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

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

1…157158160162163…218

Comments

  • #4772
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm not asking for any motive, nor asking you to guess it.

    I'm asking you what/who you believe that those who promote a Yes vote are discriminating against?

    You think that those voting YES are discriminating against something.
    You're entirely free to think that.

    Those voting YES are discriminating in favour of something, just as those who are voting NO are discriminating in favour of something else.

    We all discriminate.


  • #4773
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,055 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    hinault wrote: »
    YES.
    You're discriminating in favour of something.

    Discrimination in favour of something.
    Discrimination in favour of something else.

    you realise that's not what people have been discussing when saying something such as "you're discriminating against same-sex couples".

    They weren't bemoaning someone voting against marriage equality. The problem was that by voting no people are voting to discriminate against same-sex couples by not allowing them to avail of civil marriage.

    neither same-sex couples or male+female couples will be barred from civil marriage should a yes be the result of the referendum.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #4774
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    SW wrote: »
    The problem was that by voting no people are voting to discriminate against same-sex couples by not allowing them to avail of civil marriage.

    Clearly you refuse to accept that those voting NO may well be voting NO to discriminate in favour of what is marriage currently.

    We all discriminate


  • #4775
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    steamengine wrote: »
    An example of what that might mean is, as mentioned on the after hours thread and in the media, that the the word guardians will replace parents on birth certs, in the event of a successful YES vote. I say might because that would want to be firmed up on.

    I as a natural parent would not be happy with that, and I could call that discrimination. The difference between me and my opponents is I wouldn't hold them responsible. That would be democracy working, and we're lucky to have such a system.

    The more uncertain thing is how the law of unintended circumstances might kick in and how, and these things can not be readily spotted either.

    Steam, please tell me where you got this information.


  • #4776
    ciaraljsmith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8 ✭ciaraljsmith


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Grand - Let's kick it off so.

    Marriage is not solely a religious institution, and as such - nobody has the right to dictate whether two consenting adults of the same sex can marry or not. Religious institutions have no right to interfere with legislation on same-sex marriage.

    Same-sex marriage is ultimately no different than 'traditional marriage' in any practical sense.

    Homosexuality is perfectly natural, and poses no dangers to society.

    fair play agree 100%


  • Advertisement
  • #4777
    Perla Little Slipknot
    Posts: 24,816 ✭✭✭✭ Perla Little Slipknot


    hinault wrote: »
    You think that those voting YES are discriminating against something.
    You're entirely free to think that.
    I don't. However you made this statement
    hinault wrote: »
    Those voting YES are discriminating in favour of something, just as those who are voting NO are discriminating in favour of something else.
    So I've asked this question
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm asking you what/who you believe that those who promote a Yes vote are discriminating against?
    in order to find out what it is you think that a Yes vote discriminates against.

    Are you able to answer it please?


  • #4778
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,055 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    hinault wrote: »
    Clearly you refuse to accept that those voting NO may well be voting NO to discriminate in favour of what is marriage currently.

    We all discriminate

    Incorrect.

    I accept that people will make a discrimination (i.e. a choice) when voting as a person can only vote Yes, No or abstain/spoil.

    However, nobody has been discussing that. Rather it as been how a resulting no vote would discriminate (i.e. bar) against same-sex couples by not allowing them to marry.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #4779
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm asking you what/who you believe that those who promote a Yes vote are discriminating against?
    hinault wrote: »
    You think that those voting YES are discriminating against something.
    You're entirely free to think that.

    Those voting YES are discriminating in favour of something, just as those who are voting NO are discriminating in favour of something else.

    We all discriminate.






    Deleted User wrote: »
    I don't. However you made this statement

    I did make that statement.

    You think that those voting YES are discriminating in favour of something.
    I'm glad that we finally agree so.


  • #4780
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Steam, please tell me where you got this information.

    I'll try to search, but I'm pressed for time. And it's over in After Hours - The Poll thread about SSM's. Apparently in the Guardian. BTW that's why I said might.


  • #4781
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    hinault wrote: »
    I did make that statement.

    You think that those voting YES are discriminating in favour of something.
    I'm glad that we finally agree so.

    What is "something"?


  • Advertisement
  • #4782
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    steamengine wrote: »
    I'll try to search, but I'm pressed for time. And it's over in After Hours - The Poll thread about SSM's. Apparently in the Guardian. BTW that's why I said might.

    Cheers, found it. It is speculation and I would say nonsense.


  • #4783
    Perla Little Slipknot
    Posts: 24,816 ✭✭✭✭ Perla Little Slipknot


    hinault wrote: »
    I did make that statement.
    yes you did.
    hinault wrote: »
    You think that those voting YES are discriminating in favour of something.
    Not sure you could infer that from where I say the exact opposite of it :confused:, but in any case, what is the something above?
    hinault wrote: »
    I'm glad that we finally agree so.
    It's quite difficult to agree with you on things when I don't even know what we're talking about! What is the something?


  • #4784
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Cheers, found it. It is speculation and I would say nonsense.

    Can you link, please ? or give the post number on afterhours ?


  • #4785
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    steamengine wrote: »
    Can you link, please ? or give the post number on afterhours ?

    It is at the top of this page.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95175794#post95175794


  • #4786
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    .

    Because one discriminates in favour of something, this doesn't automatically mean that the same person is discriminating against something else.

    .

    Actually it does, if your choice results in a negative outcome for someone else.


  • #4787
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What is the something?

    The something is the choice made.

    A simple example.

    Presented with a choice, a person is asked to make a one choice between A and B.
    The person can choose A.
    The person can choose B
    The person can also decide that they can't make a choice.

    The something is A, or B, or C, depending on the choice made.


  • #4788
    Perla Little Slipknot
    Posts: 24,816 ✭✭✭✭ Perla Little Slipknot


    hinault wrote: »
    The something is the choice made.

    A simple example.

    Presented with a choice, a person is asked to make a one choice between A and B.
    The person can choose A.
    The person can choose B
    The person can also decide that they can't make a choice.

    The something is A, or B, or C, depending on the choice made.

    And in the context of the referendum, what is the something that people are discriminating against? Status quo?


  • #4789
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    I'm not in the business of trying to second guess the motive as to why someone would vote to discriminate in favour of something.
    But what would you be voting in favour of if you vote to deny gay people the right to marry? There is no positive there.


  • #4790
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    katydid wrote: »
    Actually it does, if your choice results in a negative outcome for someone else.

    Or if the choice to maintain the status quo is viewed by others as a positive outcome for the greater good.

    They choose to discriminate in favour of the status quo.


  • #4791
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    steamengine wrote: »
    I'll try to search, but I'm pressed for time. And it's over in After Hours - The Poll thread about SSM's. Apparently in the Guardian. BTW that's why I said might.

    It was a vague someone heard it suggested on the radio comment. You know that. Stop being disingenuous.

    It's amazing the sheer misinformation and scaremongering the No side are resorting to... I am genuinely puzzled as to why people feel the need to do this, especially people who are claiming to be moral guardians and deeply religious. It's lying - not politics - lies.

    I do not expect everyone to be in favour and thats ok but if all you have are lies and twisted rumours then seriously you have an ethical problem.


  • Advertisement
  • #4792
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Deleted User wrote: »
    And in the context of the referendum, what is the something that people are discriminating against? Status quo?

    Discriminating in favour of the status quo


  • #4793
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    steamengine wrote: »
    An example of what that might mean is, as mentioned on the after hours thread and in the media, that the the word guardians will replace parents on birth certs, in the event of a successful YES vote. I say might because that would want to be firmed up on.

    I as a natural parent would not be happy with that, and I could call that discrimination. The difference between me and my opponents is I wouldn't hold them responsible. That would be democracy working, and we're lucky to have such a system.

    The more uncertain thing is how the law of unintended circumstances might kick in and how, and these things can not be readily spotted either.
    What media? Who "mentioned" it?

    Since the issue of children and adoption and all that is already dealt with, and has nothing whatsoever to do with this referendum, whoever mentioned it is either being mischievous or is not even attempting to think for themselves. You might as well say that this referendum might result in the country switching over to driving on the right - it is as irrelevant.


  • #4794
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    katydid wrote: »
    But what would you be voting in favour of if you vote to deny gay people the right to marry? There is no positive there.

    Voting in favour of something doesn't mean that one is vote against something else.


  • #4795
    Perla Little Slipknot
    Posts: 24,816 ✭✭✭✭ Perla Little Slipknot


    hinault wrote: »
    Discriminating in favour of the status quo
    Voting Yes is discriminating in favour of the status quo? I think you've mistaken the question. Typo?

    Also, I did ask you what they were discriminating against, and not what you've answered...
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And in the context of the referendum, what is the something that people* are discriminating against? Status quo?
    * who vote YES
    Subtlety and semantics can be beautiful.


  • #4796
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    You're using discrimination in a different sense to others on here, as has already been pointed out to you.

    That's why language is important.

    One can discriminate in favour of...........
    One can discriminate against..............

    When people accuse others of discrimination, it appears that they may not be aware that one can discriminate in favour of something.


  • #4797
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Voting Yes is discriminating in favour of the status quo? I think you've mistaken the question. Typo?.

    No.

    Voting YES is discriminating in favour of something.
    Voting NO is discriminating in favour of something else.


  • #4798
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Constitution expert has a look at the No side's claims and concludes they are talking rubbish.
    In summary, the claims made on Sunday’s Marian Finucane Show regarding the legal impact of the referendum result on the area of AHR are not supported by the relevant case law. The outcome of the referendum will have no impact in this area. The Oireachtas will remain free to regulate AHR as it sees fit. Article 41 of the Constitution has played almost no role in the case law to date and is therefore of minimal significance to any future constitutional challenges in this area. Article 40.1 mandates equality in the absence of compelling evidence justifying discrimination, which suggests that social science rather than law may be the real consideration in any theoretical attempt to restrict access by same-sex couples to AHR services.
    http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=503


  • #4799
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,055 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    hinault wrote: »
    Voting in favour of something doesn't mean that one is vote against something else.

    actually it does (presuming you vote Yes or No).

    The referendum wording is as follows: ‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex’

    Voting no is saying that marriage will continue to have a distinction regarding the sex of the two persons. i.e. discriminating against same-sex couples.

    Voting yes will mean that marriage will not discriminate against the persons based on their sex.

    Only one option presented to the voter will result in discrimination based on the wording, a No vote.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #4800
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Cheers, found it. It is speculation and I would say nonsense.

    Yes, on that basis I have to agree. I'll delete my post, thanks.


  • Advertisement
  • #4801
    Perla Little Slipknot
    Posts: 24,816 ✭✭✭✭ Perla Little Slipknot


    hinault wrote: »
    No.

    Voting YES is discriminating in favour of something.
    Voting NO is discriminating in favour of something else.

    You've already posted that, a few times. It's certainly not an answer to my question.

    I've asked you what Voting YES would be discriminating against?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And in the context of the referendum, what is the something that people* are discriminating against? Status quo?
    *who vote YES


Advertisement