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…291292294296297…325

Comments

  • #8792
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,617 ✭✭✭swampgas


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I'm afraid, I really can't relate to this touching faith in Government. Do you have similar thoughts on the referendum to reducing the qualifying age for President?
    Hah, isn't "touching faith" laying it on a bit thick? :pac: Cynical as I am, I don't think governments hold referendums for no reason at all. I'll defer of course to your presumably far deeper cynicism on the matter.
    That's really not my perception of the matter. Other than symbolism, I see no coherent case for this referendum being advanced. A lot of the yes campaign is just a procession of people we're meant to have some kind of regard for telling us they're voting yes. I think Anne Doyle is a grand looking oul wan, but she'd not a reason for voting yes.

    Well, your take on the matter is so very far from my own that I think I'll have to agree to disagree with you on that.


  • #8793
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    I'd say one is a tank, the other is a very well armoured security van. Why not just bulk up the armour on your van instead of trying to squeeze into my tank?

    I'm not sure you understand what it means when something is protected by the Constitution.

    Unless Civil Partnership is 'bulked up' until it is exactly the same in every way as marriage AND an article is placed in Constitution calling it the 'foundation of the (gay) family' it will not even approach being equal but different and then we will have 'laws' for heterosexuals and the same 'laws' for homosexuals but with different names and that, quite frankly, is a bit ridiculous considering 'all citizens are held to be equal under the law' so there should not be laws specifically for different sections of society. Same laws should apply to all equally.


  • #8794
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,617 ✭✭✭swampgas


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    I think it's amusing when people argue for a yes vote to allow for constitutional protection. It's not as if anyone went down on bended knee to ask someone if they would like to get constitutionally protected.


    Amusing unless you're the one without the constitutional protection. It might seem a bit more than a funny phrase when you're forced to sell your house after your partner dies.

    .


  • #8795
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    And that wording is still there. This farce of a referendum isn't changing that.

    The wording is somewhat ambiguous as it stands, and the courts incline to read it as man+woman.

    With the added text from that amendment, the wording is unambiguous, and the court cannot read it the way many think they would in a challenge.
    I don't know the exact motive for this referendum. I do know I'm voting No.

    It's a shame you can't prove you voted No afterwards, you'd get so much lovely attention! Just claiming you voted No won't have the same impact, any contrarian can do that.


  • #8796
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,106 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt




    It was only a matter of time, but its done so well.


  • Advertisement
  • #8797
    BrensBenz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭BrensBenz


    I'm just a simple wood mechanic, too thick to understand all this fillowsoffikal stuff but I have a simple rule of thumb for this kind of question:

    Just because I don't want it doesn't give me the right to ban it for anybody who does want it.

    I understand that our constitution demands a referendum before our constitution can be changed and that we have a tradition for trying to find something wrong with and becoming offended by any proposed change to anything but, well, I hope the poll on this thread will be proved correct by the actual vote.

    Just so long as mixed gender marriage doesn't become compulsory we'll be grand.

    PS: I'm also aware that religion only became involved in marriage quite recently. Until then, it was a purely civil process so I'm not persuaded by the "God says........." stuff.


  • #8798
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Again, no-one needs a reason to vote No. That's the default choice in any referendum. People need to give you a reason to vote Yes.

    At its very basic, how about giving homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples?


  • #8799
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    The wording is somewhat ambiguous as it stands, and the courts incline to read it as man+woman.

    With the added text from that amendment, the wording is unambiguous, and the court cannot read it the way many think they would in a challenge.
    I think that fits into the "with one bound he was free" category.

    The word "woman" is ambiguous, and this amendment will mean it unambiguously includes male only relationships? I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

    Only the true Messiah denies his divinity.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    It's a shame you can't prove you voted No afterwards, you'd get so much lovely attention! Just claiming you voted No won't have the same impact, any contrarian can do that.
    Would you be one of them quares?


  • #8800
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    smash wrote: »
    At its very basic, how about giving homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples?
    Like their urgent need to be included in the Constitutional right of married couples to import contraceptives for their own use?


  • #8801
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Like their urgent need to be included in the Constitutional right of married couples to import contraceptives for their own use?

    What?


  • Advertisement
  • #8802
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,001 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    I think it's amusing when people argue for a yes vote to allow for constitutional protection. It's not as if anyone went down on bended knee to ask someone if they would like to get constitutionally protected.

    Well, hope springs eternally in our,,,, er, fellow citizens hearts. The 2nd is not even worthwhile the effort at the mo, and certainly not likely from a percentage of our fellow citizens, but maybe that's what you meant, in a gently sarcastic way.


  • #8803
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Like their urgent need to be included in the Constitutional right of married couples to import contraceptives for their own use?

    That was a quite broad ruling about enshrining a right to a sexual life. It would have implications for things outside of contraception.


  • #8804
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,001 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    gravehold wrote: »
    What?

    That's a partial lift by GCU from one of his earlier posts, one at about 2157 on page 606.


  • #8805
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    That was a quite broad ruling about enshrining a right to a sexual life. It would have implications for things outside of contraception.
    You mean, it's not meant to be taken literally, it refers to all manufacturers of dairy products?

    I'm still not feeling it.


  • #8806
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Like their urgent need to be included in the Constitutional right of married couples to import contraceptives for their own use?

    Well how about tax regimes, next of kin, etc


  • #8807
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,617 ✭✭✭swampgas


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I'm still not feeling it.

    Not sure you ever will, to be honest. Maybe you march to a different drum ...


  • #8808
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,001 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    You mean, it's not meant to be taken literally, it refers to all manufacturers of dairy products?

    I'm still not feeling it.

    Isn't that what contraceptives are all about, the avoiding touching IT.


  • #8809
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    swampgas wrote: »
    Surely in an equal society we'd all have the same protection? Why better armour for some and not for others?

    Well in my tank, one person drives and the other works the gun. It's not designed for two drivers, or two gunners.


  • #8810
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Well in my tank, one person drives and the other works the gun. It's not designed for two drivers, or two gunners.

    What a crap tank. If one dies then it's pretty useless and it won't function.


  • #8811
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Well in my tank, one person drives and the other works the gun. It's not designed for two drivers, or two gunners.

    Yeah, drivers and gunners, sure they could never swap places, what with having different numbers of limbs and entirely different body size and being different species and all.


  • Advertisement
  • #8812
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    smash wrote: »
    What a crap tank. If one dies then it's pretty useless and it won't function.

    I think we can agree that this was a crap metaphor too.


  • #8813
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,001 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Well in my tank, one person drives and the other works the gun. It's not designed for two drivers, or two gunners.

    Still trying to work out if there's a coded reference in the 1st sentence, or if it's all just in my mind. :D


  • #8814
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Still trying to work out if there's a coded reference in the 1st sentence, or if it's all just in my mind. :D

    Oh yes. Workin' the gun. *seedy music*


  • #8815
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I think we can agree that this was a crap metaphor too.

    It wasn't mine, Bann was comparing a tank to a bicycle.


  • #8816
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    It wasn't mine, Bann was comparing a tank to a bicycle.

    Yeah, no sorry you brought in the drivers things and it basically doesn't work at all. Also, the "working' the gun" thing all I can think of now. Priceless.


  • #8817
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,001 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Watching the start of the TV3 debate, waiting to see if George Hook will lean his arm over the shoulder of the gent on the No side and offer him some advice, gently-like..... in case he scares the bejasus out of him.


  • #8818
    Aineoil
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,358 ✭✭✭Aineoil


    The debate will go on, but look at it like this.

    Most people write with their right hand others with their left hand. Who's to say what's right or wrong? Some people write with their left hand others with their right.

    Why? We don't know really. It's neither wrong or right. It's just the way life is.


  • #8819
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,647 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Aineoil wrote: »
    The debate will go on, but look at it like this.

    Most people write with their right hand others with their left hand. Who's to say what's right or wrong? Some people write with their left hand others with their right.

    Why? We don't know really. It's neither wrong or right. it's just the way life is.
    Left-handed people are mutants.


  • #8820
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Aineoil wrote: »
    The debate will go on, but look at it like this.

    Most people write with their right hand others with their left hand. Who's to say what's right or wrong? Some people write with their left hand others with their right.

    Why? We don't know really. It's neither wrong or right. it's just the way life is.

    Apt, since apparently not everyone agrees:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_against_left-handed_people


  • Advertisement
  • #8821
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    Left-handed people are mutants.
    Indeed. And I should know, I'm one of them.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement