How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

househero · 30-04-2015 07:17PM

K4t wrote: »

Indeed, and amidst strong competition such as..

Haha hahaha I have been searching for reasons for no. I haven't found one yet.

aloyisious · 30-04-2015 07:27PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Latest one now from the anti water crowd is to push a no vote as the referendum failing would bring down the government.

idiots.

There's a bit of counter-balance here from the Anti Austerity Alliance.. Listened to Breda O'Brien the other day debating the issue, she was upset that all the establishment was against the vote NO campaign. This probably upset her no end, even the anti-establishment group are agin her. I did wonder at how the church was (apparently) no longer part of the establishment, or maybe she got that wrong too.

K4t · 30-04-2015 07:27PM

househero wrote: »

Haha hahaha I have been searching for reasons for no. I haven't found one yet.

Here are three reasons to vote No apparently. The bizarre anecdotal evidence of bullying by homosexual posters is a personal favourite..

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

I'll be voting no for 3 reasons.
1. I seen on another thread on this site how the homosexual posters ganged up on another poster, the end result being that she closed her account.
A cohort of people who demand to be treated equally and want tolerance seem to want to force their views on others by shouting the loudest and intimidating people.

2. I will not vote for anything this government proposes, Enda's due another wallop...

and

3. I believe that the ideal family unit is a married hetrosexual couple and their children.

aloyisious · 30-04-2015 07:35PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I've seen tons of people (not rain) tearing down No-Vote posters all around Dublin. Why aren't people outraged about that?

Maybe the lack of outraged response explains why, unless they are afraid of........ no, that can't be the reason, can it? :eek:

jobbridge4life · 30-04-2015 07:41PM

househero wrote: »

State laws are baseless if they are superseded by EU law. A country is free to implement laws contravening EU law, as long as it was introduced before the EU law. BUT if a case is brought against the state level law citing EU law as a reference, the EU law is upheld over the state level and eventually the state is forced by the EU to ammend its law to fall in line with the EU. Its usually given some time to do this. The case would be held as a reference by judges while the law is changed.

Similarly a business is free to write in to a contract it is allowed to treat you different the basis of your colour. But EU law prevents this from actually being enforced. A more extreme contract may even say you give a business the right to kill you, but once again the contract would be null and void as it is illegal to take a life.

Roll your eyes as much as you like. I guess ignorance of your rights must be bliss. Maybe you should stop reading newspapers books are still available in your local library for free and full of increasingly forgotten information

Honestly the aggression your displaying towards me is truly befuddling. Are you like a second year law student taking your first bites of EU law and full of righteous indignation?

It is quite clear, Section 37 is the law notwithstanding the EU. In 2008, the European Commission introduced an infringement proceeding against Ireland on the grounds that Section 37 violate the EU’s Employment Equality Directive. The then Government defended Section 37 and the infringement proceeding was withdrawn. Then countenance Rommelfanger Vs the Federal Republic of Germany and Fernandez Martinez Vs Spain.

Section 37 is repellent but make no mistake it is the law of the land.

MrWalsh · 30-04-2015 07:41PM

aloyisious wrote: »

There's a bit of counter-balance here from the Anti Austerity Alliance.. Listened to Breda O'Brien the other day debating the issue, she was upset that all the establishment was against the vote NO campaign. This probably upset her no end, even the anti-establishment group are agin her. I did wonder at how the church was (apparently) no longer part of the establishment, or maybe she got that wrong too.

Although I like the AAA poster (and catchy acronym), it bothers me that the arm attached to the painted hand is covered in goosebumps, like, really visible goosebumps! Could they not have used a warm person?

TheChizler · 30-04-2015 07:42PM

househero wrote: »

Thanks for that. What else can you find on the internet to show me?

This is part of my job. If you know better than me because you just found google, good for you.

As I said. If you press the matter, EU law actually supersedes the ASAI regulations and they full well know this. ASAI rules arw voluntarily adhered to by respectable companies. They don't really have any power apart from shame, until recently you could even use them for a good bit of free coverage.

I'm thoroughly confused. I said that a tactic used by the no side was dishonest and you referred me to the ASAI. My understanding is that it's a self regulating authority set up by advertisers; I didn't mention a specific ad or publication so I looked up their remit. I don't know how their scope applies to a general tactic used by your average no campaigner so I quoted part of their code assuming you had made a mistake.

Anyway I don't think this is relevant here.

Grayditch · 30-04-2015 08:01PM

What?

aloyisious · 30-04-2015 08:02PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because there's a referendum coming up on redefining marriage, I think I saw a poster about it somewhere.

Yes you probably did see a "vote NO" campaign poster with that on it as it's message. It's the way the word re-defining is being used to describe by the "vote NO" campaign that's at the base of their Ad. The referendum is not about re-defining marriage, it's about extending the constitutional remit of it to homosexual couples from it's existing exclusivity to heterosexual couples. Civil and religious marriages will keep on being performed at both civil and religious levels regardless of the result of the referendum vote.

pl4ichjgy17zwd · 30-04-2015 08:04PM

madmann wrote: »

This referendum has nothing to do with equality every person in this country is entitled to get married. Im entitled to marry a woman but not a man the same as every other person in this country so that means we're all equal so lose the equality argument. If this referendum passes the gay community will have more rights than the straight community they will have civil partnership as well as marriage . Don't change our constitution for a minority .

Civil partnerships won't be performed any longer if it passes.

Penny Tration · 30-04-2015 08:05PM

madmann wrote: »

This referendum has nothing to do with equality every person in this country is entitled to get married. Im entitled to marry a woman but not a man the same as every other person in this country so that means we're all equal so lose the equality argument. If this referendum passes the gay community will have more rights than the straight community they will have civil partnership as well as marriage . Don't change our constitution for a minority .

Lies.

Straight people are currently entitled to marry any adult they like, because they like adults of the opposite sex.

Gay people are not free to marry who they like, because they like the same sex.

Cmon, this is basic.

Bannasidhe · 30-04-2015 08:05PM

madmann wrote: »

This referendum has nothing to do with equality every person in this country is entitled to get married. Im entitled to marry a woman but not a man the same as every other person in this country so that means we're all equal so lose the equality argument. If this referendum passes the gay community will have more rights than the straight community they will have civil partnership as well as marriage . Don't change our constitution for a minority .

Welcome newbie.

All our bullies are busy right now but if you take a ticket a Yes supporter will be along shortly to make a snarky comment. May we suggest you take the time to peruse the thread to see if your inquiry has previously been addressed.

Please accept our insincere apologies for any inconvenience caused.

bb1234567 · 30-04-2015 08:13PM

madmann wrote: »

This referendum has nothing to do with equality every person in this country is entitled to get married. Im entitled to marry a woman but not a man the same as every other person in this country so that means we're all equal so lose the equality argument. If this referendum passes the gay community will have more rights than the straight community they will have civil partnership as well as marriage . Don't change our constitution for a minority .

hahahaha
and would you ever want to marry a person of the same gender? No because you're straight! The only gender us gay people want to marry is our own gender, imagine that! The more rights bit made me laugh out loud

TheChizler · 30-04-2015 08:16PM

madmann wrote: »

This referendum has nothing to do with equality every person in this country is entitled to get married. Im entitled to marry a woman but not a man the same as every other person in this country so that means we're all equal so lose the equality argument. If this referendum passes the gay community will have more rights than the straight community they will have civil partnership as well as marriage . Don't change our constitution for a minority .

Argh I had the rebuttal to this written on the other thread that was closed Before I could post it, it was a good post so I saved it to my work laptop. Can you wait till 9 am?...

frostyjacks · 30-04-2015 08:22PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Yes you probably did see a "vote NO" campaign poster with that on it as it's message. It's the way the word re-defining is being used to describe by the "vote NO" campaign that's at the base of their Ad. The referendum is not about re-defining marriage, it's about extending the constitutional remit of it to homosexual couples from it's existing exclusivity to heterosexual couples. Civil and religious marriages will keep on being performed at both civil and religious levels regardless of the result of the referendum vote.

So it is redefining marriage then. It's saying gender doesn't matter more. As an extension, the family doesn't matter anymore, parents don't matter anymore. To coin a phrase, I believe mothers and fathers matter.

bb1234567 · 30-04-2015 08:24PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

So it is redefining marriage then. It's saying gender doesn't matter more. As an extension, the family doesn't matter anymore, parents don't matter anymore. To coin a phrase, I believe mothers and fathers matter.

How is it saying none of those things don't matter anymore? I think you're putting words in peoples mouths..

MrWalsh · 30-04-2015 08:27PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

So it is redefining marriage then. It's saying gender doesn't matter more. As an extension, the family doesn't matter anymore, parents don't matter anymore. To coin a phrase, I believe mothers and fathers matter.

Lol, this is classic stuff.

And this is the internet so these posts will be here FOREVER! Imagine the craic future generations will have reading this stuff?

Just so you know future reader, it's only a small number of people who are so ignorant!

aloyisious · 30-04-2015 08:29PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I wouldn't class a same sex union as marriage even if, as looks likely, the vote will pass. In my opinion (not saying I'm right or wrong) marriage is about starting a family, always has been. That's how most of are here today. For a gay couple to start a family, they'll need someone of the opposite sex. So I don't see how that relationship can be regarded as equal to a heterosexual marriage. I know they're are straight couples who can't have kids etc. etc. I'm talking about in the main, this is why a gay couple shouldn't be thought of as equal to a straight couple.

I see you know there are straight couples who cannot procreate due to one or other being sterile or whatever (without help from a third party) you have no problem with them marrying, that it's just same-sex couples that should not be let marry because they cannot procreate without the assistance of a third party.

Well that seem's like a three tier view you have in your mind on how civil marriage constitutional law rights should exist. Straight procreating couples - OK, Straight non-procreating couples - OK, homosexual non-procreating couples - NO. In the main, you have no problem with one section of non-procreaters marrying because they are straight but do have a problem with the other section of non-procreaters because they are not straight.

What will you do if there is a majority YES vote and the new paragraph is added to Section 41, and after some time it becomes self-evident that the addition to Section 41 makes no difference at all to marriage (even at a personal level)?

DareGod · 30-04-2015 08:29PM

I'm not not not not not not not not voting Yes.

efb · 30-04-2015 08:30PM

madmann wrote: »

This referendum has nothing to do with equality every person in this country is entitled to get married. Im entitled to marry a woman but not a man the same as every other person in this country so that means we're all equal so lose the equality argument. If this referendum passes the gay community will have more rights than the straight community they will have civil partnership as well as marriage . Don't change our constitution for a minority .

That's like saying you can have religious in an IS country as long as it's Islam...

K4t · 30-04-2015 08:32PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

So it is redefining marriage then. It's saying gender doesn't matter more. As an extension, the family doesn't matter anymore, parents don't matter anymore. To coin a phrase, I believe mothers and fathers matter.

They still matter. The family still matters, parents still matter, and mothers and fathers matter. Only in your head will they matter less because of same sex marriage being allowed. You and other No campaigners have created a false argument in your own heads in a desperate attempt to give (anti) intellectual cover to what is at its core an opposition to homosexuals and equality, especially homosexuals being viewed as equal to yourselves.

Bannasidhe · 30-04-2015 08:34PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

So it is redefining marriage then. It's saying gender doesn't matter more. As an extension, the family doesn't matter anymore, parents don't matter anymore. To coin a phrase, I believe mothers and fathers matter.

Did women getting the vote redefine voting.
a) Yes. Because previously only men could vote. The whole dynamic of elections was changed.
b) No. Voting is voting regardless of who casts the vote.

Was extending the franchise to women a bad thing for society?
a) Yes. Women should be silent and obedient.
b) No. Society should not be run for the benefit of one group only.

Did the world end?
a) ummmm...yesssssss.
b) shurrup ya eejit.

To coin a phrase : Nothing to do with this referendum.

Bannasidhe · 30-04-2015 08:35PM

DareGod wrote: »

I'm not not not not not not not not voting Yes.

Dear God why why why why why not?

pl4ichjgy17zwd · 30-04-2015 08:38PM

DareGod wrote: »

I'm not not not not not not not not voting Yes.

Is an octuple negative a positive?

aloyisious · 30-04-2015 08:40PM

Glenman wrote: »

The establishment would have you believe that if you vote ‘No’ that you are jeopardising Ireland’s political future. Opponents of the proposal are quiet and fearful to openly voice their opinions in case they are branded “antediluvian bigots and homophobes”

Now that's an awful definition “antediluvian bigots and homophobes” of a minority of the law-makers in wither houses of our Oireachtas

DareGod · 30-04-2015 08:40PM

Ricardo Jealous Mimicry wrote: »

Is an octuple negative a positive?

Tis. I'm voting Yes.

Bannasidhe · 30-04-2015 08:42PM

DareGod wrote: »

Tis. I'm voting Yes.

Dear God Dare I thank God.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 30-04-2015 08:44PM

aloyisious wrote: »

<..> In the main, you have no problem with one section of non-procreaters marrying because they are straight but do have a problem with the other section of non-procreaters because they are not straight.<..>

In fairness, that's great rhetoric but not actually the point.

The difference is more aptly stated thus:
If a man and woman get married, it's generally prudent to consider what will happen if any children are born during the period that they are married. Because, mostly, that's what happens. Indeed, we can fixate on marginal cases of eighty year old women marrying. But that would be to get ludicrous. Law deals with children in this context, because the arrival of children within a straight marriage is perfectly normal.

In a SSM, there's simply no need to provide for children being born within the marriage.

Now, not to seem disingenuous, I'm a No voter. But that's not the actual point I'm making here - vote whatever way you like. I just had a mood to say why that bit of rhetoric that Yes voters are so fond of is pap.

frostyjacks · 30-04-2015 08:45PM

aloyisious wrote: »

What will you do if there is a majority YES vote and the new paragraph is added to Section 41, and after some time it becomes self-evident that the addition to Section 41 makes no difference at all to marriage (even at a personal level)?

Probably get on with life. This is just filling the time before True Detective season 2 starts.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 30-04-2015 08:46PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's saying gender doesn't matter more.

Strictly speaking, its saying sex, rather than gender, isn't important.

Using the WHO defintions, of course.

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Comments