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…8283858788…325

Comments

  • #2522
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


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

    Do explain how it is insulting please?


  • #2523
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


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

    You were presented with a colour-coded spreadsheet of differences, but you would not engage with that either.

    Perhaps you would offer just just one reason why SSM should not be recognised in civil law? One reason which is not based on a vague notion of what marriage was originally intended for, or a vague feeling you have that what is should not be changed?


  • #2524
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Zen65 wrote: »
    You were presented with a colour-coded spreadsheet of differences, but you would not engage with that either.

    I thought I was going to go blind with the insane colour scheme. Why is it in excel anyway? Why not put it out in a internet friendly webpage if it is of any real significance.

    The bits I read were off the wall stuff, applicable in all but a handful of cases for currently married people. There again, I didnt read them all, perhaps you could pick out the worst offenders.
    Zen65 wrote: »
    YPerhaps you would offer just just one reason why SSM should not be recognised in civil law? One reason which is not based on a vague notion of what marriage was originally intended for, or a vague feeling you have that what is should not be changed?

    You mean pretend marriage never existed?


  • #2525
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    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.



    The implication is clear here.



    Side stepping the family component? Again the implication re children raised in LGBT families is clear.



    And again…



    What about LGBT families? Why aren't they entitled to equal protection?


    Again with the children…



    And again…


    And again…



    And again…

    Oh, we are talking about the IMPLICATION. In other words, the interpretation you are applying to suit yourself.

    Sure, read whatever you want into that.


  • #2526
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    floggg wrote: »
    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.

    It will all even out by attracting high calibre candidates that don't agree with ssm, hard as it is to believe.


  • Advertisement
  • #2527
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    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.

    It's hyperbole and it is demeaning to people who were enslaved.


  • #2528
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    I thought I was going to go blind with the insane colour scheme. Why is it in excel anyway? Why not put it out in a internet friendly webpage if it is of any real significance.

    The bits I read were off the wall stuff, applicable in all but a handful of cases for currently married people. There again, I didnt read them all, perhaps you could pick out the worst offenders.

    So basically, it's not that there's no difference, it's just that you don't understand the different and/or are too lazy to read them, despite asking for it.
    reprise wrote: »
    Oh, we are talking about the IMPLICATION. In other words, the interpretation you are applying to suit yourself.

    Sure, read whatever you want into that.

    So what you said isn't what you said. Odd, that's not the first time I've said this to you on this thread.


  • #2529
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    It's hyperbole and it is demeaning to people who were enslaved.

    No, it's not taking away from the suffering of those enslaved. It's about principle.


  • #2530
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Zen65 wrote: »
    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?

    I am not being asked to vote on whether I think ssm is "wrong".


  • #2531
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    No, it's not taking away from the suffering of those enslaved. It's about principle.

    It's trivialising their suffering. It's not the lowest card in the deck, but it isn't far off.


  • Advertisement
  • #2532
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,012 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    @reprise: re your reply to floggg at 1729, page 171... I can't duck a right that doesn't exist.

    If the referendum on SSM is given a YES vote majority, would you be happy with that result, given that it would be a right when the President signed it into law and the constitution?

    I'm not asking for a reply to the effect that you would be happy for those who would have access to civil marriage as a result, but whether (as a result of a YES vote, and the subsequent passing-into-law of the adapted referendum after presidential signature) it would be acceptable to you at a personal level vis-a-vie civil marriage no longer being open to heterosexual couples solely.


  • #2533
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I think we managed to make being unable to understand the differences between 2 things into nearly a third of this thread.


  • #2534
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    It's trivialising their suffering. It's not the lowest card in the deck, but it isn't far off.


    Nobody trivialised anything. Nobody said "oh well those slaves only suffered a wee bit. Sure not being able to marry is as bad as slavery".

    It. is. the. principle.


  • #2535
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    aloyisious wrote: »
    @reprise: re your reply to floggg at 1729 last page... I can't duck a right that doesn't exist.

    If the referendum on SSM is given a YES vote majority, would you be happy with that result, given that it would be a right when the President signed it into law and the constitution?

    I'm not asking for a reply to the effect that you would be happy for those who would have access to civil marriage as a result, but whether (as a result of a YES vote, and the subsequent passing-into-law of the adapted referendum after presidential signature) it would be acceptable to you at a personal level vis-a-vie civil marriage no longer being open to heterosexual couples solely.

    Of course. And on a popular vote, even better. And I will accept a negative decision too and expect that to be equally respected. You?


  • #2536
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Nobody trivialised anything. Nobody said "oh well those slaves only suffered a wee bit. Sure not being able to marry is as bad as slavery".

    It. is. the. principle.

    It. Is. Hijacking. Peoples. Suffering. And. It. Is. An. Invalid. Comparison.


  • #2537
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    It. Is. Hijacking. Peoples. Suffering. And. It. Is. An. Invalid. Comparison.

    It is not comparing suffering. It's comparing principle.


  • #2538
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    It is not comparing suffering. It's comparing principle.

    It's a piss poor comparison.


  • #2539
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    It's a piss poor comparison.

    Didn't have right, that changed, do have rights.

    Can you explain how that's a poor comparison?


  • #2540
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Didn't have right, that changed, do have rights.

    Can you explain how that's a poor comparison?

    What rights do you think slaves lost?


  • #2541
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    What rights do you think slaves lost?

    Where did I say slaves lost rights?


  • Advertisement
  • #2542
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    Oh, we are talking about the IMPLICATION. In other words, the interpretation you are applying to suit yourself.

    Sure, read whatever you want into that.

    Reprise, your obfuscation is obvious to everyone on this thread. You cannot reasonably argue that children are best raised in heterosexual couples without necessarily implying that homosexual couples could not raise them to the same standard.

    If you don't believe the above and are willing to explicitly and in clear terms say so then I stand ready to acknowledge my double error and apologise again.


  • #2543
    Lucyfur
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,513 ✭✭✭✭Lucyfur


    MOD

    Get back on topic. No more firing insults, please and thank you. Back on topic or yet another thread gets locked.


  • #2544
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Reprise, your obfuscation is obvious to everyone on this thread. You cannot reasonably argue that children are best raised in heterosexual couples without necessarily implying that homosexual couples could not raise them to the same standard.

    If you don't believe the above and are willing to explicitly and in clear terms say so then I stand ready to acknowledge my double error and apologise again.

    I believe the most desireable environment for children is being raised by their biological parents and encouraging that environment is a key and undeniable component of marraige.


  • #2545
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    I believe the most desireable environment for children is being raised by their biological parents and encouraging that environment is a key and undeniable component of marraige.


    Again evasion..., although it does by inference mean that you believe homosexual parenting is somehow deficient. If you can explain how it doesn't I'm interested.


  • #2546
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Again evasion..., although it does by inference mean that you believe homosexual parenting is somehow deficient. If you can explain how it doesn't I'm interested.

    I am not sure what is so confusing about what I posted. Do you think it is undesireable that children be raised by their biological parents?


  • #2547
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    I am not sure what is so confusing about what I posted. Do you think it is undesireable that children be raised by their biological parents?

    There is nothing remotely confusing to it. Its just that a few posts ago you maintained that you never made any imputations about homosexual parents and families. Then you were confronted with the evidence, in your own words and you still tried to insinuate that you hadn't made any judgement on homosexual parents and families. Am I too take the above evasion as silent admission that in fact you have?


  • #2548
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    There is nothing remotely confusing to it. Its just that a few posts ago you maintained that you never made any imputations about homosexual parents and families. Then you were confronted with the evidence, in your own words and you still tried to insinuate that you hadn't made any judgement on homosexual parents and families. Am I too take the above evasion as silent admission that in fact you have?

    I refer to my previous posts and stand over them.

    Would you like to answer my question now or would you prefer to soapbox your misrepresentations.


  • #2549
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    I refer to my previous posts and stand over them.

    Would you like to answer my question now or would you prefer to soapbox.

    So therefor logically you must concede that you did infer that homosexual couples/families were somehow inferior to heterosexual couple/families in terms of raising children. Thank you for that.

    As to your question. I believe that children should be with the people who love them and are dedicated to their health, safety and upbringing and of course that includes biological parents, adoptive parents, step parents, cohabiting parents. That the 'downstairs components' are the same or different is immaterial to me as I believe it is to the absolute majority of loved children.


  • #2550
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    So therefor logically you must concede that you did infer that homosexual couples/families were somehow inferior to heterosexual couple/families in terms of raising children. Thank you for that.

    What are you thanking me for? Only room on your soapbox for one.
    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    As to your question. I believe that children should be with the people who love them and are dedicated to their health, safety and upbringing and of course that includes biological parents, adoptive parents, step parents, cohabiting parents. That the 'downstairs components' are the same or different is immaterial to me as I believe it is to the absolute majority of loved children.

    So you have no problem with children being taken from biological parents and given to those who feel they can better provide all the things you describe?


  • Advertisement
  • #2551
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    So you have no problem with children being taken from biological parents and given to those who feel they can better provide all the things you describe?

    Point out specifically where I endorsed that position please or admit I didn't.

    To answer it of course not, as I said its love and dedication to the child's upbringing and welfare that matter to me. Unlike yourself I don't cast judgement on peoples capacity to parent based on which gender they fancy.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement