 18?


  • #1506
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,163 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Ok, then. Why is marriage a privileged institution? Why, exactly, should I pay more tax to support same sex marriage, what precisely is the benefit to me?

    Bloody hell, that's miserliness you'd expect from a Jordan Belford-wannabe libertarian.


  • Advertisement
  • #1507
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I still think if you are keen on fabric, then the gays are the right lads for it. I wouldn't know silk from satin, myself.

    Clearly you've never seen how I dress. Not everything they say about us is true..
    Except the weather control bit


  • #1508
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Deleted User wrote: »

    It is society that gives value to marriage - not vice versa - and I think this is something the "no" side tend to forget in their claims to be protecting the "sanctity" or status quo of marriage.

    I'm going to steal this for my future use. Sorry


  • #1509
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Why should gay people pay more tax to support an institution to which they are barred access? I've already answered the benefit question several times at this point.

    Most of these people were brought up in families benefiting from the support for marriage, they may have turned against their forefathers but they have already benefited from support for marriage.

    But this too is irrelevant. If you want to argue for gays to pay less tax then do so by all means, this is not a case for same sex marriage.


  • #1510
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    If you want to argue for gays to pay less tax then do so by all means, this is not a case for same sex marriage.

    You brought up the tax reasons.

    It's not same sex marriage. It's marriage.


  • #1511
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Most of these people were brought up in families benefiting from the support for marriage, they may have turned against their forefathers but they have already benefited from support for marriage.

    But this too is irrelevant. If you want to argue for gays to pay less tax then do so by all means, this is not a case for same sex marriage.

    It's not a case against it either. Why is it when your arguments are turned on their head, they're suddenly not relevant?


  • Advertisement
  • #1512
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    One way or the other this is not relevant to the issue, if you believe that such people should not be allowed marry then make your argument in another thread.

    SSM opponent: Gays can't marry because marriage implies procreation.

    SSM advocate: Since when? Infertile couples have always been allowed marry!

    SSM opponent: You tactless bastard! How dare you drag couples having fertility problems into this!!

    SSM advocate: WTF???


  • #1513
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Well obviously at some stage I would assume you either "explored" other sexualities or artificially.

    Nope. Always been a big ol dyke.

    'Artificially'? Nope - sperm (from a gay no less) fertilised an egg wot lodged in my womb and grew into a baby wot eventually (and extremely painfully) made it's way into the world where it grew into a man whose sperm fertilised an egg wot lodged in a womb and grew into a baby wot eventually made it's way into the world and grew into a girlchild.

    Marriage was not involved in any way shape of form in any of this procreating.

    My married, heterosexual, cousin also has a girlchild. Her husband masturbated into a handy plastic cup type thing, this sperm was then aided in fertilising many eggs wot had been removed from my cousin. When the sperm finally (took years and thousands of pounds) managed to do wot sperm is meant to do the now fertilised egg was planted in mu cousins womb where it grew into a baby and eventually was cut out.

    Apparently nature had no opinion on whether or not gays can procreate.


  • #1514
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Zen65 wrote: »
    So to sum up . .

    If it's not your fault (because you are infertile) then you can join the marriage club!

    But if it is your fault (because you are gay) then you cannot join the marriage club?

    And nature's intention is the underlying rationale? Nature has intention? Surely that's a belief that is exclusive to theists and deists. Why should our constitution reflect these beliefs?

    Again show me where I said its your fault for being gay ? You can't because I never said it but you feel compelled to try and suggest that is what I said.

    Also, if we are talking about nature no I believe in the chaotic and random scientific theory for evolution of life on this planet but thats an aside.

    In response to your question, why should our constitution not ?


  • #1515
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Even if you think my rationale is the most idiotic, purile ridiculous , pie in the sky drivel you have ever read I still have the right to express my opinion of it.

    Please, don't stop with the puerile drivel! Keep spreading it around, it makes the Yes side look better when this is the best the No side can do.


  • #1516
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    And so we have the usual, offensive, references to infertile couples and the like. One way or the other this is not relevant to the issue, if you believe that such people should not be allowed marry then make your argument in another thread. Same sex marriage must be justified on some positive benefit to society, not on marriages with problems of one sort or another.

    Ah, so when statements are made about gay people its acceptable.

    When the same statements are made about infertile people its offensive.

    PS - the yes aside aren't bringing procreative ability into this debate, the no side is. So if you don't want to see infertile couples being discussed, best not hinge your whole argument on reproductive capacity.

    Also, positive benefits of marriage equality include:

    * equality, which is an ideal which enhances all societies

    * enhancing the happiness and well being of LGBT citizens (which in turn has various knock on economic, health and social benefits)

    * increased protections for children raised by LGBT families

    * positive message to LGBT youth

    * economic benefits


    Reasons against include:

    * vague, unsubstantiated subjective personal beliefs which bear no reality to accepted facts and findings on the issues

    * insert red herring here


  • #1517
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Nope. Always been a big ol dyke.

    'Artificially'? Nope - sperm (from a gay no less) fertilised an egg wot lodged in my womb and grew into a baby wot eventually (and extremely painfully) made it's way into the world where it grew into a man whose sperm fertilised an egg wot lodged in a womb and grew into a baby wot eventually made it's way into the world and grew into a girlchild.

    Thank you for exemplifying the point I was making so eloquently :D You of course would not have been able to do that without sperm from a man (biology 101 :D ) .

    But if you want marriage equality then how do you when married do the same act , without altering the definition of marriage?


  • #1518
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Another common thread Yes people seem to like to do is bring it back to the Church, I've not mentioned the church but yet pro people seem dying to bring it up for some reason.

    So, where exactly in the civil ceremony of marriage is the reference to procreation?


  • #1519
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Ok, then. Why is marriage a privileged institution? Why, exactly, should I pay more tax to support same sex marriage, what precisely is the benefit to me?

    Has someone proposed a tax increase? I had not heard.

    I do not see it as a "privileged institution" either. I see it as an institution that should evolve with the society it exists in - in order to better reflect the requirements and desires of that society.

    And it is clear the society both here and in many places around the world have reached a point where marriage is out of step with those requirements - given the number of homosexuals who want to marry - and so I see little reason not to evolve the institution to reflect this. Do you?

    And "what precisely is the benefit" to you of many of the things you pay tax for? Such as anyone else getting married? I could list a long list of places tax money goes that is of no benefit to me. I guess when I vote I do not do so under a "me me me" narrative - but as a member of a society with concern outside of my own too.


  • #1520
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    seamus wrote: »
    What precisely is the benefit to you for your taxes to support any childless marriage?

    This isn't relevant, that is for another thread.
    Perhaps all people should be forced to divorce once their youngest child hits 18?

    Don't be silly as well as making irrelevant points.

    PopePalpatine wrote:
    Bloody hell, that's miserliness you'd expect from a Jordan Belford-wannabe libertarian.

    Hardly a wannabe libertarian, I am happy to pay tax for things of benefit. But if someone is proposing that I pay more tax then they should have a case other than a "dog in the manger" argument that somebody else is getting something they don't have.
    Deleted User wrote:
    I could list a long list of places tax money goes that is of no benefit to me. I guess when I vote I do not do so under a "me me me" narrative - but as a member of a society with concern outside of my own too.

    So then, why should a single person living alone pay more tax to support two homosexuals sharing a house with the consequent saving of costs that sharing entails?


  • #1521
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Even if you think my rationale is the most idiotic, purile ridiculous , pie in the sky drivel you have ever read I still have the right to express my opinion of it.

    I think the issue is that no one thinks this about your rationale. How can they? You have not actually presented your rationale. You have presented your conclusions - and contrived to dodge any attempt to explore your rationale behind it.

    Your rationale is probably highly sound, informative, convincing and logical. For all I know. But until such time as you actually present it - we are left with the sole assumption open to us as spelled out by MrP in this post here - that in all likelyhood you do not actually have one.

    Has anyone actually actively said you do not have the right to express your opinion?

    Also do not be naive to the idea that many people might/may be keeping you talking precisely because we think you are doing more harm to the no side than the yes side rhetoric can do. Though I see Zubeneschamali mentioned similar above.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Problem is you are failing to see the No sides argument / rationale (regardless of what you actually think of the rationale).

    How can we "fail to see" that which has not been presented? One can not see what one is not shown - any more than I can "fail to eat the peas" if you offer me only an empty bowl at the dinner table. It is a failure to present the arguments that is the fault here - not a failure of anyone to see them.

    Rather we see you and others on the no side acting like we are rounding on you - shouting you down - or shutting you up - merely for asking you to lay out the basis for your position. Has it occoured to you that perhaps some of us want that basis not to shout you down - but because we genuinely want to know if we should not be voting "Yes"?

    I am voting yes because of the arguments for doing so - and the lack of arguments for voting "no". If I am doing the wrong thing with my vote I genuinely want to know that! I would hate to use by vote in a harmful way. So if there are arguments from the "no" side I want to hear them - not to persecute the holder of them - but so I can evaluate and dissect them - and if they hold up I will change my vote instantly!

    But if I am making the wrong vote here - I am not going to learn that from a no voter merely soap boxing and refusing to engage with discussion about the basis for their position.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Another common thread Yes people seem to like to do is bring it back to the Church, I've not mentioned the church but yet pro people seem dying to bring it up for some reason.

    You did however - while refusing to let us know the basis for your position - twice indicate your religion informed that position. So claiming you have not mentioned the Church might be pedantically true - but I do not think it shows the full truth of your rhetoric thus far.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    You see in your eagerness to be so dismissive of me

    Point of order. That is a little rich coming from the guy who dodged and ignored a number of posts by pretending to leave the thread - and has dodged and ignored a number more since returning. And of refusing to engage with any inquiry into the basis and substance of your position.

    Whatever else you may have license or warrant to claim on this thread - you have eroded any credibility you might have had to pretend to have a pedastal from which to admonish others on being dismissive. I can only at this point copy and paste what someone wrote above to lend my voice to it. Nobody is being dismissive of you. EVERYBODY is trying to get you to actually explain your points. That would be the opposite of dismissive. Oddly, you're still refusing to do that. And as another user said I think you are trying a little too hard to establish victim-hood here.


  • Advertisement
  • #1522
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Hardly a wannabe libertaria, I am happy to pay tax for things of benefit. But if someone is proposing that I pay more tax then they should have a case other than a "dog in the manger" argument that somebody else is getting something they don't have.

    That's irrelevant. You don't pay more tax because the number of couples marrying has gone up. There's far more straight couples marrying than gay people.

    Why should a homosexual couple not be treated equally to a heterosexual couple?


  • #1523
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Another common thread Yes people seem to like to do is bring it back to the Church, I've not mentioned the church but yet pro people seem dying to bring it up for some reason.

    Don't make us quote the posts where you did. I can't be arsed going back to search, but theres at least one.


  • #1524
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    floggg wrote: »
    Ah, so when statements are made about gay people its acceptable.

    When the same statements are made about infertile people its offensive.

    PS - the yes aside aren't bringing procreative ability into this debate, the no side is. So if you don't want to see infertile couples being discussed, best not hinge your whole argument on reproductive capacity.

    Also, positive benefits of marriage equality include:

    * equality, which is an ideal which enhances all societies

    * enhancing the happiness and well being of LGBT citizens (which in turn has various knock on economic, health and social benefits)

    * increased protections for children raised by LGBT families

    * positive message to LGBT youth

    * economic benefits


    Reasons against include:

    * vague, unsubstantiated subjective personal beliefs which bear no reality to accepted facts and findings on the issues

    * insert red herring here


    :P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P


  • #1525
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    This isn't relevant, that is for another thread.

    Oh it's irrelevant. Why bring it up?


    Hardly a wannabe libertarian, I am happy to pay tax for things of benefit. But if someone is proposing that I pay more tax then they should have a case other than a "dog in the manger" argument that somebody else is getting something they don't have.

    Is it relevant again?

    You know what? You're right. Gay couples are completely pointless part of society. We should just wipe them out, since they're so pointless. Ammi right?


  • #1526
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    So, where exactly in the civil ceremony of marriage is the reference to procreation?

    OK, so gays dont wish to procreate or adopt is what your trying to say ?


  • #1527
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    :P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P

    A pictorial example of what quite a few of your textual posts have essentially been to date. One wonders how much time you might have saved if you had merely resorted to this from the outset with many of those posts.


  • #1528
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    :P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P

    You are the guy from Vincent Brown


  • #1529
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    OK, so gays dont wish to procreate or adopt is what your trying to say ?

    No, what? Where you getting that from?

    Marriage isn't about procreating or adopting. Gays do not need marriage to do either.


  • #1530
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    This isn't relevant, that is for another thread.



    Don't be silly as well as making irrelevant points.




    Hardly a wannabe libertarian, I am happy to pay tax for things of benefit. But if someone is proposing that I pay more tax then they should have a case other than a "dog in the manger" argument that somebody else is getting something they don't have.



    So then, why should a single person living alone pay more tax to support two homosexuals sharing a house with the consequent saving of costs that sharing entails?

    Umm, don't civil partnerships already get the same as marriage when it comes to tax?


  • Advertisement
  • #1531
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Ok, then. Why is marriage a privileged institution? Why, exactly, should I pay more tax to support same sex marriage, what precisely is the benefit to me?

    Children are part of the reason, as children tend do better in a stable loving two parent home. This is of course equally applicable to same sex coupels raising children.

    Aside from that thought, there are various social, economic, health and other benefits. We know that married people are happier, healthier, less likely to suffer mental health issues, more productive, less likely to be a burden to the state welfare system, more settled in their communities and various other benefits.

    Hence the reason why the State provides the same benefits to married couples regardless of whether or not they had children.

    If children was the sole reason to support marriage, then the various tax and other benefits would only apply to those raising children.

    And if procreative ability was the sole reason to support marriage, those benefits would only apply to those raising their own biological children.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement