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…5051535556…325

Comments

  • #1562
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Daith wrote: »
    That won't change? It's still two people?

    Yes two people thats fine. But what if they want to procreate?


  • #1563
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Then if your too blind to see the issue then no point in discussing further :rolleyes:

    You haven't discussed anything.


  • #1564
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Then if your too blind to see the issue then no point in discussing further :rolleyes:

    Nobody sees your issue. You won't explain it and comments like that are ridiculous if you want someone to see your side. And yet you accuse us of "dismissing" you...


  • #1565
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Yes two people thats fine. But what if they want to procreate?

    And what if they don't want to?


  • #1566
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Yes two people thats fine. But what if they want to procreate?

    What's that got to do with it?


  • Advertisement
  • #1567
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    floggg wrote: »
    By one poster, and another poster who argued that the no side shouldn't be allowed speak dishonestly.

    Get over it.

    I'm perfectly over it.

    But posters here seem to think that wasn't said yesterday and are quick to try and suggest I was making it up all the while saying the no side spread lies and misinformation I do find it a bit galling alright ;)


  • #1568
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    sup_dude wrote: »
    What's that got to do with it?

    Everything and nothing.

    Straight people can marry for whatever reason.

    Gay people can't unless they have children unless they have in which case they need biological children unless they have in which case my deeply held sincere beliefs.


  • #1569
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Daith wrote: »
    And what if they don't want to?

    Perfectly fine, write it into the constitution and you have a Yes voter :P:P as it no longer redefines a marriage
    Daith wrote: »
    Gay people can't unless they have children unless they have in which case they need biological children unless they have in which case my deeply held sincere beliefs.

    When you can't argue a point all you do is resorting to belittlement of the point which is a fundamental point of plenty of people on the no side.


  • #1570
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    I'm perfectly over it.

    But posters here seem to think that wasn't said yesterday and are quick to try and suggest I was making it up all the while saying the no side spread lies and misinformation I do find it a bit galling alright ;)

    Or maybe, here's an idea, you could just, I dunno, actually explain your point? Maybe that's just a bit too farfetched though....


  • #1571
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Perfectly fine, write it into the constitution and you have a Yes voter :P:P as it no longer redefines a marriage

    It's not in the constitution that you need to have children or what gender you need to be


  • Advertisement
  • #1572
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Indeed they don't. But heres the crux of the issue gays would like to redefine what marriage is because after all with marriage is defined (dictionary) - the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.

    Now I would like you to tell me how BannasidheTell's example fits that definition of marriage above.

    So I am someone who values the inviolability of marriage so can you see my issue yet?????????


    She would likely fit it in the same way her cousin did.

    Do you dispute the validity of her cousin's marriage.

    And what about married heterosexuals who have affairs, threesomes or open relationships. Are they no longer married as soon as they involve a third party?

    Also, if me and my fiance dont want kids, does that mean we can lawfully marry in your eyes as we won't include anybody else?


  • #1573
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    When you can't argue a point all you do is resorting to belittlement of the point which is a fundamental point of plenty of people on the no side.

    You actually have no point and are so quick to place you as victim.


  • #1574
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    When you can't argue a point all

    As with the comments about being dismissive - you are literally the last person on the thread in a position to comment on others not being capable of arguing their point at all.


  • #1575
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    But what if they want to procreate?

    Again with the procreation. You already agreed that my Dad's second marriage, guaranteed to be a procreation free zone despite whatever efforts he might make, was perfectly valid.

    You cannot use this as a reason to bar SSM when it is A-OK in OSM.


  • #1576
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Daith wrote: »
    It's not in the constitution that you need to have children or what gender you need to be

    Oh I know that perfectly well.

    But if married gays are to procreate they need to do similar to this example.

    Now don't be naive and say if gays were to be allowed marry in the morning that the above wouldnt be happening (nor am under the illusion it wasn't happening already).


  • #1577
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Oh I know that perfectly well.

    But if married gays are to procreate they need to do similar to this example.

    Now don't be naive and say if gays were to be allowed marry in the morning that the above wouldnt be happening (nor am under the illusion it wasn't happening already).

    Why is this only suddenly a problem for you now?


  • #1578
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Zen65 wrote: »
    rationale
    ˌraʃəˈnɑːl
    noun
    a set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or belief.
    "he explained the rationale behind the change"

    What I have yet to see here though, is an actual logical argument from the 'no' side. I have not had an opportunity to disagree or even debate a logical argument. What I'm reading here are arguments about having children, which has been shown conclusively and beyond question to be what the referendum is not about.

    The idea that marriage is linked to procreation is rightly considered a religious argument, because the current laws on marriage make no assumption about procreation. The religious sacrament of matrimony is the only form of marriage which links to procreation. Current laws confer certain rights (tax, inheritance, medical guardianship, welfare) on married couples automatically, and on any children under the guardianship of either partner. Nothing more.

    I could actually respect a poster simply stating that they supported the 'no' vote because they held a religious conviction. Naturally I would ask why they believed that there was a religious teaching to support their view, and I would point out that the book of Leviticus has a long list of banned sexual relations that they may not agree with, and ask why then did they pick on this one and agree with it? I might point out the many other non-sexual commandments in the book of Leviticus and ask why these are not protected in our constitution or in our laws? But at least we'd actually be discussing the source of their beliefs, just as I'm sure they would wish to discuss mine, and in that way progress might be achieved.

    And in response to the comment made by an earlier poster that the 'yes' voters were largely pro-gay liberal in their agenda, I'd have to say 'nope'. I would have to be honest and admit I'm probably a little bit homophobic, because if the truth be told when I see a gay couple in a display of affection I'm inclined to grimace a little and look the other way. When two men kiss on TV I groan a little inside and hope it ends soon. I cannot even explain why. I'm in my 50's and seeing these things makes me uncomfortable, possibly because in my formative years these things were never seen.

    But do I disrespect gay or lesbian people? Not one bit. In fact I have discovered in the last 10 years or so that some of my straight friends are actually gay. Maybe my own words and actions over the years made them fear admitting their orientation to me in case I rejected them? Shame on me if this was so.

    Do I want them or any other LGBT people to have less liberties and protection afforded by the state than I have? Of course not. Do I want to ban them from sharing the same shops, theatres, sports centres, medical facilities as me? No. Do I believe their relationships should be given some other name, so as to ensure that it is marked as different to the type of relationship that I am in? No! Why should I? My relationship is defined by the people in it. I do not need to put a mark over the door of the houses of gay people. That's more of an Adolf philosophy.

    I'm voting "yes" because honestly I may not be liberal in my thinking, but I'm certainly not an ideological Nazi.

    Just want to say I respect this stance so much. Firstly, for being able to see that personal discomfort isn't a good reason to treat others unequally.

    And secondly, for being able to say honestly you are a little homophobic, even if you try not to be. So many people refuse to acknowledge that they can be somewhat homophobic, at least in practice if not theory. That doesn't make you a bad person - everybody suffers from various ingrained prejudices of all sorts. Its something that you can't help but absorb at times.

    But what separates they good from the bad, is that the good people will own their prejudices, and try to be better than them. They know that the issue is in their head, and not with the other person.

    For example, I myself fully believe in equality for all racial and ethnic groups. But I know that in practice, I can sometimes be guilty of racism in my way of thinking about certain people.

    So personally I don't judge anybody for being homophobic - I only judge those who are utterly unrepentant about it.


  • #1579
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    floggg wrote: »
    And what about married heterosexuals who have affairs, threesomes or open relationships. Are they no longer married as soon as they involve a third party?

    Legally, obviously yes but morally they have been just as offensive to the institute of marriage
    floggg wrote: »
    Also, if me and my fiance dont want kids, does that mean we can lawfully marry in your eyes as we won't include anybody else?

    In my eyes I'd have no issue with it no and would vote yes on that basis.


  • #1580
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Oh I know that perfectly well.

    But if married gays are to procreate they need to do similar to this example.

    Now don't be naive and say if gays were to be allowed marry in the morning that the above wouldnt be happening (nor am under the illusion it wasn't happening already).

    Yes but the key thing here is......the same situation happens with straight couples and you don't care about them.

    As I said, you believe straight people can get married and have or don't have children.

    You apply an ever desperate set of rules for gay people to marry.

    I don't like dismissing peoples points but you really don't have one. It's unfortunate but there's plenty of people like you with no rational, logical argument against marriage.


  • #1581
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Indeed they don't. But heres the crux of the issue gays would like to redefine what marriage is because after all with marriage is defined (dictionary) - the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.

    Now I would like you to tell me how BannasidheTell's example fits that definition of marriage above.

    So I am someone who values the inviolability of marriage so can you see my issue yet?????????

    Bannasidhe was responding to your incorrect contention that nature doesn't want gays to procreate.

    The only mention of marriage in the subsequent posts by Bannasidhe was in pointing out that her heterosexual married cousin used an 'artificial' method to procreate as, apparently, nature didn't want her to procreate 'naturally' while nature had no issue with two homosexuals procreating.

    Fact is - nature don't give a damn as to the sexual orientation of those who can and cannot procreate any more than it cares if those who do procreate are married or not.

    Ability to procreate has nothing to do with marriage which is a legal contract between two adults.

    Stop trying to twist Bannasidhe's words to suit your own agenda.


  • Advertisement
  • #1582
    Martha_Mae
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76 ✭✭Martha_Mae


    No-brainer.. Yes !!

    Can't believe there are 166 people saying no?!!


  • #1583
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    So I am someone who values the inviolability of marriage so can you see my issue yet?????????

    But the 'inviolability of marriage' is not altered by the referendum, any more than it was when inter-racial marriages were permitted. It's the same deal, just different people.

    So no, I do not see what it is you are purporting the issue to be. It seems to change every time you reboot :)


  • #1584
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Why is this only suddenly a problem for you now?

    Such is nature of discussion forum, people raised it and I altered my opinion on it after giving it a bit of thought.


  • #1585
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Such is nature of discussion forum, people raised it and I altered my opinion on it after giving it a bit of thought.

    You've altered your opinion so much I'm having difficulty keeping up...

    Also, generally people don't go from scandalised about one thing, to scandalised about another whenever it suits...


  • #1586
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Such is nature of discussion forum, people raised it and I altered my opinion on it after giving it a bit of thought.

    No married couple is forced to have children to maintain their married status.

    No couple are forced to marry to become parents.


  • #1587
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    But if married gays are to procreate they need to do similar to this example.

    You already established that procreation is possible without marriage, and marriage is valid without even the possiblity procreation.

    So procreation has nothing to do with the referendum, which is the topic of this thread. Why are you going on and on about it?


  • #1588
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Bannasidhe was responding to your incorrect contention that nature doesn't want gays to procreate.

    The only mention of marriage in the subsequent posts by Bannasidhe was in pointing out that her heterosexual married cousin used an 'artificial' method to procreate as, apparently, nature didn't want her to procreate 'naturally' while nature had no issue with two homosexuals procreating.

    Fact is - nature don't give a damn as to the sexual orientation of those who can and cannot procreate any more than it cares if those who do procreate are married or not.

    Ability to procreate has nothing to do with marriage which is a legal contract between two adults.

    Stop trying to twist Bannasidhe's words to suit your own agenda.

    Firstly, I'm not trying to twist your words. I knew exactly what your response would be when I first asked you ;)

    I am taking your non married example and putting into a marriage scenario because that is exactly what would continue to happen.

    I'm not not was I under any illusion that your the first person to concieve this way


  • #1589
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    I'm perfectly over it.

    But posters here seem to think that wasn't said yesterday and are quick to try and suggest I was making it up all the while saying the no side spread lies and misinformation I do find it a bit galling alright ;)

    You don't sound over it.

    I might be mistaken, but I believe i defended the need for a debate on this seeing as a referendum is being held.

    I will condemn posts saying you can't speak now as well.

    See, Yes side stood up for you. Feel better now? Need a hug?


  • #1590
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    You already established that procreation is possible without marriage, and marriage is valid without even the possiblity procreation.

    So procreation has nothing to do with the referendum, which is the topic of this thread. Why are you going on and on about it?

    In western culture, EU and even Irish culture.

    What is the accepted number of people in a marriage?


  • Advertisement
  • #1591
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    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.

    I haven't been in anyway dismissive of you, in fact I have over the past few days spent far too much of my time trying in vain to get you to elaborate in a meaningful way why you feel I don't deserve the same rights as you. You haven't done so.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    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.

    In another thread concerning our Minister for Health you have argued that his homosexuality should preclude him from any involvement in the ongoing debate/work regarding MSM blood donation. I am merely replicating your logic and applying it to this situation. If you are uncomfortable with the results then with respect it is your logic you should confront and challenge not me. Instead however you are continuing the downward spiral your argument has been on and are resorting to personal insults.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement