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…5657596162…325

Comments

  • #1742
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    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

    Your definition of marriage has changed multiple times throughout this thread. It's hardly surprising when it's run down especially when you just state them and don't present a reasonable argument for them


  • #1743
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    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.

    You seem utterly confused. Gay people do not have a right to gay marraige, therefore it cannot be "claimed".

    Coherent enough?


  • #1744
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    I'm confused and incoherent, the law is confused and inchoerent, human rights are confused and incoherent.....

    Yada yada.

    Yada yada thats a new one at least you've added some spice to the rolodex of non-issue/non-sequitur/irrelevant.


  • #1745
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    You seem utterly confused. Gay people do not have a right to gay marraige, therefore it cannot be "claimed".

    Coherent enough?

    Its coherent its also wrong.


  • #1746
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    I heard that's legal on Endor. :rolleyes:

    Thats an improvement on your "same old bull****" rant. Well done you.


  • Advertisement
  • #1747
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    The scrambling and desperation of the no side as they spin from 'argument' to 'argument' trying to find anything that will stick whilst tying themselves up in the most ludicrous logic fails all the while crying out over imagined oppression would be amusing if it wasn't so frightening.


  • #1748
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Thats an improvement on your "same old bull****" rant. Well done you.

    Whereas none of your posts thus far has offered anything except the same thing over and over without explanation or justification.


  • #1749
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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:

    I wouldn't be too quick to jump on me for not understanding.

    Please point out the constitutional text which would prohibit us from introducing it through legislation?


  • #1750
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    reprise wrote: »
    Gay people do not have a right to gay marraige, therefore it cannot be "claimed".

    In that sense, black people did not have a right to be free of slavery. Until they did. Women did not have a right to vote. Until they did.

    But in fact, in all these cases, we now recognize that these people always had those rights, which were denied through discrimination in the legal system, until their rights were recognized.

    So gay couples do not have a right to marry. Until next May. And then they will always have had it. In 10 years, no-one will believe people argued against it.


  • #1751
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Whereas none of your posts thus far has offered anything except the same thing over and over without explanation or justification.

    Ya wha?


  • Advertisement
  • #1752
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    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.

    Try being in a position where you are denied your rights, i eluded to this a few posts ago but it gets tiresome hearing every mother and her son have an opinion on my life, my ability to love, what i am and am not entitled to, my ability to form a relationship, my effect on marriage. No matter how ludicrous and far from reality these opinions are it was decided that in the name of fairness all opinions hold equal weight. So yeah some people here are boiling with anger and I dont blame them.

    Something i've noticed about the no side is the complete lack of ability to put yourself in another's shoes and see how you would feel in there position. We are talking about real peoples lives here and not some philosophical discussion.


  • #1753
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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.

    we arent bound by the jurisprudence of the ECHR, though it is persuasive. Our constitution and legislation takes precedence.

    And it wouldn't be the first or last time a court has gotten a decision wrong. For example Slavery was upheld in the US Supreme Court (the Dredd Scott case I believe), but that doesn't change the fact that liberty is a fundamental right.


    And I can point out countless example of courts over turning their own decisions to recognise a right.


  • #1754
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    What really gets to me is the level of relish that some posters feel about denying gay people their right to marry. I mean I can understand gay people getting het up over this but to see random straight people practically falling over themselves with glee at the chance of denying us the right to marry is really scary.


  • #1755
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    In that sense, black people did not have a right to be free of slavery. Until they did. Women did not have a right to vote. Until they did.

    But in fact, in all these cases, we now recognize that these people always had those rights, which were denied through discrimination in the legal system, until their rights were recognized.

    So gay couples do not have a right to marry. Until next May. And then they will always have had it. In 10 years, no-one will believe people argued against it.

    Since when did rights apply retrospectively?


  • #1756
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    reprise wrote: »
    Since when did rights apply retrospectively?

    So you're saying slaves who escaped from slave states in America were really doing something immoral? They were really property, and had no right to freedom until Whitey kindly changed the law to make them free?

    It's no wonder people you talk to boil with anger.


  • #1757
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    The scrambling and desperation of the no side as they spin from 'argument' to 'argument' trying to find anything that will stick whilst tying themselves up in the most ludicrous logic fails all the while crying out over imagined oppression would be amusing if it wasn't so frightening.

    That's conservatism and religion for you.

    It's not about what they have it's about what other people don't have and keeping it that way.

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



  • #1758
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    What really gets to me is the level of relish that some posters feel about denying gay people their right to marry. I mean I can understand gay people getting het up over this but to see random straight people practically falling over themselves with glee at the chance of denying us the right to marry is really scary.

    They don't HAVE a right to gay marriage. I don't have a right to gay marriage either.


  • #1759
    Dog of Tears
    Closed Accounts Posts: 812 ✭✭✭Dog of Tears


    reprise wrote: »
    They don't HAVE a right to gay marriage. I don't have a right to gay marriage either.

    Don't worry, you will soon.


  • #1760
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Ya wha?

    Your posts are a series of random statements so far that have offered nothing to the thread except being random statements. You have offered no justification, no reasonable explanation, your posts are not well thought out and they aren't valid... And yet you're commenting on other posters, and saying the no side is getting attacked. The no side are not getting attacked. The no side cannot justify their reasoning and so, with anything that has no basis, it's getting torn to shreds. However, instead of realising it, you and other posters have resorted to attacking and accusing the yes side of this that and the other. The irony being that most of what the yes side are being accused of is exacly what the no side are doing.


  • #1761
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    So you're saying slaves who escaped from slave states in America were really doing something immoral? They were really property, and had no right to freedom until Whitey kindly changed the law to make them free?

    It's no wonder people you talk to boil with anger.

    No, I am saying that rights are not retrospective, you are getting your kniickers in a twist over something else altogether.


  • Advertisement
  • #1762
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    No, I am saying that rights are not retrospective, you are getting your kniickers in a twist over something else altogether.

    This is what I mean. Making random statements without offering an explanation


  • #1763
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    I found this persuasive:

    http://goo.gl/U27D7W

    http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/networkcommentaryfinal_en.pdf

    and correct me if I am wrong, but does the ECHR not operate on a consensus basis in terms or recognising rights, and will generally defer to States discretion in areas unless there is a degree of consensus across Europe. (could be wrong on that and not in a position to research now, though will do so later hopefully).

    This would reflect it's nature as a trans-national body which is required to pass judgement on the laws of various jurisdictions.

    edit - yes, see here - Quote: spikeS
    wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2015/01/sealion-500x391.png

    Not sure what role this may have played in the case, but will read when I get a chance.


  • #1764
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    floggg wrote: »
    and correct me if I am wrong, but does the ECHR not operate on a consensus basis in terms or recognising rights, and will generally defer to States discretion in areas unless there is a degree of consensus across Europe. (could be wrong on that and not in a position to research now, though will do so later hopefully).

    This would reflect it's nature as a trans-national body which is required to pass judgement on the laws of various jurisdictions.

    Not neccessarily. They do rule against states laws, such as Irelands laws on homosexuality (see Norris vs Ireland). The judgements are not binding per se, but normally treated as such.


  • #1765
    Steppenwolfe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 416 ✭✭Steppenwolfe


    floggg wrote: »
    Its not really.

    That article tries to downplay the fundamental weakness in the study, which is the fact it didn't actually study children raised by a same sex couple. He studied children from broken homes where one parent may have had some form of same sex encounter and measured them against children raised in stable, in tact heterosexual families.

    To the extent it acknowledges the sampling flaw, it just puts it down to him trying to make up for the lack of children raised by in stable intact households for him to study.

    But to use the apple and oranges analogy from the article, if you can't find enough apples to study, you don't fill the basket with oranges and then claim to have learned something about apples.

    The other counter-criticism contained in the article is who has criticised it, not the substance of the criticisms itself. But as far as I am aware, it has been broadly panned by nearly all commentators, gay or straight - and has been rejected as not being credible in federal court proceedings in the US.

    Also, the Weekly Standard is itself a conservative magazine, so its criticisms of partisan bias are equally applicable to its own opinions (as well as obviously the institute that funded the original study).

    I take your points. I understand his study is flawed. I certainly wouldn't base any conclusions on it. Also that the magazine has a conservative political slant. If it was a liberal magazine it's hardly going to publish such an article. I try to take that in to account with any media I access.

    What I found interesting/informative was the counter arguement to the 'no difference' studies. I've often seen mention on here about 30 years of scientific studies which proves the 'no difference' view. Also, how the APA has come out in favour of this view. That sounded pretty conclusive to me. However, when I looked in to it myself I found it's not as conclusive as at first sight.

    The following quote from that article is similar to other criticisms I've seen expressed elswhere. I'd be interested to know if you see this as valid criticism or some kind of conservative propaganda?

    "The “no difference” thesis was legitimized in a decree issued by the American Psychological Association in 2005. The issue of Social Science Research in which Regnerus’s paper appears coincidentally contains a study of the 59 studies the APA researcher cited in issuing its decree. Its author, Loren Marks, a sociologist at Louisiana State University, quantifies the weaknesses that Regnerus noticed in his reading of the literature. “More than three-fourths (77 percent) of the studies,” writes Marks, “are based on small, nonrepresentative, convenience samples of fewer than 100 participants.” Nearly half did not use a heterosexual comparison group against which the study group could be measured. Many of those that did have a comparison group measured intact, well-to-do lesbian couples against single-parent heterosexual families. Outcomes were in most cases ill-defined and impossible to quantify: “socioemotional development,” for example, and “sex-role behavior.”

    Most of these shortcomings were acknowledged by the researchers themselves in their respective papers, just as Regnerus points out the limitations of his own methods. APA acknowledged the shortcomings too—and then issued its decree anyway, in the most confident terms. But the accumulation of methodological errors calls into question whether any plausible conclusion can be drawn from gay parenting research.

    Marks sums it up: “In response .  .  . to any question regarding the long-term, adult outcomes of lesbian and gay parenting we have almost no empirical basis for responding    .”

    And now, with the publication of Regnerus’s study .  .  . we still don’t.    "


  • #1766
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    The point being made is that just because something isn't recognised as a right at a given point in time doesn't mean that it isn't one. Any right minded person will look back and wonder how we could have ever thought it was acceptable to deny people their right to liberty. The same applies to this debate.

    Appeal to emotion?

    This thread should be donated to anyone researching logical fallacies.


  • #1767
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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

    I didn't realise disagreement and debate were harranging.

    If either of yiu were being treated unfairly or harranged, I would imagine bans would have been handed out by now, and you probably wouldn't have stuck around so long.


  • #1768
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    The scrambling and desperation of the no side as they spin from 'argument' to 'argument' trying to find anything that will stick whilst tying themselves up in the most ludicrous logic fails all the while crying out over imagined oppression would be amusing if it wasn't so frightening.

    Its common for them just to claim that they're just not being understood. How could anyone not understand how marriage is for procreation unless you are straight


  • #1769
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    reprise wrote: »
    Appeal to emotion?

    This thread should be donated to anyone researching logical fallacies.

    Indeed. The no side keep using the same ones.


  • #1770
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    reprise wrote: »
    They don't HAVE a right to gay marriage. I don't have a right to gay marriage either.
    It's not GAY marriage. Homosexuals can already get married, even to other homosexuals.


  • Advertisement
  • #1771
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    You seem utterly confused. Gay people do not have a right to gay marraige, therefore it cannot be "claimed".

    Coherent enough?

    That's not quote it works actually.

    The fact that a specific right hasn't been recognised in law to date doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.

    For example, in the Magee case the Supreme Court recognised the right to marital privacy for the first time.

    That didn't mean there was no right to marital privacy beforehand - just that it hadn't been recognised by the courts or the state as of yet.

    Equally, just because marriage equality hasnt been provided for in law, it doesn't mean it can't be recognised in the future (the SC has never considered it).

    So your pointing to its non-recognition as purported evidence of its non-existence shows a lack of understanding of the nature of rights as a matter of law.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement