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…5455575960…325

Comments

  • #1682
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    The State does not discriminate against the individual, anyone is free to avail of marriage if they find a person of opposite gender to marry them. Some people do not avail of this because they lack commitment, some haven't met anyone, some have unusual sexual interests, some don't believe in it, but there is no "discrimination". What is proposed is an extension of the range of things that attract favourable treatment, not a change in the rules about availing of it.

    Oh yeah forget about allowing gay people to marry for love. If they want to get married so bad, they are free to marry a person of the opposite gender. At least that way the sanctity of marriage is maintained....right?


  • #1683
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Daith wrote: »
    I'm just using a Judges words to describe it. I'm not a solicitor.

    Given that same sex marriage is not a right, I tend to be careful not to bring rights into it to be honest.

    Article 16 of the UN declaration of human rights declares marriage a fundamental human right. I certainly view same sex marriage as a fundamental and imprescriptible human right albiet one that our state chooses not to recognise at present.


  • #1684
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Daith wrote: »
    I'm just using a Judges words to describe it. I'm not a solicitor.

    Given that same sex marriage is not a right, I tend to be careful not to bring rights into it to be honest.

    OK. Well, judges can sometimes use colloquial language.

    The point is that the right to equality is one afforded to each person as an individual.

    Its a technical point, and I'm sure neither the hotel owner nor the couple/individuals involved care how you describe it, and little turns on it for the lay person.

    But as your original comment was one regarding the nature of discrimination involved as a matter of law, I thought I'd clarify the point from a legal perspective.

    Edit: Equality is a right, so you can't raise issues like discrimination and equality without raising issues of rights. And I also agree it is a right, just not one which has been properly vindicated in law as of yet.


  • #1685
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    jaja321 wrote: »
    I'll be voting yes, and cannot wait to do so. If I'm not mistaken, if this passes we'll be the first country in the world to pass it by popular vote? As in all other countries/states have done it through the courts. Will be something to be genuinely proud of, if it passes. People just need to get out and vote, my biggest worry is apathy.

    It might be the first country, though individual States have in the US.


  • #1686
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    jaja321 wrote: »
    I'll be voting yes, and cannot wait to do so. If I'm not mistaken, if this passes we'll be the first country in the world to pass it by popular vote? As in all other countries/states have done it through the courts. Will be something to be genuinely proud of, if it passes. People just need to get out and vote, my biggest worry is apathy.

    Yes, this is the case. We will be the only country in the world to introduce it through popular vote. If it passes not only will I feel incredibly proud to call myself an Irishman but how fantastic for me as a gay man to live in a country where I know the majority are supportive and view me as an equal citizen and human being.

    In saying that, trying to pass this through referendum is stressful. It invites a lot of opinion on newspapers, forums, tv, radio about the kind of person I am, my ability to love, to have a relationship, my ability as a parent, my effect on everyone else's marriage, and unfortunately some other incredibly ignorant statements. These statements and views have to be given equal time and weight, no matter how far from reality they are based.... all in the name of fairness. Yet I (and every other gay person) has to remain calm and collected and not dare use the "h" word or we are accused of stifling debate and being unreasonable. You couldn't make it up

    Anyway I went off on a tangent there. I truly appreciate yours and others support :)


  • Advertisement
  • #1687
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    floggg wrote: »
    It might be the first country, though individual States have in the US.

    I thought in the US it was a case of same sex marriage was introduced through legislation then following that there was a vote to redefine marriage as between only a man and woman to try and bring down that legislation? Or was that just California? Im not familiar with the other cases tbh.


  • #1688
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    These statements and views have to be given equal time and weight, no matter how far from reality they are based.... all in the name of fairness. Yet I (and every other gay person) has to remain calm and collected and not dare use the "h" word or we are accused of stifling debate and being unreasonable. You couldn't make it up

    Glad to see someone concur with what I've been saying in terms of respect of opposing views. For the little its probably worth the approach you outlined (although stressful is probably an understatement) is the only proper approach you can take and just counter everything and all points with rationale.

    After all, wasn't it Gandhi or someone who said "you must be the change you wish to see in the world"


  • #1689
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Glad to see someone concur with what I've been saying in terms of respect of opposing views. For the little its probably worth the approach you outlined (although stressful is probably an understatement) is the only proper approach you can take and just counter everything and all points with rationale.

    After all, wasn't it Gandhi or someone who said "you must be the change you wish to see in the world"

    As you have demonstrated however countering everything with reasoned debate often gets one nowhere.


  • #1690
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    I thought in the US it was a case of same sex marriage was introduced through legislation then following that there was a vote to redefine marriage as between only a man and woman to try and bring down that legislation? Or was that just California? Im not familiar with the other cases tbh.

    I believe Washington and Maryland and possible one other state all voted in same sex marriage at the ballots. In many other cases it was introduced by legislation or through the courts.

    It's now going to be considered by the Supreme Court, and so could will become legal nationwide.


  • #1691
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    In saying that, trying to pass this through referendum is stressful. It invites a lot of opinion on newspapers, forums, tv, radio about the kind of person I am, my ability to love, to have a relationship, my ability as a parent, my effect on everyone else's marriage, and unfortunately some other incredibly ignorant statements. These statements and views have to be given equal time and weight, no matter how far from reality they are based.... all in the name of fairness. Yet I (and every other gay person) has to remain calm and collected and not dare use the "h" word or we are accused of stifling debate and being unreasonable. You couldn't make it up

    Which is why it would have been preferable for this to be done by the Oireacthas or the Supreme Court.

    Minority rights shouldn't be up for public debate.


  • Advertisement
  • #1692
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    As you have demonstrated however countering everything with reasoned debate often gets one nowhere.

    lol was it not you who just came out with the gem below in relation to Vradkar on another thread?
    Cause he is a queer and simultaneously a truly dedicated reverse vampire.

    Reasoned debate being the key word ;)


  • #1693
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    floggg wrote: »
    Which is why it would have been preferable for this to be done by the Oireacthas or the Supreme Court.

    Minority rights shouldn't be up for public debate.

    So your saying we ignore the text of the constitution in order to update that very same constitution in favor of same sex marriage ???

    Another shining light of the Yes sides understanding of equality :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • #1694
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    So your saying we ignore the text of the constitution in order to update that very same constitution in favor of same sex marriage ???

    Another shining light of the Yes sides understanding of equality :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    As opposed to the no sides understanding of inequality :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • #1695
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Article 16 of the UN declaration of human rights declares marriage a fundamental human right. I certainly view same sex marriage as a fundamental and imprescriptible human right albiet one that our state chooses not to recognise at present.

    You can hold a view that the earth is flat if you want.

    If your human rights are being violated or you think there is discrimination, why are the European courts of human rights disagreeing?


  • #1696
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    lol was it not you who just came out with the gem below in relation to Vradkar on another thread?



    Reasoned debate being the key word ;)

    It was a flippant response to a vexatious question.

    Meanwhile care to elaborate on the meaning of 'fairy' in this context?
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    At the risk of being labelled a homophobe (as is the current trend these days for someone who says anything remotely anti gay).

    The Minister should not be having any hand, part or play in relation to this because he is gay and has a conflict of interest. The blood ban for gays has been in place for years for a good reason.

    People can be tri-sexual for all I care but he is going on a very "fairy" stance since coming out on Radio between this and stating he is going to the New York paddys days gay pride parade and it is frankly unbecoming of a minister.


  • #1697
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    You can hold a view that the earth is flat if you want.

    If your human rights are being violated or you think there is discrimination, why are the European courts of human rights disagreeing?

    In the first instance the ECHR operates on the European Charter of Human Rights not the UN. Secondly courts are capable of change and I have no doubt that in time the ECHR will eventually change.


  • #1698
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    In the first instance the ECHR operates on the European Charter of Human Rights not the UN. Secondly courts are capable of change and I have no doubt that in time the ECHR will eventually change.

    Precedent says there is no right to same sex marriage and there is no case for discrimination where it is not legal. That is very unlikely to change.

    You may also read article 16 again and remind me where it prohibits the gender definition of marriage.


  • #1699
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    Precedent says there is no right to same sex marriage and there is no case for discrimination where it is not legal. That is very unlikely to change.

    You may also read article 16 again and remind me where it prohibits the gender definition of marriage.

    When the time is right the court will find some justification and the position will change. Just as has happened on countless other issues.


  • #1700
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    reprise wrote: »
    Precedent says there is no right to same sex marriage and there is no case for discrimination where it is not legal. That is very unlikely to change.

    You may also read article 16 again and remind me where it prohibits the gender definition of marriage.

    What precedent are you citing here?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #1701
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    When the time is right the court will find some justification and the position will change. Just as has happened on countless other issues.

    On what grounds?

    I have no problems discussing case law and precedent.


  • Advertisement
  • #1702
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    What precedent are you citing here?

    Here.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94065074&postcount=1394

    I am still marvelling at the stunned silence that followed this post following a near frenzy for my justification of comments, I supported by the links.


  • #1703
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

    Reasoned debate being the key word ;)

    I'm sorry, are you seriously giving out about not getting a reasoned debate and yet you've never once elaborated on any of your points, and offer no reasonable debate what so ever? You just quoted Gandhi, maybe you should take your own advice and actually have a reasoned argument before you go around demanding one.


  • #1704
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    On what grounds?

    I have no problems discussing case law and precedent.

    I don't know I am not preparing a case. I simply firmly believe that in time (and I don't think it is in the immediate future) we will see a ruling from the ECHR which results in a recognition of same sex marriage a fundamental right. I'd prefer of course if it didn't need to come to that point.


  • #1705
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    sup_dude wrote: »
    I'm sorry, are you seriously giving out about not getting a reasoned debate and yet you've never once elaborated on any of your points, and offer no reasonable debate what so ever? You just quoted Gandhi, maybe you should take your own advice and actually have a reasoned argument before you go around demanding one.

    No as per usual in your eagerness to jump down my throat you failed to see that it was actually in reply to someone stating there was a lack of reasoned debate while at the same time doing the exact thing on another thread.

    That old double standards chestnut you love to throw my way :P:P:P:P


  • #1706
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    I don't know I am not preparing a case. I simply firmly believe that in time (and I don't think it is in the immediate future) we will see a ruling from the ECHR which results in a recognition of same sex marriage a fundamental right. I'd prefer of course if it didn't need to come to that point.

    It is the courts job to interpret rights, not change them. You have no human right to same sex marriage now and you never did.


  • #1707
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Here.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94065074&postcount=1394

    I am still marvelling at the stunned silence that followed this post following a near frenzy for my justification of comments, I supported by the links.

    "stunned slience" right... Or maybe the recognition that marriage can be extended to same sex couples and the "stunned silence" was recognition that you have no justification for your ideals bar a court recognition...


  • #1708
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    It is the courts job to interpret rights, not change them. You have no human right to same sex marriage now and you never did.

    Oh the thinly veiled contempt starts to show.

    I do and it will be recognized at some point, perhaps both by the Irish electorate (hopefully this time around) and by the ECHR. Just as in the US slowly but surely the courts are recognizing the bar on marriage equality as discrimination and breach of fundamental human rights.


  • #1709
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    reprise wrote: »
    It is the courts job to interpret rights, not change them. You have no human right to same sex marriage now and you never did.

    No , dont say something factually correct.

    Having already been through this on the thread I've been told by everyone here that its State sponsored terrorism.

    Sorry correction discrimination. Legal but still wrong :rolleyes:
    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Oh the thinly veiled contempt starts to show.

    And here comes the harranging for reprise now . Text book stuff really


  • #1710
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    No as per usual in your eagerness to jump down my throat you failed to see that it was actually in reply to someone stating there was a lack of reasoned debate while at the same time doing the exact thing on another thread.

    That old double standards chestnut you love to throw my way :P:P:P:P

    Are you going to explain why you used a slur or not?

    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    At the risk of being labelled a homophobe (as is the current trend these days for someone who says anything remotely anti gay).

    The Minister should not be having any hand, part or play in relation to this because he is gay and has a conflict of interest. The blood ban for gays has been in place for years for a good reason.

    People can be tri-sexual for all I care but he is going on a very "fairy" stance since coming out on Radio between this and stating he is going to the New York paddys days gay pride parade and it is frankly unbecoming of a minister.


  • Advertisement
  • #1711
    jaja321
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jaja321


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    Yes, this is the case. We will be the only country in the world to introduce it through popular vote. If it passes not only will I feel incredibly proud to call myself an Irishman but how fantastic for me as a gay man to live in a country where I know the majority are supportive and view me as an equal citizen and human being.

    In saying that, trying to pass this through referendum is stressful. It invites a lot of opinion on newspapers, forums, tv, radio about the kind of person I am, my ability to love, to have a relationship, my ability as a parent, my effect on everyone else's marriage, and unfortunately some other incredibly ignorant statements. These statements and views have to be given equal time and weight, no matter how far from reality they are based.... all in the name of fairness. Yet I (and every other gay person) has to remain calm and collected and not dare use the "h" word or we are accused of stifling debate and being unreasonable. You couldn't make it up

    Anyway I went off on a tangent there. I truly appreciate yours and others support :)

    I can only imagine. I have no idea what its like .. but you have my 100% support. I'm getting married later this year, and hope I will be doing so in the knowledge that you will be able to do so too if you wish :)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement