Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

sydthebeat · 23-04-2015 12:27PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Would you stop.

Look up birds and bees - You Tube.

birds and bees is interspecies sex... thats outlawed in ireland

Ave Sodalis · 23-04-2015 12:29PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Would you stop.

Look up birds and bees - You Tube.

Thankfully, reproductive understanding and technology has progressed further than just one man plus one woman equals baby though. You don't need to be able to have children to have children.

That would only be relevant if that is what the referendum was about, which it isn't.

ForstalDave · 23-04-2015 12:32PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Would you stop.

Look up birds and bees - You Tube.

What matters more when considering family the sex or the bond they have between them, I know families who would happily sell/kill each other why should they get more consideration than two men/women who love each other more than anything

FixdePitchmark · 23-04-2015 12:34PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

birds and bees is interspecies sex... thats outlawed in ireland

No - I've done a good bit of reading on this (sadly on-line)

Are we honestly saying now

A man and a women who get together to have children in a union is the same
As
A man and a man.

And if you don't agree with that - you are archaic, of the right, homophobic a bigot.

Crazy stuff.

In my opinion, they picked the wrong group to attack.

The movement would have been far better off outside "The Family".

Get popper equality - in a civil partnership. Progress from there.

But anyway - my opinion is irrelevant , as a bit out there and on wrong side of victory.

Ave Sodalis · 23-04-2015 12:37PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

No - I've done a good bit of reading on this (sadly on-line)

Are we honestly saying now

A man and a women who get together to have children in an union is the same
As
A man and a man.

And if you don't agree with that - you are archaic, of the right, homophobic a bigot.

Crazy stuff.

In my opinion, they picked the wrong group to attack.

The movement would have been far better of outside "The Family".

Get popper equality - in a civil partnership. Progress from there.

But anyway - my opinion is irrelevant , as a bit out there and on wrong side of victory.

How about a man and a man who come together and adopt? Or and man and a woman who don't have kids?

Again, nobody, I repeat nobody, has called you a homophobe and I'm struggling to understand why you keep bringing it up.

MrWalsh · 23-04-2015 12:39PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Are we honestly saying now

A man and a women who get together to have children in a union is the same
As
A man and a man.

No one said they were the same, they should be equal in terms of rights and recognitions under law.

Why shouldnt they be?

sheesh · 23-04-2015 12:40PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

Be a true independent thinker. Think of the implications for society and think about the roots of the yes campaign and what it actually has to do with our society. Don't base your decision on emotional but on a rational and deep understanding of the issue.

What do you think the implications for society will be?

I cannot see what harm it will do to allow same sex couples to get married.
They already have civil partnership.

seamus · 23-04-2015 12:43PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Are we honestly saying now

A man and a women who get together to have children in a union is the same
As
A man and a man.

And if you don't agree with that - you are archaic, of the right, homophobic a bigot.

There you are now. Misrepresenting the issue again.

Why do you keep bringing up children when you've already acknowledged this referendum doesn't affect them?

sydthebeat · 23-04-2015 12:45PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

A man and a women who get together to have children in a union is the same
As
A man and a man.

why not?

what business do you and i have in denying two men / women in a loving childless marriage from having children?

what business do you and i have in denying a man and a woman in a loving childless marriage from having children? oh wait, we dont.

please see the discrimination inherent in the above sentences.

MrWalsh · 23-04-2015 12:46PM

Ill possibly be banned for saying this but I am really horrified at how many homophobes are popping up and given a voice on boards.ie and other places on the internet recently. It wouldnt be acceptable if it was racism.

CramCycle · 23-04-2015 01:31PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Ill possibly be banned for saying this but I am really horrified at how many homophobes are popping up and given a voice on boards.ie and other places on the internet recently. It wouldnt be acceptable if it was racism.

Off topic: It's not acceptable on boards.ie either, if a post is homophobic, you use the report post button for it to be reviewed. It is often the case that mods will not have time to view or read every post in one forum, hence why the button is there.

23-04-2015 01:31PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

They are taking the concept of equality which is of great importance to everyone and like a beer commercial are attaching it to the positive emotions and importance people feel about equality.

Similar to how the No Campaign is making it about adoption and children - which it has little to nothing to do with - and attaching the No-Vote emotionally to the positive emotions and importance people feel about children? You say "If you don't do what they say you are against equality and so, a bad person." but they are making it "If you don't do what they say you are against children and so, a bad person."

BOTH sides are playing games. Both sides play games in EVERY political issue.

YOUR game however appears to be to move from forum to forum on boards.ie pointing out this in the side you disagree with - and entirely ignoring it in your own. You have joined boards.ie with no agenda other than to demonise the Yes Campaign as being manipulative - but you succeed only in being manipulative yourself.

AlphaRed wrote: »

Be a true independent thinker. Think of the implications for society and think about the roots of the yes campaign and what it actually has to do with our society. Don't base your decision on emotional but on a rational and deep understanding of the issue.

Then by all means lay out the implications as you see them. All ears.

OldNotWIse · 23-04-2015 01:34PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

Lets remember without distortion what we are really voting about. The Yes Campaign has hijacked the referendum by relabeling it "Marriage equality". They are taking the concept of equality which is of great importance to everyone and like a beer commercial are attaching it to the positive emotions and importance people feel about equality.

If you don't do what they say you are against equality and so, a bad person. This is sheer propaganda. We have seen in history how propaganda has been used to manipulate the masses.

Please take the time to fully analyse what that sentence means "marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex". There is no mention of equality in that sentence. That concept has been added by the yes campaign. They are asking you to make a logical leap, because there is no real connection with equality.

Be a true independent thinker. Think of the implications for society and think about the roots of the yes campaign and what it actually has to do with our society. Don't base your decision on emotional but on a rational and deep understanding of the issue.

The No campaign has hijacked the referendum by pretending that it's all about children.

johnnyskeleton · 23-04-2015 02:17PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Ill possibly be banned for saying this but I am really horrified at how many homophobes are popping up and given a voice on boards.ie and other places on the internet recently. It wouldnt be acceptable if it was racism.

Banned? Well, maybe politely told not to question moderation on thread, but not banned.

However, there is a difference between homophobia and being aginst the referendum, and I think most people on this thread accept that (in the same way that there is a difference between being anti-immigration and being racist).

If you feel a post is being genuinely homophobic, please report it rather than bring it up on thread.

johnnyskeleton · 23-04-2015 02:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

YOUR game however appears to be to move from forum to forum on boards.ie pointing out this in the side you disagree with - and entirely ignoring it in your own. You have joined boards.ie with no agenda other than to demonise the Yes Campaign as being manipulative - but you succeed only in being manipulative yourself.

MOD: Stead now, attack the post not the poster.

Magico Gonzalez · 23-04-2015 02:36PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

In my opinion, they picked the wrong group to attack.

The movement would have been far better off outside "The Family".

Get popper equality - in a civil partnership. Progress from there.

.

Equal treatment for all poppers?

I can't go with that, horrible stuff the aul poppers. Terrible buzz.

MrWalsh · 23-04-2015 02:37PM

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Equal treatment for all poppers?

I can't go with that, horrible stuff the aul poppers. Terrible buzz.

I think we should all be equally entitled to take poppers!

FixdePitchmark · 23-04-2015 03:05PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Ill possibly be banned for saying this but I am really horrified at how many homophobes are popping up and given a voice on boards.ie and other places on the internet recently. It wouldnt be acceptable if it was racism.

:rolleyes:

QED.

Keep it up - I think every time that card is pulled - 0.01% shifts to No.

MrWalsh · 23-04-2015 03:05PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

:rolleyes:

QED.

Keep it up - I think every time that card is pulled - 0.01% shifts to No.

Homophobes are already voting No.

FixdePitchmark · 23-04-2015 03:06PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Homophobes are already voting No.

0.02 %

MrWalsh · 23-04-2015 03:12PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

0.02 %

This is fun!

Homophobes and bigots are voting no.

FixdePitchmark · 23-04-2015 03:16PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

This is fun!

Homophobes and bigots are voting no.

So get that on a poster.

Seems to be the only clear message from the No side so far.

MrWalsh · 23-04-2015 03:19PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

So get that on a poster.

Seems to be the only clear message from the No side so far.

It certainly is the right message!

No more percentage counting upwards? No fun!

Hyzepher · 23-04-2015 03:29PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I accept that couples that stay together as a family deserve special recognition - as is the case in the constitution. As is the case in law , housing and tax and most western 1st world countries. I think this should be reaffirmed and encouraged more.

I'm not denying support and protections for all others.

But - you can't claim a right and equality - that is invalid.

Clearly - I'm out there on the right wing on this.

But - this whole thing to me - feels like the entitlement generation.

It is gone a bit too far - when you wake up one day and are told a man and a man together is the same as a traditional family.

Not that they want a union - not that they want a civil union - No they want a marriage and to be A Family - because they love love love love each other.

A bit too x-factor for me - I'm out.

I assume you are not homosexual.

Therefore you are either married or have the ability to get married in the future. A marriage in your eyes that, with children, forms a Family and protects the children due to them having a mum & dad combination.

If your next door neighbor isn't married but has kids, it doesn't affect your ability to have the Family you want.
If your next door neighbor is married but cannot have kids, this also doesn't affect you having the Family you want.
If there is a cohabiting gay couple living next door to you, again no impact on your Family.
If the gay couple next door adopt a child - no effect on you.
If your next door neighbor is a single mum - your idea of a Family is not affected.
Married couple next door have only adopted kids - again your Family definition is unaffected.
If the unmarried heterosexual couple next door have no kids - again your ideal Family not affected

Along with your idea of a Family - all the above family scenarios are happening in Ireland with or without the referendum. Your life isn't being affected.

The day after the referendum is passed all the above will still be true but gay couples will be allowed to marry.

You will still be in your house unaffected by anything.

The kids in the gay relationship will encounter no difference to their daily lives. Neither will any of the children in any of the other relationships.

Legally the gay couple will be much better off.

bopper · 23-04-2015 03:33PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

:rolleyes:

QED.

Keep it up - I think every time that card is pulled - 0.01% shifts to No.

Yet you've been just as bad for pulling a similar card. To suggest that every yes voter labels you as a homophobe is just as bad as suggesting that every no voter is one.

CelticRambler · 23-04-2015 03:56PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Basically, what you're saying is that there is no connection between love and marriage; the two are completely orthogonal concepts with no relationship between them.

As "no" side arguments go, that's got to take some sort of award.

Seeing as I don't have a vote (in Ireland) I'm not in a position to argue "yes" or "no", but basically yes - there is no connection in law between love and marriage. Marriage is about working together not being in love.

IF the concept of love is brought into the civil contract that we currently call "marriage" then you've got to open the door to all kinds of other unions where "love" can be described - brother and sister, life-long friends, threesomes, single parent & only child, etc.

Two people pledging to live their lives together is a civil partnership, and the mechanism for formalising that is already in place. Are they a family? I would say no, the same as in France, a single parent with one child is not a family (even with two parents, having a single child doesn't entitle you to any "family allowance")

This referendum is pointless because it's trying to adapt the constitution to the lowest common denominator amongst the wide variety of behaviours exhibited by the populace, instead of projecting an ideal that uniquely defines the country. All that will achieve is to leave space for the growth of a movement that does define itself with ideals. In France, it's called Islam ...

desertcircus · 23-04-2015 04:03PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

Seeing as I don't have a vote (in Ireland) I'm not in a position to argue "yes" or "no", but basically yes - there is no connection in law between love and marriage. Marriage is about working together not being in love.

IF the concept of love is brought into the civil contract that we currently call "marriage" then you've got to open the door to all kinds of other unions where "love" can be described - brother and sister, life-long friends, threesomes, single parent & only child, etc.

Two people pledging to live their lives together is a civil partnership, and the mechanism for formalising that is already in place. Are they a family? I would say no, the same as in France, a single parent with one child is not a family (even with two parents, having a single child doesn't entitle you to any "family allowance")

This referendum is pointless because it's trying to adapt the constitution to the lowest common denominator amongst the wide variety of behaviours exhibited by the populace, instead of projecting an ideal that uniquely defines the country. All that will achieve is to leave space for the growth of a movement that does define itself with ideals. In France, it's called Islam ...

That's a remarkably contorted opposition. Would it not be simpler and more appropriate, if we accept your logic, to just abolish marriage? After all, you haven't explained any actual reason why heterosexual but not homosexual couples should be allowed to marry.

By the way: "love" is a perfectly normal component of marriage, and remains the same between a gay couple as between a straight couple.

FixdePitchmark · 23-04-2015 05:15PM

Equally, nobody has given a good enough reason why a gay couple need to marry. Not to mention it is flawed.

As was said earlier - If they couldn't marry it would have no impact on the world or their world. They would continue as they are.

If a gay couple was to get full rights inside a civil partnership - would they be happy ? I feel the answer is no - this is an aggressive action of flawed imposition.

The constitution is set up to be protective of the traditional family unit. The traditional family unit - is within the best interest of the state. All other variants of this can be supported , but requires state support , adoptive services, additional child care support. The family unit is in a far superior position to support children. And to create children.

The traditional family unit provides an important role in the state. It deserves recognition. It is totally incompatible with two people getting together with no natural way to reproduce.

Whilst homosexual couples feel their relationship is undervalued - this referendum is an attack on the family unit.

It is not about equality - It is about trying to redefine family.

As it is about redefining family and marriage - we are not being sold what it says on the tin.

ForstalDave · 23-04-2015 05:17PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Equally, nobody has given a good enough reason why a gay couple need to marry. Not to mention it is flawed.

As was said earlier - If they couldn't marry it would have no impact on the world or their world. They would continue as they are.

If a gay couple was to get full rights inside a civil partnership - would they be happy ? I feel the answer is no - this is an aggressive action of flawed imposition.

The constitution is set up to be protective the traditional family unit. The traditional family unit - is within the best interest of the state. All other variants of this can be supported , but requires state support , adoptive services, child care support. The family unit is in a far superior position to support children. And to create children.

The traditional family unit provides an important role in the state. It deserves recognition. It is totally incompatible with two people getting together with no natural way to reproduce.

Whilst homosexual couples feel their relationship is undervalued - this referendum is an attack on the family unit.

It is not about equality - It is about trying to redefine family.

As it is about redefining family and marriage - we are not being sold what it says on the tin.

The reverse is why should they not its make no difference to you or anyone else bar them what reason is there to not allow them to marry?

desertcircus · 23-04-2015 05:19PM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Equally, nobody has given a good enough reason why a gay couple need to marry. Not to mention it is flawed.

As was said earlier - If they couldn't marry it would have no impact on the world or their world. They would continue as they are.

If a gay couple was to get full rights inside a civil partnership - would they be happy ? I feel the answer is no - this is an aggressive action of flawed imposition.

The constitution is set up to be protective of the traditional family unit. The traditional family unit - is within the best interest of the state. All other variants of this can be supported , but requires state support , adoptive services, additional child care support. The family unit is in a far superior position to support children. And to create children.

The traditional family unit provides an important role in the state. It deserves recognition. It is totally incompatible with two people getting together with no natural way to reproduce.

Whilst homosexual couples feel their relationship is undervalued - this referendum is an attack on the family unit.

It is not about equality - It is about trying to redefine family.

As it is about redefining family and marriage - we are not being sold what it says on the tin.

Do you ever get bored of repeating arguments that have already been taken down?

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

Comments