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…7172747677…325

Comments

  • #2192
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    DeVore wrote: »
    Reprise, you keep ignoring my question...

    Gay people cant create children in their marriage.... so what?

    That was to me?

    I mistook your imperious little post, quoting no-one, to mean someone else. It wasn't following on anything I said.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94095377&postcount=2062


  • #2193
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    reprise wrote: »
    Then why were they not included?

    You ask a big question...

    The history of marriage throughout the world is long and complex.

    The history of how gay people were and are treated throughout the world is long and complex.

    The question is why are we excluded now?


  • #2194
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    DeVore wrote: »
    Reprise, you keep ignoring my question...

    Gay people cant create children in their marriage.... so what?
    reprise wrote: »
    That was to me?

    I mistook your imperious little post, quoting no-one, to mean someone else. It wasn't following on anything I said.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94095377&postcount=2062

    And still somehow you manage to avoid answering his question. You genuinely make me laugh Reprise.


  • #2195
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    You ask a big question...

    The history of marriage throughout the world is long and complex.

    The history of how gay people were and are treated throughout the world is long and complex.

    The question is why are we excluded now?

    You cannot ignore the original intentions of marriage if you are really asking that question.


  • #2196
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    And still somehow you manage to avoid answering his question. You genuinely make me laugh Reprise.

    Thank you :)


  • Advertisement
  • #2197
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    reprise wrote: »
    You cannot ignore the original intentions of marriage if you are really asking that question.

    Used to be about pre-teen and teen brides, and land exchange. It's like it changed or something...


  • #2198
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,007 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    reprise wrote: »
    You cannot ignore the original intentions of marriage if you are really asking that question.

    Pray tell what are the original intentions of marriage?


  • #2199
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    Used to be about pre-teen and teen brides, and land exchange. It's like it changed or something...

    So it kicked off as a male and female kind of thing?


  • #2200
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    reprise wrote: »
    You cannot ignore the original intentions of marriage if you are really asking that question.

    Most married people today ignore the original intentions of marriage. Well depending on what era, religion and society you are talking about.


  • #2201
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    Most married people today ignore the original intentions of marriage. Well depending on what era, religion and society you are talking about.

    I have no doubt you are correct, but I still think it is reasonable to establish exactly what purpose, this contract called marriage was intended for, before we decide that it is intrinsically discriminatory.


  • Advertisement
  • #2202
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    reprise wrote: »
    I have no doubt you are correct, but I still think it is reasonable to establish exactly what purpose, this contract called marriage was intended for, before we decide that it is intrinsically discriminatory.

    Why are the original intentions important ? We are not living in the same society as then .


  • #2203
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    reprise wrote: »
    I have no doubt you are correct, but I still think it is reasonable to establish exactly what purpose, this contract called marriage was intended for, before we decide that it is intrinsically discriminatory.

    GPS was for military use before it became used my civilians. What it does now is a better way of looking at it than what it was meant for.


  • #2204
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    reprise wrote: »
    I have no doubt you are correct, but I still think it is reasonable to establish exactly what purpose, this contract called marriage was intended for, before we decide that it is intrinsically discriminatory.

    I disagree, I think it's more important to discuss what the purpose of marriage is now, in this society.

    If you are trying to suggest that marriage has always been between one man and one woman then that really depends on what era, society and religion you are talking about. As someone posted a link to earlier there has been evidence of same sex marriage in pre modern Europe. In many societies marriage throughout history was about one man and his many wives. I don't think people will argue that its discrimination that a man can't have more than one wife.

    Many societies throughout history (including our own) women were treated as property of men. I don't think people will argue men are being discriminated against because their property was taken away from them even though that was the original intention of marriage.

    So i think we would be a long time trying to establish the original intention of marriage. Its not really at all helpful or relevant to todays society in Ireland


  • #2205
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    I disagree, I think it's more important to discuss what the purpose of marriage is now, in this society.

    If you are trying to suggest that marriage has always been between one man and one woman then that really depends on what era, society and religion you are talking about. As someone posted a link to earlier there has been evidence of same sex marriage in pre modern Europe. In many societies marriage throughout history was about one man and his many wives. I don't think people will argue that its discrimination that a man can't have more than one wife.

    Many societies throughout history (including our own) women were treated as property of men. I don't think people will argue men are being discriminated against because their property was taken away from them even though that was the original intention of marriage.

    So i think we would be a long time trying to establish the original intention of marriage. Its not really at all helpful or relevant to todays society in Ireland

    Historically, gauged against the span of marriage, same sex marriage was a flash in the pan so I don't accept that it is a useful comparison now.

    Nor do I accept that we can ignore the origin of marriage and simply assert it is discriminatory for not permitting ssm.


  • #2206
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    GPS was for military use before it became used my civilians. What it does now is a better way of looking at it than what it was meant for.

    When GPS can marry, I will salute it.


  • #2207
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    reprise wrote: »
    Historically, gauged against the span of marriage, same sex marriage was a flash in the pan so I don't accept that it is a useful comparison now.

    Nor do I accept that we can ignore the origin of marriage and simply assert it is discriminatory for not permitting ssm.

    So why exactly is the origin of marriage relevant ?


  • #2208
    Mr. G
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 4,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭Mr. G


    I'm voting yes because I think it's right. I also cannot stand Iona on a personal level.

    But seriously though, I would be deeply upset if the vote was a no. Imagine what message that would send out to the LGBT community. I do feel that the majority of people treat everyone equally but it upsets me to see homophobic comments. For these reasons I'm voting yes. Nothing will change my decision on that.


  • #2209
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    reprise wrote: »
    Historically, gauged against the span of marriage, same sex marriage was a flash in the pan so I don't accept that it is a useful comparison now.

    Nor do I accept that we can ignore the origin of marriage and simply assert it is discriminatory for not permitting ssm.

    Gauged against the span of marriage, marrying for love is a flash in the pan.

    Unless we are planning to go back to the original intentions of marriage (whatever that is) i don't think the origins of marriage is all that relevant.

    But if we are going to go down the road of what the origins of marriage is, then we have to take the whole world history of marriage. Which means we can't dismiss same sex marriage in pre modern history either.

    Where do we decide marriage started, there is examples of informal marriages from ancient tribes. Do they count? Who knows if some of them included ssm or not. Its hard to pin point the origins of marriage.


  • #2210
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    reprise wrote: »
    So it kicked off as a male and female kind of thing?

    The man-made, perfectly flat Netherlands are less deliberately obtuse than you.


  • #2211
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    reprise wrote: »
    You cannot ignore the original intentions of marriage if you are really asking that question.

    What are the original intentions of marriage?

    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
  • #2212
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    reprise wrote: »
    I have no doubt you are correct, but I still think it is reasonable to establish exactly what purpose, this contract called marriage was intended for, before we decide that it is intrinsically discriminatory.

    Ah ok

    Originally when the Irish Constitution was enacted 12 year old girls could marry and men could legally rape their wives.

    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



  • #2213
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    I am so heartfelt by the 1,000 plus yesses
    The Gay community cannot win this alone and rely on the tolerance and understanding of others to gain our rights. Cheers


  • #2214
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    reprise wrote: »
    Historically, gauged against the span of marriage, same sex marriage was a flash in the pan so I don't accept that it is a useful comparison now.

    Nor do I accept that we can ignore the origin of marriage and simply assert it is discriminatory for not permitting ssm.

    Why does the origin of marriage matter?

    Marriage has changed constantly over time. If you feel that the origin of marriage has changed so much then surely you must feel that it should go back to its origins.

    Do you think marriage should solely be about property, that women should be sold with dowries, that 12 year old girls should legally marry, that married women should be banned from working and that men should legally be allowed to rape their wives?

    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



  • #2215
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    reprise wrote: »
    Nor do I accept that we can ignore the origin of marriage and simply assert it is discriminatory for not permitting ssm.

    Stating over and over again that you don't accept Yes arguments is not that same as actually arguing.


  • #2216
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    You cannot ignore the original intentions of marriage if you are really asking that question.

    To acquire child bearing chattels to beat and rape at your leisure.

    I had really thought we were all trying out best to forget that bit.


  • #2217
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    It cute that some people think marriage originated in 1949 when the constitution was enacted.


  • #2218
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    seamus wrote: »
    It cute that some people think marriage originated in 1949 when the constitution was enacted.

    Psst. The constitution was 1937. We became a republic in 1949.

    Point still stands though.


  • #2219
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Every argument that has been used for gay marriage can be used for incestuous marriage. The only reason incest isn't allowed in the debate is because gay and straight people alike find it disgusting.

    No, the arguments made in favour of SSM are unlike incest in several ways. Moreover the only people who want to drag incest into the argument are the 'no' camp, and frankly it really does seem that the reason for doing so is because the 'no to SSM' argument is weak.

    Asking the state to recognise legal relationships as a marriage is very different to asking the state to recognise illegal relationships as a marriage. That rules out incest, necrophilia, bestiality and paedophilia.


  • #2220
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    reprise wrote: »
    Nor do I accept that we can ignore the origin of marriage and simply assert it is discriminatory for not permitting ssm.

    That's close to being the most foolish argument here! Since when has the original purpose of an act been more important than the current effect?

    The original purpose of beating children was to educate them and teach them manners, but we came to realise it was wrong and laws were enacted to stop it.

    The original purpose of forcing married women to resign from public & civil service jobs was to keep at least one earner in a family by providing more jobs to men. The courts found that was discriminatory and the rules were changed.

    The original purpose of outlawing same-sex relationships in Ireland was (almost certainly) to comply with the teachings of the Church. Those laws were only changed in recent times, but everyone bar the most fundamentalist in society accepts they were wrong.

    The original intention of St Patrick's Day was to honour a saint, but nobody really believes that's what the day is about now.

    The original intention of prohibiting trading on Sundays was (a) to comply with church teachings and (b) to ensure workers get a day off each week. But that logic is not considered relevant in today's society, so the laws were changed.

    The original intention behind allowing tobacco companies advertise their products at sports events was to promote sport among younger people, but people eventually realised the actual effect was to normalise and encourage smoking, so it was banned.

    It does not matter why SSM was not provided for in the Irish state in the past. What matters is that the majority of people want it now (and clearly, not for themselves) and it seems our society may have matured to the point where we are able to see SSM as causing no harm, but giving much comfort.


  • Advertisement
  • #2221
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    floggg wrote: »
    To acquire child bearing chattels to beat and rape at your leisure.

    FYP . . . I hope !!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement