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…5556586061…325

Comments

  • #1712
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    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

    There we go with the accusations again, despite being asked 6 times to explain them.
    I didn't fail to see it. You still cannot ask for a reasoned debate or pull someone up for a different thread when you yourself do not offer one.


  • #1713
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Legal but still wrong :rolleyes:

    Yeah surely like you would view state recognition of same sex marriage if and when it occurs?


  • #1714
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    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.

    That doesn't cite predent - it's a case that has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. In any case, the court found in her favour, saying that, as a Trasnsexual, she had the right to marry. Furthermore, it never specified any condition on who she had the right to marry.

    Also, your quoting the claim that "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" would confirm that the nessecity to bear children is a complete non-starter in the argument once and for all.

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



  • #1715
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    "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...

    We can legislate for dogs to marry cats if we want.


  • #1716
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    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:

    Legal doesn't mean right. We've gone over this.

    And you're one to talk about factually correct information. What was that you called me earlier, a hypocrite wasn't it?


  • Advertisement
  • #1717
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Are you going to explain why you used a slur or not?

    What fairy is a slur now ??? This thread has redefined so many meanings of words at this stage its hard to keep up


  • #1718
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    We can legislate for dogs to marry cats if we want.

    What's that got to do with SSM?


  • #1719
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    sup_dude wrote: »
    There we go with the accusations again, despite being asked 6 times to explain them.
    I didn't fail to see it. You still cannot ask for a reasoned debate or pull someone up for a different thread when you yourself do not offer one.

    Oh yes I can because while on the one hand that poster is looking to hold me to some standard regarding a certain level of discussion that very same poster is not willing to uphold that same level of conversation elsewhere.

    Double standards used to put down no side posters , clear as day really


  • #1720
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    What fairy is a slur now ??? This thread has redefined so many meanings of words at this stage its hard to keep up

    Not this thread, the English language... here this si teh Collins Dictionary definition...

    Definitions
    noun

    Word forms: plural fairies
    an imaginary supernatural being, usually represented in diminutive human form and characterized as clever, playful, and having magical powers
    (slang, offensive) a male homosexual
    See away with the fairies

    http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fairy


  • #1721
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Oh yes I can because while on the one hand that poster is looking to hold me to some standard regarding a certain level of discussion that very same poster is not willing to uphold that same level of conversation elsewhere.

    Double standards used to put down no side posters , clear as day really

    Muddy as mud. You are truly grasping at straws here. That exact same post could be written about you.


  • Advertisement
  • #1722
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    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:



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

    Lol. I joined this thread as it was literally boiling with anger, spoiling for a fight, shrieks of "what view could ANYONE have that would deny us our rights".

    Presented with that view, it's all "homophobe" "iona" yada yada.

    It's a train wreck, you would swear half the yes side are no plants.


  • #1723
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Yeah surely like you would view state recognition of same sex marriage if and when it occurs?

    Back before you decided to go on your little mini campaign talking tripe, you will see multiple posts from me that clearly state should the yes side carry that is then the law of the land and I will respect it.

    I challenge you to find a post where I have said otherwise. You won't because your attempt to put me down again falls flat on its face


  • #1724
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Oh yes I can because while on the one hand that poster is looking to hold me to some standard regarding a certain level of discussion that very same poster is not willing to uphold that same level of conversation elsewhere.

    Double standards used to put down no side posters , clear as day really

    You haven't kept to any standard of conversation, you have used a slur, you have personalised your attacks, you won't engage on any issue. Its a joke.


  • #1725
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Back before you decided to go on your little mini campaign talking tripe, you will see multiple posts from me that clearly state should the yes side carry that is then the law of the land and I will respect it.

    I challenge you to find a post where I have said otherwise. You won't because your attempt to put me down again falls flat on its face

    Where in my post did I suggest that you wouldn't respect the law. I said that if and when ssm is recognized based on your contributions to this thread surely you will view them as legal but still wrong? It really isn't that complex.


  • #1726
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Muddy as mud. You are truly grasping at straws here. That exact same post could be written about you.

    No clear as day you just choose not to see that :)

    I'm well aware that the same could be said about me and correctly so. But the Yes side cannot hold up a standards bar to the no side and then ignore that very same standard.

    So yes it was a hypocrit I called you and its still something that is evidently clear


  • #1727
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    reprise wrote: »
    We can legislate for dogs to marry cats if we want.

    I suppose you can site precedent on that too?

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



  • #1728
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    Lol. I joined this thread as it was literally boiling with anger, spoiling for a fight, shrieks of "what view could ANYONE have that would deny us our rights".

    Presented with that view, it's all "homophobe" "iona" yada yada.

    It's a train wreck, you would swear half the yes side are no plants.

    Oh definitely. You two with equally incoherent and confused positions and the most singular determination to avoid any actually meaningful debate are the true democrats.


  • #1729
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Not this thread, the English language..

    I would have focused on the slang part not the offensive part to be honest


  • #1730
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Let's worry about that one whenever we have dogs wanting to marry cats, eh?

    Let them argue their case. So long as there is no emotional outburst claiming rights and discrimination that do not and never existed for a contract that was based on specific inclusion and not their wilful exclusion.


  • #1731
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Pfft, what have dictionaries and facts and the like got to do with anything :pac:

    Going by this thread not alot because definitions of the same standard coming from the no side are run down by the yes side like rabid dogs


  • Advertisement
  • #1732
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Lol. I joined this thread as it was literally boiling with anger, spoiling for a fight, shrieks of "what view could ANYONE have that would deny us our rights".

    Presented with that view, it's all "homophobe" "iona" yada yada.

    It's a train wreck, you would swear half the yes side are no plants.

    Bit of an over exaggeration there. People were trying to see the no side, the no side were not offering an explanations for their side yet continue to make accusations and statements. You're surprised when I believe there is nothing the no side have that makes sense? Cause you and CTRL are not helping that view what so ever with your random statements and zero justification.


  • #1733
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    reprise wrote: »
    Lol. I joined this thread as it was literally boiling with anger, spoiling for a fight, shrieks of "what view could ANYONE have that would deny us our rights".

    Presented with that view, it's all "homophobe" "iona" yada yada.

    It's a train wreck, you would swear half the yes side are no plants.

    You joined this thread to put forward ideas and theories that same sex marriage should not be allowed. Every one of them was shot down as being illogical, fallacy, incorrectly interpreted, not relevant to the issue and muddying the waters, or just plain daft (cats and dogs one).

    You now appear to have nothing left. Are you bowing out?

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



  • #1734
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    Let them argue their case. So long as there is no emotional outburst claiming rights and discrimination that do not and never existed for a contract that was based on specific inclusion and not their wilful exclusion.

    The entire premise of this referendum is based on the claim of gay people to the right of marriage and thus seeking state recognition of it. Your willful obfuscation is shocking.


  • #1735
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Oh definitely. You two with equally incoherent and confused positions and the most singular determination to avoid any actually meaningful debate are the true democrats.

    I'm confused and incoherent, the law is confused and inchoerent, human rights are confused and incoherent.....

    Yada yada.


  • #1736
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    The entire premise of this referendum is based on the claim of gay people to the right of marriage and thus seeking state recognition of it. Your willful obfuscation is shocking.

    Yes thats correct gay people claim a right to it
    reprise wrote: »
    I'm confused and incoherent, the law is confused and inchoerent, human rights are confused and incoherent.....

    Yada yada.

    You can't use the law, certain words (with religous connuntations) and a whole host of other things have been disallowed also when trying to discuss anything anti same sex marriage

    This alot of peoples view of equality in this thread


  • #1737
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    reprise wrote: »
    We can legislate for dogs to marry cats if we want.

    True but you will have trouble getting cats and dogs to consent to marriage...


  • #1738
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    No clear as day you just choose not to see that :)

    I'm well aware that the same could be said about me and correctly so. But the Yes side cannot hold up a standards bar to the no side and then ignore that very same standard.

    So yes it was a hypocrit I called you and its still something that is evidently clear

    I'm trying very hard to see it but you STILL wont explain!

    And again, with no explanation as to why.

    You know the no side is coming to the end of its list of "reasons" when they start attacking the yes side


  • #1739
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    you will see multiple posts from me that clearly state should the yes side carry that is then the law of the land and I will respect it.

    You will respect same sex marriage once it is the law of the land?

    What happened to all the "offensive to the sanctity of marriage" talk?


  • #1740
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Yes thats correct gay people claim a right to it

    Yes. And just because it isn't currently recognized does not mean it does not exist as I said previously I believe and am I sure the vast majority on the yes side do too that gay people have an imprescriptible right to marriage like every other citizen.

    I mean sweet Lord above if we didn't why would be campaigning so hard?


  • Advertisement
  • #1741
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,163 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    reprise wrote: »
    We can legislate for dogs to marry cats if we want.

    I heard that's legal on Endor. :rolleyes:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement