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…6364666869…325

Comments

  • #1952
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    You're still avoiding:

    If men and women can marry each other regardless of ability to procreate then how does procreation matter?

    I am not avoiding anything, you are deliberately confusing a statement about the aggregate with single examples.
    What about actually raising the children once they are born? Wouldnt that be more important?

    Whether it is more important or not, that is another days work and no reason to do a bad job on marriage.
    PopePalpatine wrote:
    viewpost.gif Let me repeat this very loudly and clearly: civil partnerships have the same tax status as married couples[
    .

    And I thought there were differences between civil partnerships and marriage and that was why we were having a referendum.:confused:
    But whatever the situation, the legal difference allows a different tax treatment exist and after this referendum exposes the issues such a different treatment might result.


  • #1953
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    I am not avoiding anything, you are deliberately confusing a statement about the aggregate with single examples.



    Whether it is more important or not, that is another days work and no reason to do a bad job on marriage.

    .

    And I thought there were differences between civil partnerships and marriage and that was why we were having a referendum.:confused:
    But whatever the situation, the legal difference allows a different tax treatment exist and after this referendum exposes the issues such a different treatment might result.

    It is very simple. Is the ability of procreation a necessary requirement to get married?

    I wouldnt accuse anyone of confusing a statement if I was you, you keep talking about paying tax for married couples.


  • #1954
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    It is very simple. Is the ability of procreation a necessary requirement to get married?

    No. Men and woman who cannot procreate can still get married, because combinations of men and woman can generally procreate and legal marriage does not investigate the status of individuals (although an inability to procreate could be grounds for annulment).

    Where do you live or where do you spend time, you do not seem to understand anything about society or marriage. I shouldn't have to explain these things. :confused:


  • #1955
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    I was going to vote yes but some angry fellow told me I shouldn't be able to vote on someone else's rights and I agreed with him so I'm not going to vote at all.


  • #1956
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    B_Wayne wrote: »
    I will be voting yes, the no side are currently in process of conflating issue with children. They won't even openly admit that they wish to dictate the rights of others because of their religious beliefs and nothing else. On a side note, there's a massive amount of research that shows there's no issue with same sex parents,so even if the referendum affected that which it will not. Still not an issue unless you openly lie to the public.

    To be fair, do you think research showing that gay parents were damaging would ever see the light of day?


  • Advertisement
  • #1957
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    No. Men and woman who cannot procreate can still get married, because combinations of men and woman can generally procreate and legal marriage does not investigate the status of individuals

    People who cannot procreate can still get married, because nowhere in the civil ceremony of marriage is anything about procreation ever mentioned, becasue it is completely irrelevant.

    People can procerate without getting married. People can marry even if there isn't the remotest chance that they can procreate.

    It's a complete red herring.


  • #1958
    B_Wayne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    To be fair, do you think research showing that gay parents were damaging would ever see the light of day?

    Yes, peer review encourages new research so if a person can prove it, it's gonna get published as significant research regardless of implications gets published.


  • #1959
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    No. Men and woman who cannot procreate can still get married, because combinations of men and woman can generally procreate and legal marriage does not investigate the status of individuals (although an inability to procreate could be grounds for annulment).

    Then the ability to have children doesnt matter and shouldnt even be coming up in this thread.
    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    An inter race marriage is as likely to result in offspring from that union as one of people of the same race, so there is no difference. The same cannot be said of a same sex "marriage". But I think you know that, but are deliberately choosing to ignore it.
    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    I am happy to support families formed by men and women coming together and having children together. Marriages formed by men and women are supportive of this concept, although they might not have children and so I don't see the need for micromanagement of rules on marriage to try and exclude infertile people etc. Same sex relationships do not have this capacity and are of no value to me, although obviously of great value to the individuals involved, and I do not see why I should contribute financially to them. Explain to me why I should.

    Why say this then if procreation doesnt matter?
    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Where do you live or where do you spend time, you do not seem to understand anything about society or marriage. I shouldn't have to explain these things. :confused:

    Dont even try this kind of **** with me. I dont understand society or marriage?

    You're the one who thinks they will be paying more tax, you are the one who thinks procreation matters one minute then decide it doesnt, you are the one that claims SSM is an attack on marriage, you claim that not funding some courses show discrimination is ok, you didnt know that there was any differences between civil partnerships and marriage, you have no problem paying for 2 straight people living together but as soon as they're gay you care.

    And I am the one who lacks understanding?


  • #1960
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    I was going to vote yes but some angry fellow told me I shouldn't be able to vote on someone else's rights and I agreed with him so I'm not going to vote at all.

    I agree with the angry man, we shouldn't be in a position where peoples rights are being voted on....however we are in this position. So if you support same sex marriage, please go out and vote yes. I don't want to assume the reason you are not voting is because of the behaviour of the angry man, but if thats the case then don't punish all gay people for the actions of a few.


  • #1961
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    No. Men and woman who cannot procreate can still get married, because combinations of men and woman can generally procreate and legal marriage does not investigate the status of individuals.

    Apparently legal marriage DOES investigate the status of the indviduals and if they are the same sex, disallows the marriage.

    So, you're wrong on that.


  • Advertisement
  • #1962
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    People who cannot procreate can still get married, because nowhere in the civil ceremony of marriage is anything about procreation ever mentioned, becasue it is completely irrelevant.

    People can procerate without getting married. People can marry even if there isn't the remotest chance that they can procreate.

    It's a complete red herring.

    While there isn't a one to one relationship between marriage and procreation, it is procreation that causes it to have the status and legal privilege that it does. This is an important status in society and should not be trivialised.


  • #1963
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    While there isn't a one to one relationship between marriage and procreation, it is procreation that causes it to have the status and legal privilege that it does. This is an important status in society and should not be trivialised.

    Nope.

    Got anything based on facts, that can't be dismissed as easily?


  • #1964
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    DeVore wrote: »
    Apparently legal marriage DOES investigate the status of the indviduals and if they are the same sex, disallows the marriage
    .
    That says everything you need to know about the NO arguments really. I feel sick just reading that.


  • #1965
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    I was going to vote yes but some angry fellow told me I shouldn't be able to vote on someone else's rights and I agreed with him so I'm not going to vote at all.
    Ah so you would rather not vote on someone else's rights and feel some kind of warped sense of pride than to vote for that person to have the same rights as you or I. How very sad.

    And fyi, an equal rights vote is as much a vote for yourself as it is for the person without the right as some day you might be the one without equal rights and you will be the one relying on others to vote for your rights.

    Notice how I have italicised the word FOR and not ON because you are not simply voting ON someone else's rights, if you vote yes you are voting FOR them to be equal under new legislation.


  • #1966
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    Zen65 wrote: »
    I think you mean 'deeply held convictions' rather than 'genuine concerns'?

    I have not yet heard nor read a genuine concern, and I've read a lot of these forums.

    Oh I agree, on these forums or listening to IONA i have yet to hear a genuine concern. But when it comes to Mary up the road who was listening to IONA on the radio and now is wondering is there any truth in children are somehow less well of by being raised by gay couples. She may have genuine concerns because she was given miss information, has grown up in a different generation and doesnt really know gay people other than Sean from Corrie and doesnt really understand homosexuality. I wouldn't call her homophobic.

    Taking the time to address her concerns, explain that the referendum has nothing to do with children and that gay people already raise kids and that there is no credible evidence to show that the kids are somehow less well off. Explain that gay people love like everyone else and we want that recognised in law and not be treated separately etc etc and it may take her sometime to get her head around that but its far more beneficial than calling her homophobic. I've had a very similar experience to this recently. I don.t know if she changed her position or not but it certainly got her thinking and she seemed open to it


  • #1967
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    I agree with the angry man, we shouldn't be in a position where peoples rights are being voted on....however we are in this position. So if you support same sex marriage, please go out and vote yes. I don't want to assume the reason you are not voting is because of the behaviour of the angry man, but if thats the case then don't punish all gay people for the actions of a few.

    Nah, I think it's a bull**** argument. If we were voting to take away people's rights it would be a different thing. But there's nothing wrong with voting to give people rights.


  • #1968
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Nope.

    Got anything based on facts, that can't be dismissed as easily?

    Well then, you explain why single people are taxed to support married people, other than as a wish to support families.


  • #1969
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    B_Wayne wrote: »
    Yes, peer review encourages new research so if a person can prove it, it's gonna get published as significant research regardless of implications gets published.

    Ever heard of publication bias? Please. Don't be so naive.


  • #1970
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    US corporations alone funneled over $16 billion through Ireland from their EU operations in 2013 alone in order to lower their tax liabilities drastically.

    If you genuinely think that they are willing to lose billions because a no vote in the referendum carrys you are seriously naive.

    More nonsense misinformation and scaremongering from the yes side.

    In fact can you provide me with a link from any US corporation who are directly and explicitly stating that they will pull out of Ireland if the no vote carries ?

    Its really not. We have competed with a number of other jurisdictions to attract certain companies here, including twitter which I believe was being courted by Scotland or England.

    Would it be the deciding factor for a company when deciding to set up here? No, they will consider lots of factors.

    Will it be A factor - most definitely.


  • #1971
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Nah, I think it's a bull**** argument. If we were voting to take away people's rights it would be a different thing. But there's nothing wrong with voting to give people rights.

    Okay, I understand what you are saying. From my perspective though, voting to take away my rights amounts to the same thing as people voting no on a referendum to give me rights. I'm still left without my rights in the end.

    And to be in a position, where your life becomes open to public debate and discussion. Where you have to constantly explain and defend yourself is difficult. Its uncomfortable to have to ask the entire country can i get married, can i be treated as an equal citizen?

    What if its a no vote? We can't credibly bring up that question on referendum again for a long time, where as if its through legislation that is ultimately voted down through the dail, you can re word the legislation, address concerns and bring it up again or wait for the next government


  • Advertisement
  • #1972
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Could you repeat this please, my IQ is insufficient to understand it.




    Superficial research for a superficial argument.




    The object of the Virginia law was to prevent men and women of different sexes having relationships, not just regulate what word was used to describe that relationship. As a consequence this is an entirely useless example, which won't stop it being used to try and confuse the issue.

    This referendum does not regulate the right of people to do something, it only regulates the name attached to that.

    I think your attempts to downplay the relevance of Loving undermines your whole argument.

    If you are saying, as it appears above, that the current debate around same sex marriage is simply a debate around what word we use to describe same sex relationships, then it suggests the debate is just around language rather than any principled objection to treating same sex relationships in the same way as heterosexual marriages.


    Its not the rights and obligations of marriage you are concerned with but simply the word.

    Which is an absurd argument in itself, because the only reason to use different words to describe something which is identical in law would be to create an artificial difference.

    So if you want to make this into a debate on language, feel free. You'll lose.


  • #1973
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    Okay, I understand what you are saying. From my perspective though, voting to take away my rights amounts to the same thing as people voting no on a referendum to give me rights. I'm still left without my rights in the end.

    And to be in a position, where your life becomes open to public debate and discussion. Where you have to constantly explain and defend yourself is difficult. Its uncomfortable to have to ask the entire country can i get married, can i be treated as an equal citizen?

    What if its a no vote? We can't credibly bring up that question on referendum again for a long time, where as if its through legislation that is ultimately voted down through the dail, you can re word the legislation, address concerns and bring it up again or wait for the next government

    Yeah, I'm just pointing out the fact that it's damaging to the Yes campaign to even call someone's right to vote in this referendum into question.

    This line of argument has been borrowed from the Proposition 8 campaign where they had the exact opposite referendum to the one we're having. It just doesn't work here and I don't like being told I don't/shouldn't have a right to have a say over the constitution.

    I've been in the Yes camp for most of my life but am opening my mind to being swayed by some compelling arguments from the No side as a matter of principle. I've yet to hear any though.


  • #1974
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Ever heard of publication bias? Please. Don't be so naive.

    Research being published opens it up to more criticism. If it's hard to find fault with the research usually the response is to do your own research. Which often tends to be more than a little biased, but at least it gives them the answer they wanted.


  • #1975
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    So to sum up your post, you can't actually offer any multi national explicitly stating their intention to pull out of Ireland if no carries and pop over to the UK for example where they will be exposed to an additional $1.6 billion in tax payments (US based corporations alone).

    Also, what date is Irelands low tax rate due to end ???

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/starbucks-same-sex-marriage-washington-_n_1231047.html

    http://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2012/01/19/marriage-equality-in-washington-state-would-be-good-for-business/

    http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/apple-facebook-tell-supreme-court-that-marriage-equality-is-a-business-imperative/

    There is plenty of evidence that this is an issue for many employers. I never said it would be the only issue for them, but they do see it as important, and if we are competing for business with other nations we need every advantage possible.

    So care to retract your suggestion that the perception of large multinationals is irrelevant?


  • #1976
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    floggg wrote: »
    I think your attempts to downplay the relevance of Loving undermines your whole argument.

    If you are saying, as it appears above, that the current debate around same sex marriage is simply a debate around what word we use to describe same sex relationships, then it suggests the debate is just around language rather than any principled objection to treating same sex relationships in the same way as heterosexual marriages.

    What I said was that the difference between civil partnership and marriage is not a question of rights.
    Which is an absurd argument in itself, because the only reason to use different words to describe something which is identical in law would be to create an artificial difference.

    I don't think they should be the same in law, I think the relationship with a capacity for procreation should remain a privileged one, as it does today. (And please don't come back with details about particular individuals who do not procreate).


  • #1977
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    Research being published opens it up to more criticism. If it's hard to find fault with the research usually the response is to do your own research. Which often tends to be more than a little biased, but at least it gives them the answer they wanted.

    I think you're excluding the human element here. If you're at a university and you decide to start a research project to prove that gay parents are harmful to children just think of the response of your colleagues around the staff room. Think of what the college president would do to nip it in the bud so you don't bring negative publicity to the university.

    Let's be real here. Sociology departments are circle-jerks.

    Not that I'm hoping for such a study to be done. I just don't think research in these areas is particularly useful.


  • #1978
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Firstly, for the record I respect your rationale and accept that is your decision making process and commend you for committing to vote (but like mine apparently) your decision to vote yes lacks any solid foundation or reasoning.

    I await any poster here to pull ducksauce up for voting yes for the same (low evidenced rationale as people say here) that I am voting no.

    Of course it won't happen because its a vote in favor of same sex marriage and the yes side like their double standards just as much as the no side.

    I think you are mistaking the way he is approaching it.

    He doesn't have strong views, so is going with the libertarian approach and letting people make their own decisions. You don't need a particular rationale or reasons to decide to live and let live.

    On the other hand, you are voting in a way which would enshrine your views into law, and prevent people from making their own decision whether they want to marry somebody of the same sex.

    Morally, one should have a solid justiication for seeking to restrict somebodys rights.


  • #1979
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    floggg wrote: »
    There is plenty of evidence that this is an issue for many employers. I never said it would be the only issue for them, but they do see it as important, and if we are competing for business with other nations we need every advantage possible.

    So care to retract your suggestion that the perception of large multinationals is irrelevant?

    The shows support but again doesnt back up the original claim so I'll ask again.

    Can you provide any link to show any multi national threatening or looking unfavorably if a no vote is carried in the referendum in Ireland ?

    Unless of course you want retract and say what you claimed was clear misinformation and scaremongering because you still have not offered a shred of evidence to back up how multi nationals are keen to up sticks from Ireland and pay an extra $1.6 billion in EU taxation in another country.


  • #1980
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    floggg wrote: »
    On the other hand, you are voting in a way which would enshrine your views into law, and prevent people from making their own decision whether they want to marry somebody of the same sex.

    It would not enshrine anything in law. It already is law so I am not enshrining anything the law is there already


  • Advertisement
  • #1981
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Firstly, for the record I respect your rationale and accept that is your decision making process and commend you for committing to vote (but like mine apparently) your decision to vote yes lacks any solid foundation or reasoning.

    I await any poster here to pull ducksauce up for voting yes for the same (low evidenced rationale as people say here) that I am voting no.

    Of course it won't happen because its a vote in favor of same sex marriage and the yes side like their double standards just as much as the no side.

    Hahaha. Good point, well argued.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement