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…122123125127128…325

Comments

  • #3722
    c montgomery
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭c montgomery


    Goodbye to all, no offence meant to anyone

    I don't want to antagonise or upset anyone and in a debate which is so close to people's hearts the last thing you need is someone who doesn't really care

    Nite nite


  • #3723
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    lavdad wrote: »
    Why shouldn't a man and a child be able to engage in sex acts or get married if both parties are consenting? Shouldn't it be nobody else's business? The logic to the yes argument leads to the conclusion that these questions are as valid as the "why shouldn't two members of the same gender be allowed marry?" proposition to which there is supposedly no reasonable objection.

    This made me laugh. Yeah lets legalise paedophilia, pretty much the same as gay marriage! A child cannot give consent, as they aren't adults, and not legally old enough to engage in sexual activities. Now just stop, you're embarrassing yourself. I suppose next you'll use the 'why can't I marry a duck or a car then!??? 'argument

    Also a child is under the care of a guardian or parent, so what they do is in fact the business of somebody else. Unlike a consenting adult.


  • #3724
    lavdad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 79 ✭✭lavdad


    sup_dude wrote: »
    How about you just go read the thread? Because if you're gonna start all this bullcrap, there's pages of people trying the same thing. You'd be best going to read those instead, instead of wasting time going over it again.

    If what I said was outrageously wrong you should be able to give a concise reason as to why.


  • #3725
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    c montgomery wrote: »
    Goodbye to all, no offence meant to anyone

    I don't want to antagonist or upset anyone and in a debate which is so close to people's hearts the last thing you need is someone who doesn't really care

    Nite nite

    Wait, lets get this straight. You come into the thread you've no real interest in, give an off the wall statement, call people a few names, and then say you didn't want to upset anyone?


  • #3726
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    lavdad wrote: »
    If what I said was outrageously wrong you should be able to give a concise reason as to why.

    Like I said, there's already pages of it in this very thread. Go read those instead of me repeating myself. Although, if you couldn't be bothered reading that one post properly, I doubt you're gonna read a) any of the previous posts or b) any subsequent posts.


  • Advertisement
  • #3727
    c montgomery
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭c montgomery


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Wait, lets get this straight. You come into the thread you've no real interest in, give an off the wall statement, call people a few names, and then say you didn't want to upset anyone?

    Called someone an idiot when they compared me to a rapist sympathiser, fair enough I'm sure you'll agree


  • #3728
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    c montgomery wrote: »
    Called someone an idiot when they compared me to a rapist sympathiser, fair enough I'm sure you'll agree

    Again, like I said before, he wasn't comparing you to a rapiest sympathiser, he was comparing the principle...


  • #3729
    lavdad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 79 ✭✭lavdad


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    This made me laugh. Yeah lets legalise paedophilia, pretty much the same as gay marriage! A child cannot give consent, as they aren't adults

    Why shouldn't a child be allowed to consent?
    and not legally old enough to engage in sexual activities.

    A gay person is not the right sex to get married currently, is that a good argument against gay marriage? This is the logic you are using.


  • #3730
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    lavdad wrote: »
    Why shouldn't a man and a child be able to engage in sex acts or get married if both parties are consenting? Shouldn't it be nobody else's business? The logic to the yes argument leads to the conclusion that these questions are as valid as the "why shouldn't two members of the same gender be allowed marry?" proposition to which there is supposedly no reasonable objection.

    If you are unable to tell the difference between consenting adults having sex and child abuse then I suggest you make it your business to become more educated on the matter as soon as possible!


  • #3731
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    lavdad wrote: »
    Why shouldn't a child be allowed to consent?



    A gay person is not the right sex to get married currently, is that a good argument against gay marriage? This is the logic you are using.

    :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #3732
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    c montgomery wrote: »
    Goodbye to all, no offence meant to anyone

    I don't want to antagonise or upset anyone and in a debate which is so close to people's hearts the last thing you need is someone who doesn't really care

    Nite nite

    lol passive aggressive much? You obviously came here to antagonise or else you wouldn't have said what you said. You also called me an idiot, you didn't even try to disguise your intentions to upset and antagonise that time :)


  • #3733
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    lavdad wrote: »
    Why shouldn't a child be allowed to consent?



    A gay person is not the right sex to get married currently, is that a good argument against gay marriage? This is the logic you are using.

    Why should a 5 year old become president of the universe? Use your head, please.


  • #3734
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Originally Posted by lavdad View Post
    Why shouldn't a man and a child be able to engage in sex acts or get married if both parties are consenting? Shouldn't it be nobody else's business? The logic to the yes argument leads to the conclusion that these questions are as valid as the "why shouldn't two members of the same gender be allowed marry?" proposition to which there is supposedly no reasonable objection.

    classic rreductio ad absurdum argument, you cannot debate these as they are not genuine arguments

    remember "Never argue with idiots. Because First they bring you to their level and then they beat you with their experience."


  • #3735
    lavdad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 79 ✭✭lavdad


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Because they're not fully physically mentally or emotionally developed. Why can't a child drive a car? Sure be grand, they're the same thing as adults.



    OK I'll frame it like this then, why shouldn't a fully grown man legally allowed receive a blow job from a pre-pubescent girl, if both parties are consenting? Since it's objectively true that she would be physically underdeveloped to engage in full sexual intercourse.


  • #3736
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    lavdad wrote: »
    OK I'll frame it like this then, why shouldn't a fully grown man legally allowed receive a blow job from a pre-pubescent girl, if both parties are consenting? Since it's objectively true that she would be physically underdeveloped to engage in full sexual intercourse.

    Your posts are simply infuriating.


  • #3737
    c montgomery
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭c montgomery


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    lol passive aggressive much? You obviously came here to antagonise or else you wouldn't have said what you said. You also called me an idiot, you didn't even try to disguise your intentions to upset and antagonise that time :)

    I honestly didn't, seems your a sensitive lot


  • #3738
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    c montgomery wrote: »
    I honestly didn't, seems your a sensitive lot

    No we are tough bullies apparently...


  • #3739
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Originally Posted by lavdad View Post
    OK I'll frame it like this then, why shouldn't a fully grown man legally allowed receive a blow job from a pre-pubescent girl, if both parties are consenting? Since it's objectively true that she would be physically underdeveloped to engage in full sexual intercourse.

    this is simple trolling and best ignored.


  • #3740
    lavdad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 79 ✭✭lavdad


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    The answer is literally in my post you quoted.

    A child may not be physically developed enough for some forms of intercourse, but is for others. As for "physically mentally or emotionally", what evidence do you have for your assertion? Can you give an objective argument?


  • #3741
    lavdad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 79 ✭✭lavdad


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    Your posts are simply infuriating.

    Why because you are unable to refute them and have to resort to name calling?


  • Advertisement
  • #3742
    c montgomery
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭c montgomery


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    No we are tough bullies apparently...

    Haha, touchè :)


  • #3743
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    lavdad wrote: »
    Why because you are unable to refute them and have to resort to name calling?

    Can you point out the name calling? :)


  • #3744
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    lavdad wrote: »
    A child may not be physically developed enough for some forms of intercourse, but is for others. As for "physically mentally or emotionally", what evidence do you have for your assertion? Can you give an objective argument?

    Because paedophilia is wrong :)


  • #3745
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    lavdad wrote: »
    Why because you are unable to refute them and have to resort to name calling?

    No , the fact that you're equating paedophilia with gay marriage is beyond ridiculous and doesn't even warrant a response, honestly


  • #3746
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,001 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    c montgomery wrote: »
    I was going to vote yes however now I'm voting no, mainly because of the way the yes side seems to portray anyone with an opinion different to their own as homophobic or some sort of neanderthal.

    I couldn't care less if gays got married, but I do care about people being shouted down and bullied because of their opinion.

    The no side were the best weapon of the yes campaign due to their weak argument however the yes side in their treatment of the no side have lost my vote.

    I regret that you are changing your vote from YES to NO because other yes-voters debunk what lavdad said about homosexuals being "un-natural", and writing that homosexuals are not born homosexual. I regret that your vote is so easily changed from giving rights to others to refusing it and that you didn't debate with lavdad on his stated opinions. Lavdad's rights have not been altered by your change of heart, but the same cannot be said of homosexuals.


  • #3747
    lavdad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 79 ✭✭lavdad


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    Because paedophilia is wrong :)

    Why is it wrong and homosexuality isn't? How come nobody can give an answer to my previous question?


  • #3748
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    lavdad wrote: »
    Why is it wrong and homosexuality isn't? How come nobody can give an answer to my previous question?

    Read the thread.


  • #3749
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    lavdad wrote: »
    Why is it wrong and homosexuality isn't? How come nobody can give an answer to my previous question?

    you need to just stop this nonsense. the answer is obvious and your just trying to goad people into a ridiculous argument of moral equivalence


  • #3750
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    lavdad wrote: »
    Why is it wrong and homosexuality isn't? How come nobody can give an answer to my previous question?

    Because one is two consenting adults engaging in sexual activities together and the other involves an adult sexually abusing a minor under the age of consent. Is that clear enough for you?


  • Advertisement
  • #3751
    lavdad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 79 ✭✭lavdad


    BoatMad wrote: »
    you need to just stop this nonsense.

    Listen, if I'm outrageously wrong, then simply give me a valid argument as to why. You can't do that, because it contradicts your other position about how it's completely about what two people want and consent to, and what anybody else thinks is totally irrelevant.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement