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…6869717374…325

Comments

  • #2102
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Dude, please use the multiquote.
    floggg wrote: »
    Your argument seemed to be that incest could produce kids so therefore was somehow positive deserving of recognition via marriage.

    Just because something produces kids, doesn't mean it's a positive thing.

    I never pretended it was positive, just a reality. Moreover, I argued from the child's perspective and again exhibited an arguable stance. This all again reflecting on merely one other party excluded from marriage, and similarities in theoretical arguments for their inclusion.

    floggg wrote: »
    Care to address the other point? Would you have voted no to women's right to vote in case it lead to 4 year olds voting?

    Mental capacity alone renders the analogy worthless unless we are discussing child marriage or mental incapacitation.
    floggg wrote: »
    Or tourists present on the day of the election ?

    Don't get the Q.


  • #2103
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    conorh91 wrote: »
    The last time I debated something with you, you told me you favoured "absolute" free speech. Now you don't think I should be allowed refer to public health studies indicating public health concerns relevant to homosexuals which, to the credit of gay advocacy services, they fully engage with and acknowledge as part of their public health commitments.

    Sounds like you are burying your head in the sand.
    If it's going to be one rule for some and another rule for myself, then I would be foolish to let my own beliefs strengthen your argument. I did say I now acknowledge that you were not simply spouting homophobic nonsense in opposition to SSM or for the sake of it but feel free to twist the knife!
    Exactly. Which is why I think it undermines the anti-incest argument

    So, lets get back to investigating the consistency here. Why impose our values on one set of conjugal partners (homosexuals) and not others (homosexual brothers)?
    Your values. I am voting for equality, not on values or incest or homosexuality. You're deliberately arguing a different debate in an attempt to cloud this one.


  • #2104
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    conorh91 wrote: »
    So, lets get back to investigating the consistency here. Why impose our values on one set of conjugal partners (homosexual brothers) and not others (homosexual non-relatives)?

    What has incest got to do with the ssm referendum? But since people insist on discussing....

    You are talking about two completely different kettles of fish here. One is talking about opening up the definition of marriage to same sex couples. Allowing two non related people become family. This doesn't really have a big impact on society and families in general.

    The other (allowing incestuous marriage) completely redefines family and what society is built on. Getting married to someone implies becoming family, brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters etc are already family and It would completely redefine what bothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, children mean. It truly impacts all families (unlike ssm). Suddenly every relationship now is a potential sexual and romantic one. It impacts the stability and security of the family in a way ssm never would


  • #2105
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I thought at one stage you were genuinely interested in discussing this referendum. It seems I was wrong.

    Some cake?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94102632&postcount=2108

    To go with your cake?


  • #2106
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    sup_dude wrote: »
    It's funny how you can't see that SSM is a part of marriage equality and that if other parts want equality, they should fight their own campaign.

    Fine then. You vote for gay marriage then. I was going to but I'm not going to bother because you can fight your own campaign.

    It's funny how you can't see that I was pointing out the hypocrisy of using equality in this argument when they're not actually for equality.


  • Advertisement
  • #2107
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Fine then. You vote for gay marraige then. I was going to but I'm not going to bother because you can fight your own campaign.

    Yesterday you were going to vote yes but then decided not to because someone shouted at you.

    Okay then....


  • #2108
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Also, the question of incest should not single out gay or same-sex marriage. The question should be about whether defending marriage requires us to acknowledge the potential extension of the right to marriage to incestuous couples. Therefore there are two separate debates going on here and it is important to not confuse them as some are doing.


  • #2109
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    Yesterday you were going to vote yes but then decided not to because someone shouted at you.

    Okay then....

    Do you know what irony is?

    The irony stems from the fact that the above poster wants equality, but only for a certain group. Rather than allowing another group to hitch their wagon to his and get some rights and legal recognition for themselves he says they need to go off and start their own campaign. Presumably because the other groups form of equality is grossly offensive to the sensibilities of most "normal" folk. You dig?


  • #2110
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    It's funny how you can't see that I was pointing out the hypocrisy of using equality in this argument when they're not actually for equality.

    It's not hypocrisy.


    If incestuous marriage was already allowed by law then I would be for the right for same sex sibling couples to marry.


  • #2111
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    reprise wrote: »
    Some cake?

    http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94102632&postcount=2108

    To go with your cake?

    So you're not trolling?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #2112
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    K4t wrote: »
    It's not hypocrisy.


    If incestuous marriage was already allowed by law then I would be for the right for same sex sibling couples to marry.


    What about opposite sex sibling couples who are sterile?


  • #2113
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    K4t wrote: »
    It's not hypocrisy.


    If incestuous marriage was already allowed by law then I would be for the right for same sex sibling couples to marry.

    No. The current status of the law is irrelevant. As it stands gay people can marry whomever they want as long as they're a different sex. All equal, right? Wrong. Equality in this instance would be to allow two people who love each other to get married regardless of whom it is they wish to marry. That's the argument for SSM isn't it?


  • #2114
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    reprise wrote: »
    What about opposite sex sibling couples who are sterile?

    Whatabout whataboutery?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #2115
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    So you're not trolling?

    I sense an air of real desperation creeping in.

    You know, fun and japes aside, the real world thing is going to throw all of this at you and more Joey, unmoderated, no ban hammer, sorry to be the one and all that.


  • #2116
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Whatabout whataboutery?
    reprise wrote: »
    What about opposite sex sibling couples who are sterile?
    They already have the right to marry if incestuous marriage is already allowed..
    walshyn93 wrote: »
    No. The current status of the law is irrelevant. As it stands gay people can marry whomever they want as long as they're a different sex. All equal, right? Wrong. Equality in this instance would be to allow two people who love each other to get married regardless of whom it is they wish to marry. That's the argument for SSM isn't it?
    Tell me, can you prove that anybody really loves another person? Can you read the minds of all those who marry, past, present and future?


    This is about Same-Sex Marriage. This is not about love or homosexuality or incest. It is about two human beings of same sex having the same right as two other human beings of opposite sex under law. You can twist arguments to your own advantage all day long but when push comes to shove the Irish people will do what is right and humanity will move onward once more. The current status of incest under the law is completely irrelevant.


  • #2117
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Fine then. You vote for gay marriage then. I was going to but I'm not going to bother because you can fight your own campaign.

    It's funny how you can't see that I was pointing out the hypocrisy of using equality in this argument when they're not actually for equality.

    Homosexuals have fought to have the right to marry for a very long time. Incest couples haven't even fought for legality, nevermind marriage. When they do, I'll think about it then. However they haven't, neither have polygamy so this isn't about them.

    It's not hypocritical. This is about SSM, which is part of marriage equality. Are gays allowed to marry? No. Are straight people? Yes. Is that equal? No. So explain to me how this isn't about equality. Just because it's not talking about all equality, doesn't mean it can't be called equality. That's like saying you can't call a horse an equine because you aren't talking about ponies and donkeys...


  • #2118
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Fine then. You vote for gay marriage then. I was going to but I'm not going to bother because you can fight your own campaign.

    It's funny how you can't see that I was pointing out the hypocrisy of using equality in this argument when they're not actually for equality.

    As a gay person, this is who I am. I had no choice in the matter and I certainly can't change it. Though being gay doesn't define me, it is core to who I am and does define the type of person I can fall in love with. (ie someone of the same sex). The type of love i feel for my b/f isnt any different to when a man falls in love with a woman. I want society to recognise the value and importance of my relationships as much as any straight relationship. At present, anyone I fall in love with I will not be able to marry, a straight person can marry anyone they fall in love with (unless they happen to be related)

    It's hard to explain but no one has an intrinsic part of them that makes them incestuous. It just happens in some circumstances. In that sense because being gay is core to who you are, it is an equality issue while incest is not. Incest and homosexuality are not the same thing and they are not even on the same level.


  • #2119
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    reprise wrote: »
    I sense an air of real desperation creeping in.

    You know, fun and japes aside, the real world thing is going to throw all of this at you and more Joey, unmoderated, no ban hammer, sorry to be the one and all that.

    When incest comes into a debate about ssm, desperation has long since arrived.


  • #2120
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    reprise wrote: »
    I sense an air of real desperation creeping in.

    You know, fun and japes aside, the real world thing is going to throw all of this at you and more Joey, unmoderated, no ban hammer, sorry to be the one and all that.

    Indeed. I sense that your claim to be open minded on this issue was completely untrue. The mask is slipping with the incest derailing.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #2121
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    As a gay person, this is who I am. I had no choice in the matter and I certainly can't change it. Though being gay doesn't define me, it is core to who I am and does define the type of person I can fall in love with. (ie someone of the same sex). The type of love i feel for my b/f isnt any different to when a man falls in love with a woman. I want society to recognise the value and importance of my relationships as much as any straight relationship. At present, anyone I fall in love with I will not be able to marry, a straight person can marry anyone they fall in love with (unless they happen to be related)

    It's hard to explain but no one has an intrinsic part of them that makes them incestuous. It just happens in some circumstances. In that sense because being gay is core to who you are, it is an equality issue while incest is not. Incest and homosexuality are not the same thing and they are not even on the same level.

    Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing either. Some advocates of No are merely making that distinction and asking it be respected.


  • Advertisement
  • #2122
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    conorh91 wrote: »
    I thought you were a big proponent of freedom of expression, K4T; and now you want the mods to come down on someone advancing a perfectly rational point with available evidence.

    I am not the one who introduced the concept of societal harm. That, I believe, was Mr Pudding. I am merely pointing out a rather obvious problem with the concept of societal harm: that it can easily be extended to homosexuals on account of public health statistics. I am not saying that it should be, I am saying that this is where the "societal harm" argument leads us.

    Boards is a private entity, which is under no obligation to provide you with a platform. If boards wishes to prohibit the expression of certain ideas or beliefs under its terms of use, that does not raise any freedom of speech issues whatsoever.

    (why is it people who claim infringement of freedom of speech rarely know what freedom of speech means or requires).


  • #2123
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    I sense an air of real desperation creeping in.

    You know, fun and japes aside, the real world thing is going to throw all of this at you and more Joey, unmoderated, no ban hammer, sorry to be the one and all that.

    Lol. Says the person who has resorted to arguing for incest in an attempt to argue against allowing same sex couples to marry.


  • #2124
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    reprise wrote: »
    Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing either.
    People are the same thing...humans I think they are called.
    Some advocates of No are merely making that distinction and asking it be respected.
    I'd ask you to respect my ass as distinct from my dick. :D;)


  • #2125
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Indeed. I sense that your claim to be open minded on this issue was completely untrue. The mask is slipping with the incest derailing.

    Oh c'mon Joey, this from the Islam defending cisgender LGBTQQIAAP moderator?


  • #2126
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    reprise wrote: »
    Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing either. Some advocates of No are merely making that distinction and asking it be respected.

    Well tough, you don't get to talk that way and get respect.

    Except from the Ionanists, I suppose.


  • #2127
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Well tough, you don't get to talk that way and get respect.

    Except from the Ionanists, I suppose.

    :D

    Rumbled again.


  • #2128
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    reprise wrote: »
    Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing either. Some advocates of No are merely making that distinction and asking it be respected.

    I'm well aware of that argument. My response was to someone claiming that both were incest and ssm were issues of equality. My reply was trying to convey(admittedly i had trouble wording it clearly) why they are not the same in terms of equality.

    Also
    heterosexuality: core to who you are, defines all your romantic relationships

    Homosexuality: core to who you are, defines all your romantic relationships.

    They aren't that different.

    On the other had incest: A situation that arises (often from a number of psychological issues) can happen to both homo and hetero sexuals


  • #2129
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing either. Some advocates of No are merely making that distinction and asking it be respected.

    Men and women are different, old and young are different, every single person is different. Different doesn't mean unequal as the no side suggest.


  • #2130
    fran oconnor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 662 ✭✭✭fran oconnor


    I will vote yes, my gay friends and family should have the same rights as me and my partner.


  • Advertisement
  • #2131
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Well tough, you don't get to talk that way and get respect.

    Except from the Ionanists, I suppose.

    Fyp


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement