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…8182848687…325

Comments

  • #2492
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Daith wrote: »
    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.

    Can you point me to the text of the law that applies?


  • #2493
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭seenitall


    Daith wrote: »
    I gave you one

    ooh matron!


  • #2494
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Can you please stop with the condescending attitude? I've yet to see you come up with an original, well thought out, well backed up argument and yet you treat everyone else like they're idiots.

    Who appointed you moderator?

    Let me guess, in your world, an original, well thought out and backed up argument for no doesn't exist. Conversely, every argument for yes is valid, original and thoroughly researched.

    That about right?


  • #2495
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Flem31 wrote: »
    Now you are moving the discussion away from the multi national would factor it in.

    I have no doubt that any LGBT individual or couple would factor in whether a country had SSM in any decision re emigrating. And in similar circumstances, I would also.

    However having worked in a multi national for almost a decade and at a fairly senior level, the idea that the employer really cares about employees enough to factor in SSM is I believe wishful thinking.

    If we vote Yes (and I believe it should pass) it wont rank Ireland any higher on the criteria re future FDI than today.

    I haven't moved the conversation at all.

    The main reason the multinational cares is because their potential employees will care about it.

    It can impact on an employees decision to move it stay in another country - and given the international make up of many of these tech and online companies, anything that can effect prospective employees willingness or desire to move to here has an effect on the calibre of employees they can recruit.

    The better the employees they can recruit, the better their product and service offering will be, and hopefully therefore their profitability.

    So it's precisely that potential employees care that they care.

    It's not much different to how tech companies in Silicon Valley are laying on free transport for staff who live in San Francisco.

    It's not that they really give a **** where they live, but they know that young affluent tech types prefer to live in the city, so if facilitating their desire to live in San Francisco helps them recruit the best and brightest of them, then that's exactly what they will do (and are doing).

    Similarly if a Yes vote can help them recruit talented staff in any way, then they are going to come and out and support a Yes vote.


  • #2496
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    reprise wrote: »
    Let me guess, in your world, an original, well thought out and backed up argument for no doesn't exist.

    It may exist. Unicorns may exist.

    I've just never seen either. Nor have you presented either here.


  • Advertisement
  • #2497
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Who appointed you moderator?

    Let me guess, in your world, an original, well thought out and backed up argument for no doesn't exist. Conversely, every argument for yes is valid, original and thoroughly researched.

    That about right?


    Thus far, nobody has come up with a well thought out, original, and backed up argument for the no side. I've stated several times that I'm more than willing to here one if one exists. However, there has been none so far.
    No, not all the yes arguments are valid, or I don't know enough about some of the arguments to comment.

    It doesn't change the fact I've seen ZERO argument from the no side that was actually a valid argument.


  • #2498
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Thus far, nobody has come up with a well thought out, original, and backed up argument for the no side. I've stated several times that I'm more than willing to here one if one exists. However, there has been none so far.
    No, not all the yes arguments are valid, or I don't know enough about some of the arguments to comment.

    It doesn't change the fact I've seen ZERO argument from the no side that was actually a valid argument.

    Funny that, because I have yet to see a single non-emotive one for yes.


  • #2499
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    Oh please, spare me the hysterics. Stop hijacking racial segregation and slavery and fight your own corner like an adult.

    I don't know whether this sort of response more laughable or depressing.

    Applying your argument to a comparable situation isn't hysterics - calling people childish in order to avoid the issue is.

    You have repeatedly made the point that marriage equality isn't a right if it isn't recognised by law.

    But history is replete with examples where things which we all recognise as rights weren't recognised by law.


    So as long as you keep repeating the same point, the question remains relevant.

    Your attempts at ducking it are rather transparent, and rather childish.


  • #2500
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    It may exist. Unicorns may exist.

    I've just never seen either. Nor have you presented either here.

    I could have sworn you were the tosser calling me a bigot as proof of how out of your depth you are.


  • #2501
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Funny that, because I have yet to see a single non-emotive one for yes.

    The main reason for allowing is emotive, is it that hard to understand that the arguments for it are emotive? It doesn't make them less valid.

    Most of this thread has been tearing No excuses to shreads as they've all very fragile arguments.


  • Advertisement
  • #2502
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    Who appointed you moderator?

    Let me guess, in your world, an original, well thought out and backed up argument for no doesn't exist. Conversely, every argument for yes is valid, original and thoroughly researched.

    That about right?

    Evidently no such argument exists in your world either.


  • #2503
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    floggg wrote: »
    I don't know whether this sort of response more laughable or depressing.

    Applying your argument to a comparable situation isn't hysterics - calling people childish in order to avoid the issue is.

    You have repeatedly made the point that marriage equality isn't a right if it isn't recognised by law.

    But history is replete with examples where things which we all recognise as rights weren't recognised by law.


    So as long as you keep repeating the same point, the question remains relevant.

    Your attempts at ducking it are rather transparent, and rather childish.


    I can't duck a right that doesn't exist.


  • #2504
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    reprise wrote: »
    I could have sworn you were the tosser calling me a bigot as proof of how out of your depth you are.

    What a beautifully reasoned argument! You are a credit to the No side, a jewel in their crown.


  • #2505
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    I can't duck a right that doesn't exist.

    Yet.


  • #2506
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    So you don't want to point out the differences? I only asked for the most pressing ones after all.


    Fair enough, I will assume they are absolutely trivial and you have your knickers in a twist over issues you have no knowledge or interest in.

    Good for you.


  • #2507
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    I can't duck a right that doesn't exist.

    So shall I take it therefore you think a slave didn't have the right to liberty?

    :(


  • #2508
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    What a beautifully reasoned argument! You are a credit to the No side, a jewel in their crown.

    Jaysus, they wouldn't object to a few more like you.


  • #2509
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    floggg wrote: »
    So shall I take it therefore you think a slave didn't have the right to liberty?

    :(

    Should a slave be denied the right to marry his brother?


  • #2510
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Should a slave be denied the right to marry his brother?

    Oh ffs, not this again :rolleyes:

    I take it you've ran out of arguments if you're repeating all this crap?


  • #2511
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    reprise wrote: »
    Should a slave be denied the right to marry his brother?

    What if I want to marry both my cats... and they are brother and sister?

    AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY CATS???


  • Advertisement
  • #2512
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Oh ffs, not this again :rolleyes:

    I take it you've ran out of arguments if you're repeating all this crap?

    Oh sorry, was the slavery line new and original? Sounds very familiar to me.


  • #2513
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    Should a slave be denied the right to marry his brother?

    Yes. And I'm the one not behaving like an adult.


  • #2514
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    floggg wrote: »
    I haven't moved the conversation at all.

    The main reason the multinational cares is because their potential employees will care about it.

    It can impact on an employees decision to move it stay in another country - and given the international make up of many of these tech and online companies, anything that can effect prospective employees willingness or desire to move to here has an effect on the calibre of employees they can recruit.

    The better the employees they can recruit, the better their product and service offering will be, and hopefully therefore their profitability.

    So it's precisely that potential employees care that they care.

    It's not much different to how tech companies in Silicon Valley are laying on free transport for staff who live in San Francisco.

    It's not that they really give a **** where they live, but they know that young affluent tech types prefer to live in the city, so if facilitating their desire to live in San Francisco helps them recruit the best and brightest of them, then that's exactly what they will do (and are doing).

    Similarly if a Yes vote can help them recruit talented staff in any way, then they are going to come and out and support a Yes vote.

    They are supporting a Yes vote because it won't cost them anything.
    And if there is a No result, that won't cost them anything either.

    If someone is put off by a No result, multi nationals just go and find someone else or raise the salary sufficiently to overcome this obstacle.
    Not saying that approach is right, but it happens


  • #2515
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Oh sorry, was the slavery line new and original? Sounds very familiar to me.


    You brought up the point in the first place.


  • #2516
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    What if I want to marry both my cats... and they are brother and sister?

    AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY CATS???

    Have you considered a dog?


  • #2517
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    You brought up the point in the first place.

    I really didn't. I think the slavery analogy is an insult to the suffering of slaves.


  • #2518
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


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

    Where is the mythical "wrong" to same sex marriage ?

    You've been inputting to this debate for a long time and yet not once have you said why you believe SSM is wrong. Perhaps it's time to offer that much to the debate?


  • #2519
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    I really didn't. I think the slavery analogy is an insult to the suffering of slaves.

    It's the same principle. They didn't have a right, that was changed so they did have rights. SSM don't have a right to marry, that will hopefully change so they do. Just because it isn't in effect right now, doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

    Oh, and nobody is comparing not getting married to living your life as a slave. It's the principle.


  • #2520
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Flem31 wrote: »
    They are supporting a Yes vote because it won't cost them anything.
    And if there is a No result, that won't cost them anything either.

    If someone is put off by a No result, multi nationals just go and find someone else or raise the salary sufficiently to overcome this obstacle.
    Not saying that approach is right, but it happens

    So if their referendum fails their choice is either have a reduced pool of prospective employees to choose from, and therefore potentially end up with a lower calibre of employee, or else pay higher wages in order to attract their preferred staff - but still it won't cost them anything?

    Sorry, but you contradicting yourself. The cost is either higher wage costs or accepting a lower return for wages paid - either way there is an economic impact.


  • Advertisement
  • #2521
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    Remind me where I said that via the miracle of links...
    ?

    Gladly. The implication from the below is most clearly that homosexuals are not the ideal parents for children and thus marriage ought not to be extended to cover them.
    reprise wrote: »
    Ok, try this:

    Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

    Pulling asunder that which constitutes marriage - nullifies and/or trivialises marriage.

    The implication is clear here.
    reprise wrote: »
    As I have stated previously, it's about removing a core pillar of what has constituted marriage since there was such a concept and side stepping the family component as trivial rather than pivotal.

    Side stepping the family component? Again the implication re children raised in LGBT families is clear.
    reprise wrote: »
    I'm sorry flogg, but to tackle my points and totally disregard what I am saying about family and children is simply disingenuous. You will never be able to wish away the family aspect of what marriage is designed for.

    And again…
    reprise wrote: »
    Just because I tax and insure my car, it doesn't mean I HAVE to drive it and your attempt to downplay the role of family in marriage is absurd.

    What about LGBT families? Why aren't they entitled to equal protection?
    reprise wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94000482&postcount=351



    My analogy works. Yet, you reckon children were an after thought?
    Again with the children…
    reprise wrote: »
    I can condense. I am of the belief that marriage, by design, was simply not intended for same sex couples as it was focused and based on biological parentage and children within a defined set of parameters.

    If you wish to change those parameters, you must be prepared to defend your reasons. Trying to make out that changing the parameters can redefine marriage and alter the original intent is simply disingenuous. Hence my question asking about the marriage of brothers.

    And again…
    reprise wrote: »
    That's a misrepresentation. I believe that society and the state encourage marriage as the best possible environment for the children first and the parents, second.

    It doesn't always work out that way but the aspiration is sincere.
    And again…
    reprise wrote: »
    Because the biological children of marriage are a significant consideration of the raison d'etre of marriage.

    And again…


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement