a postere wrote: » A false claim is a false claim, why are posters supposed to endorse false claims ?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » it is clear that your only purpose here is to pick a fight and derail the thread.
floggg wrote: » Reminds me reprise in a lot of ways...
ohnonotgmail wrote: » reincarnation?
seamus wrote: » Having run out of any kind of rational way to argue that the referendum should be scrapped because it's too liberal, it appears that this poster has decided to attack from the opposite side - apparently this referendum should be defeated because it's not quite liberal enough, and fails to account for those poor individuals who'd like to marry their brothers' sons' wives, and of course the thousands of autophiles out there being oppressed because they can't marry their cars. It's something new at least.
WoolyJumper wrote: » 10 seconds in and i had to stop watching. There is just something about him that really grates me (more than just his opinions). That may make me unreasonable. Though I can guarantee he has not said anything I've not heard before and that has not been argued to death already. I can't wait for this referendum to be over...just so I don't have to listen to peoples "informed" and "reasonable" opinions on my life any more.
a postere wrote: » It doesn't extend it all "all people regardless of their sex" - that's another false claim, it extends it to certain homosexual couples only.
And what about your other false claim that the vote is actually about giving "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State" - it clearly isn't.
a postere wrote: » That's called straw manning. Can certain yes campaigners do anything straight ? What I actually said was claiming and falsely campaigning, as one poster has, that the vote is actually for extending civil marriage rights to "all peoples regardless of their sex", and that the vote is actually about giving "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State" are both false claims.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » again, you have failed to add anything to the discussion.
dont bother wrote: » OK, so what... he got the wording slightly wrong. you know what he meant. you are a no campaigner, and you are rubbish at trolling. someone who may or may not have an attitude like yours about this subject, or i suspect any subject, may or may not be a total idiot moronic weirdo who follows the word of a makey uppey fiction book about a zombie who rose from the dead to spread a message of good. i didnt read the whole book, but the way it was going was pretty good story - did that guy Jesus turn out to be gay in the end or what? did he marry his brother? what abuot that absolute lying slut Mary? immaculate conception my ar5e... biological fact - you need to do the dirty to make a baby pop out of your gee.... mary was a slut, jesus could've been gay, all this "fellow man" stuff... interesting. the bible and anyone who is basing their "no" argument on that fiction book, is an absolute retard. no other way about it.
a postere wrote: » Pointing out false claims, including the one above, always adds to the discussion.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » i concur with the intention of the above post, if perhaps not all of the language used.
a postere wrote: » Panitbliss has every right to be on the Irish media coming up to the vote, but for some reason he's been hidden away this last few months. What did he do ?
dont bother wrote: » i couldnt. i held back for days!!!!! :mad::mad:
dont bother wrote: » go fondle your rosary beads!
a postere wrote: » Seeing as you bringing religion into it . . I take it from that remark you don't want really want anyone with rosary beads to vote yes ?
a postere wrote: » So I take it from that remark you don't want really want anyone with rosary beads to vote yes.
humanji wrote: » MOD: Cut that childish rubbish out.And you, stop posting in any referendum threads in After Hours. You're trolling like crazy and it's just ridiculous at this stage. Behave yourself in other threads, or find yourself a new forum to re-reg in.
kunst nugget wrote: Is it just two re-regs fighting with each other at this stage?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Do you understand the meaning of "marriage equality"? There are legal restrictions on who is entitled to enter into to marriage that apply to all citizens regardless of their sex. The same basic criteria apply to everyone regardless of their sex, and then there is the one criteria that is discriminatory - The parties entering into the marriage must be of the opposite sex. This referendum is about taking that criteria away so that two people regardless of their sex, may enter into marriage. It is, because it gives every citizen the opportunity to enter into marriage as long as they meet the other criteria such as age, mental capacity, no blood relationship and so on. Currently, the way it's written in legislation, the law discriminates against people purely on the basis of their sex, and denies them the equal protection of the state provided by the institution of marriage. I'm really not sure how much clearer I can make that and have to assume that any further picking from you at this point is merely an attempt to be willfully obtuse. I won't be wasting any more time trying to explain to someone who doesn't want to understand, when I could have spent that same amount of time encouraging ten other people to come out and vote in favour of marriage equality on the day of the Referendum. If I hear one more word about bloody water charges and sticking one to Enda... Some people just love to wind people up :rolleyes:
Flem31 wrote: » You listed the various criteria required for marriage as it currently stands .....sex, mental capacity, blood relationship and age. But only one is deemed as discriminatory. Not trying to derail the thread, just trying to understand how one criteria is deemed to be anti equality but the others are ok.
