How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

jobbridge4life · 11-02-2015 02:13PM

reprise wrote: »

You started by bringing my children into the discussion and generally insulting everyone. I see little improvement.

No after much frustration and some posts that struck me as callous in the extreme I mistakenly and wrongfully did so, for that I apologise. It was not the start of the discussion and I haven't insulted one person. If I had I'd imagine I'd have been warned for it.

Meanwhile there has been no improvement whatsoever in relation to your engagement on this thread.

Edit: It is ironic that you take offence however at someone bringing your children into this when you have repeatedly done the same in relation to the children of LGBT people.

reprise · 11-02-2015 02:18PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

No after much frustration and some posts that struck me as callous in the extreme I mistakenly and wrongfully did so, for that I apologise. It was not the start of the discussion and I haven't insulted one person. If I had I'd imagine I'd have been warned for it.

Meanwhile there has been no improvement whatsoever in relation to your engagement on this thread.

This is an ongoing discussion and will go on up until and possibly after the referendum. Every single issue raised so far will come up again - guaranteed. If you are tired of the debate and/or find it frustrating, I politely and sincerely suggest you disengage from it.

EDIT, I did not bring up any specific posters children. I take your edit as a retraction of your apology and in bad taste.

jobbridge4life · 11-02-2015 02:22PM

reprise wrote: »

This is an ongoing discussion and will go on up until and possibly after the referendum. Every single issue raised so far will come up again - guaranteed. If you are tired of the debate and/or find it frustrating, I politely and sincerely suggest you disengage from it.

Of course I find it frustrating and tiring. Having to ask strangers for permission to enjoy the same rights as them is incredibly tiring and frustrating as well you'd know if you were in the position. You'd quite love if everyone just stopped disagreeing with you and pointing out the logical flaws in your argument, I'm not going to oblige you however. I enjoy watching as your position seems to become increasingly self-assured and smug as more and more of your arguments are utterly discredited.

reprise · 11-02-2015 02:23PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Of course I find it frustrating and tiring. Having to ask strangers for permission to enjoy the same rights as them is incredibly tiring and frustrating as well you'd know if you were in the position. You'd quite love if everyone just stopped disagreeing with you and pointing out the logical flaws in your argument, I'm not going to oblige you however. I enjoy watching as your position seems to become increasingly self-assured and smug as more and more of your arguments are utterly discredited.

See ya so.

jobbridge4life · 11-02-2015 02:27PM

reprise wrote: »

EDIT, I did not bring up any specific posters children. I take your edit as a retraction of your apology and in bad taste.

No you didn't even have the decency to do that rather you just decided an entire class of people were unworthy/incapable of being parents. So that would be every LGBT poster in the thread, some of whom may have children.

Ave Sodalis · 11-02-2015 02:29PM

reprise wrote: »

Are you trying to boost the no vote now?

You will never insult people into a yes vote.

Where was the insult in that post?

reprise wrote: »

You started by bringing my children into the discussion, earning an infraction and generally insulting everyone. I see little improvement.

And you came up with a whole heap of nonsense claims that you didn't back up or explain and earned yourself a mod warning telling you to explain, which you ignored anyway. Your point?

floggg · 11-02-2015 02:33PM

reprise wrote: »

So what? Gay people are not some exotic species to hetrosexuals.

Again, so what? there are thousands of reasons people leave jobs - why focus on a very isolated and dubious one?

The absurd line being taken here is SSM is condusive to FDI when the polar opposite argument could be made that the lack of SSM is what DROVE billions of dollars of fdi into Ireland in the first place.

You would be pretty stupid to make that argument (and I think you know that yourself), but I'm sure that won't stop you.

You do know correlation isn't causation?

And the statements referred to specifically refer to recent changes in other jurisdictions make those without marriage equality less attractive for some employees. It should be evident that this is a recent issue.

Funnily enough you were one of those complaining at the start of this thread about the "behaviour" of the yes side making you more inclined to vote no, yet have thrown every disingenuous and absurd no argument available out there.

Zubeneschamali · 11-02-2015 02:38PM

reprise wrote: »

Are you trying to boost the no vote now?

You are the one who said the No side have got tradition, gut-feeling and catholic teaching for support.

None of that nonsense is any kind of reasoning.

floggg · 11-02-2015 02:40PM

reprise wrote: »

It's as relevant to them as the taste of Guinness and I am sure you could get them to sing the praises of that as quick.

What insight do you have into their thought process, other than the public statements made which directly contradict you?

Do tell?

Daith · 11-02-2015 02:40PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The referendum will be redefining on who is allowed to get married, compared to the present situation.

Correct, the referendum is about who can get married. It doesn't change the institute of marriage. Unlike what you said below.

RobertKK wrote: »

but it is about the definition of a word and whether people want the word redefined within the constitution.

reprise · 11-02-2015 02:45PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are the one who said the No side have got tradition, gut-feeling and catholic teaching for support.

None of that nonsense is any kind of reasoning.

Really? None of it?

I don't rate much of the yes arguments, but I am not quite arrogant enough to deny them ANY validity.

Daith · 11-02-2015 02:46PM

reprise wrote: »

I don't rate much of the yes arguments, but I am not quite arrogant enough to deny them ANY validity.

Name one No argument that has any validity?

reprise · 11-02-2015 02:46PM

floggg wrote: »

What insight do you have into their thought process, other than the public statements made which directly contradict you?

Do tell?

Were you not coming back to me on the differences between marriage and civil partnership?

Amazing no-one wants to look at this on the yes side.

jobbridge4life · 11-02-2015 02:47PM

reprise wrote: »

Really? None of it?

I don't rate much of the yes arguments, but I am not quite arrogant enough to deny them ANY validity.

Yet you feel that our failure to get you to engage properly or convince you personally is proof that the yes side may not win. Telling.

reprise · 11-02-2015 02:49PM

Daith wrote: »

Name one No argument that has any validity?

I don't have to. You want the change, justify it.

Daith · 11-02-2015 02:51PM

reprise wrote: »

I don't have to. You want the change, justify it.

Irish same sex couples will be constitutionally equal under the law.

Current advice at constitutional convention was that Civil Partnership can not be equal to marriage.

reprise · 11-02-2015 02:51PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Yet you feel that our failure to get you to engage properly or convince you personally is proof that the yes side may not win. Telling.

Unlike yourselves, I don't think this thread will decide the referendum.

reprise · 11-02-2015 02:54PM

Daith wrote: »

Irish same sex couples will be constitutionally equal under the law.

Current advice at constitutional convention was that Civil Partnership can not be equal to marriage.

The constitution is a broad outline of intent.

What cannot be replicated in law with civil partnership, I mean very very specifically.

Daith · 11-02-2015 02:56PM

reprise wrote: »

What cannot be replicated in law with civil partnership, I mean very very specifically.

The family home. The family is based on marriage. Only families with married couples are considered families.

You can bring rights that are close to match it but it will never be constitutionally equal.

Zubeneschamali · 11-02-2015 02:59PM

reprise wrote: »

Really? None of it?

It's traditional!

So was slavery until it was abolished, tradition is not necessarily good.

I have a gut feeling that it's wrong!

Yes, we understand that you are a bigot, but in time, you can fix that, if you work on it.

The Catholic Church says so!

Nobody cares.

Now, have you got any actual reasoned arguments for a No vote?

jobbridge4life · 11-02-2015 03:01PM

reprise wrote: »

Unlike yourselves, I don't think this thread will decide the referendum.

Really, because you seem to be giving it quite a disporportionate level of importance here...

reprise wrote: »

I had assumed a yes until I started reading this discussion.

The attitudes and reasoning here have caused me to reassess.

A no vote won't surprise me at all.

floggg · 11-02-2015 03:02PM

reprise wrote: »

Why not make Civil Partnership equal and stop making such a big deal about it? Hows about a little bit of live and let live.

I think this view really exposes who is making a big deal out of nothing in this debate.

It seems you wouldn't have any issues with us having an equality of rights and obligations as long as we do not receive equality in name.

So there is no substantive reason to oppose marriage equality - other than a simple (and by the nature of the argument entirely unsubstantiated) opposition to the two types of relationship being seen equal at all.

But of course, where could the prejudice be in that?

Daith · 11-02-2015 03:04PM

floggg wrote: »

So there is no substantive reason to oppose marriage equality - other than a simple (and by the nature of the argument entirely unsubstantiated) opposition to the two types of relationship being seen equal at all.

And of course civil partnership can only be equal if we have a referendum to put "civil partnership" into the constitution anytime it references marriage!

floggg · 11-02-2015 03:30PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I have seen some rubbish posted about multinationals and SSM.

It is like the 'Vote Yes for Jobs' for a European referendum. It is not going to make any difference to multinationals if the vote is Yes or No.
They will still employ people of every sexual orientation, as it doesn't matter when applying for the job.
Multinationals are usually listed on the stock market, and growing the business, increasing profit and earnings per share is where it is at.
The outcome of the referendum will have no effect on employment.

You clearly didn't read the comments made by said multinationals. I suggest you do so before commenting further.

Their hiring policies are not at issue.

floggg · 11-02-2015 03:34PM

RobertKK wrote: »

There will be a lot of people who will tell pollsters they support SSM, because they think that is what they are expected to say and have heard the negative words that have been used against No Voters, like 'bigot', 'homophobic', 'backward' and also how it goes against personal religious belief for some where they believe marriage is a man and a woman united in marriage under God.
It will have nothing to do with hating anyone, it will be simply due to what they believe the definition of marriage is, and that is what the referendum is about about, people can say equality which implies negative stuff about those who will vote no, but it is about the definition of a word and whether people want the word redefined within the constitution.

Even if we accept its a redefinition, I can't imagine anybody will vote no simpy because they are fundamnetally opposed to redefintions in general.

Its how it is proposed to be "redefined" which is at issue, and opposing that change for spurious reasons isn't exactly rational or positive no matter what way you want to spin it.

floggg · 11-02-2015 03:35PM

reprise wrote: »

Sigh.

Where is this mythical "right" to same sex marriage and why are we not enforcing it.

Where was a slave's right to liberty? Are you saying they never had one?

Or Neslon Mandela's right to liberty and equality?

floggg · 11-02-2015 03:36PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Proof that both sides put up claims that cannot be backed up.

Funnily enough, the quotes from the multinationals referred to are both the source and factual support for the claims made about said multinationals.

Daith · 11-02-2015 03:38PM

floggg wrote: »

Where was a slave's right to liberty? Are you saying they never had one?

Or Neslon Mandela's right to liberty and equality?

OMG, you're comparing one civil rights movement with another. The two things are not the same. You should count yourself lucky you don't live in Russia, etc, etc, etc.

floggg · 11-02-2015 03:40PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, you are putting in definitions for what is allowed to be called marriage.
Age restrictions prevent marriage, because the age limit is defined for marriage.
What is defined, make up what we call marriage.
If I said define civil marriage as understood under Irish law.
You might say currently can only be between a man and a woman, have to be the proper age: at least 18 years old and both are consenting.
Those few points would be defining what civil marriage is.

The referendum will be redefining on who is allowed to get married, compared to the present situation.

If you change anything you are redefining, because it is not the same as before. You are putting a new understanding on it.

If we lower the legal age for drinking, do we redefine what a beer is?

If we disallow mens only golf clubs, do we redefine golf or golf clubs?

In any event, whether or not it is a redefintion or not is irrelevant - its whether the proposed change is good or not which is at issue.

floggg · 11-02-2015 03:44PM

reprise wrote: »

Really? None of it?

I don't rate much of the yes arguments, but I am not quite arrogant enough to deny them ANY validity.

Racial segregation was a tradition, based on a gut feeling and supported by many churches and religious communities.

Do you think there was any reasoning behind it, or that they were valid reasons to perpetuate inequality or discrimination?

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Comments