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…295296298300301…325

Comments

  • #8912
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    gravehold wrote: »
    The person complaining about free speech said the posters on the poles where of equal amount, if the yes side can afford it without being a proxy Battlefield I can't see why the side would not be able to.

    You are clearly unaware of the vast financial might of religious conservatism then.


  • #8913
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    gravehold wrote: »
    If the yes side wan't to put up those posters go ahead. Yes are not abusing freedom of speech they are trying to silence it.

    You don't understand freedom of speech, do you?


  • #8914
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Shrap wrote: »
    That is a ridiculous claim and is entirely baseless. The Yes side are not in the habit of scaremongering or denigrating anybody, so those suggestions I made are clearly ludicrous. I'm just pointing out that freedom of speech can be abused, and that it's a crying shame that there are no standards for freedom of speech (bar hate speech) in a referendum campaign.

    You can't say you have freedom of sppech but you are not allowed to say these things. You don't have to do what other tell you but they have the right to say it if true or their opinion.

    If anything on the posters is factually wrong report them to the council they will remove them. Just don't do what other yes people are doing cut them down yourself.

    You feel there are more yes poster then no, get some yes posters printed and get them hung. The no side aren't the only ones with freedom of speech use yours to get your message out not to silence others


  • #8915
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    floggg wrote: »
    In any of the debates I have seen, the Yes side have said that the referendum had no impact on it and pointed to the requirement now under the Constitution to put the welfare of the child first.

    What I would like is for them to ask why would you want to discriminate in the first place - though I understand that they are likely trying to avoid playing into the no sides hands by making it a referendum on gay parenting.

    It has been asked and they back out to say they're not discriminate against gay people, but that the 'new law' would discriminate against children by denying them a father and a mother. They make no sense!


  • #8916
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    gravehold wrote: »
    You can't say you have freedom of sppech but you are not allowed to say these things.

    I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth, it's dishonest.


  • Advertisement
  • #8917
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Grayditch wrote: »
    I know who the Pedantry, Strawman, Avoidance and Deflection awards are going to this year. A masterclass in all performances to take the four trophies home.

    Back to the matter at hand, as much I liked he idea of the MAFM poster couple re-doing the No poster to a Yes poster, the media reporting that they didn't give their permission for their image to be in a such a deceitful poster. Well, they posed for the stock photo website, so they don't have a say (within reason, and probably not in this case.) Small point that irked me. Still, the new poster is cool and is a great boost to the Yes campaign.

    If you're posing for a happy family shot with a husband, wife and child, for a royalty free image, the chances are that it's probably going to be used by the Christian right at some stage. They signed away their rights to that image so they can hardly crib about how it was used.


  • #8918
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    smash wrote: »
    There are over 160 differences between marriage and a civil partnership. Tax holds a few of them, here's a full list! http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/xls/marriage_equality_missing_pieces_audit_full_list.xls
    Ah, the famous "160 differences" spam list. Including such material infringements of human rights as:

    "Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 15 1, 3 (1) A "sexual act", unless rape, aggravated sexual assault, with a person under the age of 17 is an offence, except when the parties to the Act are married."

    The unpedantic among us might notice that the minimum age for marriage in Ireland is 18, unless people get a dispensation by the Courts. To give a picture of that, only 11 people aged under 17 got married in 2013.

    Most of us would say that's 11 too many. The main point is it's not a material problem. If we were going to address it, we'd be more likely eliminating the capacity of the Courts to grant an exemption to anyone to marry under the age of 17, instead of widening the scope.

    A sensible, useful, analysis of remaining differences is here:
    http://fergryan.blogspot.ie/2015/04/civil-partnership-v-marriage-some.html
    floggg wrote: »
    You cannot have absolute equality between marriage and CP as long as marriage is constitutionally protected and CP is not.

    Also, separate but equal is a nonsense argument and nothing but an excuse to discriminate.
    But, sure, "equal" in the sense of uniformity (which is how you seem to be using it there) is a nonsense, too. The Constitutional right of married couples to import contraceptives for their own use is simply irrelevant to SSM. So's the concept of presumption of paternity. Plus, Article 41 will retain all the gender-based wording about the essential role of 'woman' in the family. (You'll recall, 'family' and 'marriage' mean the same thing in the Constitution.)


  • #8919
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    Because you have Gay friends or because you believe that gay people have the right to marry?

    If they are stupid enough to want to marry they should be allowed they are consenting adults, this referendum doesn't go far enough it still discrminates against polygamous consenting adults.

    It's not my place to say which consenting adults should be allowed to marry


  • #8920
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    gravehold wrote: »
    He was complaining there was an equal amount of poster on poles outside his home an equal amount.

    Yes people are cutting down posters cause they don't like that the no side has the freedom to pit their side across.
    Actually both sides have cut down posters. The difference between the sides are that the Yes posters tell the truth "Yes for equality" where the No side are telling lies about children's rights and surrogacy. They're not putting a point across, they're scaremongering.
    gravehold wrote: »
    The yes side call people bigots and try to shame them into not voting. They say if you don't agree just don't vote but it's a persons right to vote
    Nobody has said this.


  • #8921
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    smash wrote: »
    Actually both sides have cut down posters. The difference between the sides are that the Yes posters tell the truth "Yes for equality" where the No side are telling lies about children's rights and surrogacy. They're not putting a point across, they're scaremongering.


    Nobody has said this.

    We have gone over this the referendum isn't yes for equality in marriage polygamous consenting adults are still not equal.

    The yes for equality are accurate as the no sides


  • Advertisement
  • #8922
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    gravehold wrote: »
    If they are stupid enough to want to marry they should be allowed they are consenting adults, this referendum doesn't go far enough it still discrminates against polygamous consenting adults.

    It's not my place to say which consenting adults should be allowed to marry

    It seems very odd to post so much in a thread about the marriage referendum when you think people must be stupid to want to get married.


  • #8923
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    smash wrote: »


    Nobody has said this.

    People have said if it's against your religious views then just don't vote so you are not supporting not being a bigot.


  • #8924
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    gravehold wrote: »
    We have gone over this the referendum isn't yes for equality in marriage polygamous consenting adults are still not equal.

    The yes for equality are accurate as the no sides

    It is Yes for equality for homosexual couples to have the same equal right to marry as heterosexual couples. Stop muddying the water here. your argument is becoming absurd.


  • #8925
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,678 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    What No side argument is stating that the referendum should include polygamy?


  • #8926
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    gravehold wrote: »
    People have said if it's against your religious views then just don't vote so you are not supporting not being a bigot.

    Bigots will be called out for being bigots when bigots act like bigots. Yes, that term is over used, however that doesn't mean bigots don't exist. You can't even say the word now without the No side (and you) going balistic, even if the person is actually a bigot.


  • #8927
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    What No side argument is stating that the referendum should include polygamy?

    None, it's just being brought up to antagonize people.


  • #8928
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    gravehold wrote: »
    We have gone over this the referendum isn't yes for equality in marriage polygamous consenting adults are still not equal.

    The yes for equality are accurate as the no sides

    No, it's yes for equality between TWO PERSONS. “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” It's accurate.


  • #8929
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    smash wrote: »
    It is Yes for equality for homosexual couples to have the same equal right to marry as heterosexual couples. Stop muddying the water here. your argument is becoming absurd.

    Is that equality for all adults in a referendum about marriage. I think not you are discriminating against some cause you don't like their lifestyle.


  • #8930
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    What No side argument is stating that the referendum should include polygamy?

    None they are not looking for or using a yes equality message while excluding people.


  • #8931
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    What No side argument is stating that the referendum should include polygamy?

    It appears to be that you cant make anyone equal unless you make everyone equal at the same time.

    Supposedly by voting yes you will not be giving anyone the same status or rights as another.

    I dont understand it either but the claim comes from somewhere that makes up a lot of stuff already so I wouldnt worry too much about it.


  • Advertisement
  • #8932
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    What No side argument is stating that the referendum should include polygamy?

    The argument is that if you redefine marriage to include those of the same sex, who then defines marriage and where do you draw the line?


  • #8933
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,678 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    gravehold wrote: »
    Is that equality for all adults in a referendum about marriage. I think not you are discriminating against some cause you don't like their lifestyle.

    I haven't seen any posts discriminating against polygamy. Just posts stating that the referendum has nothing to do with that topic.


  • #8934
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    gravehold wrote: »
    You can't say you have freedom of sppech but you are not allowed to say these things. You don't have to do what other tell you but they have the right to say it if true or their opinion.

    If anything on the posters is factually wrong report them to the council they will remove them. Just don't do what other yes people are doing cut them down yourself.

    You feel there are more yes poster then no, get some yes posters printed and get them hung. The no side aren't the only ones with freedom of speech use yours to get your message out not to silence others

    You know that criticising the content of a poster is an exercise of free ****ing speech.

    Honestly, the only ones who have raised free speech in this thread are the ones who have know idea that it also includes a freedom to rebut and a freedom to criticise.


  • #8935
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    gravehold wrote: »
    Is that equality for all adults in a referendum about marriage.

    The vote is not about ALL Adults. It's about the rights of a homosexual couple. The addition of 17 simple words....
    Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.
    gravehold wrote: »
    I think not you are discriminating against some cause you don't like their lifestyle.
    You're just making that up now for the sake of an argument.


  • #8936
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Shrap wrote: »
    No, it's yes for equality between TWO PERSONS. “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” It's accurate.

    Hence posters show have YES SSM not YES EQUAILTY, the yes posters are being dishonest.


  • #8937
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,678 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    please use punctuation


  • #8938
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    keano_afc wrote: »
    The argument is that if you redefine marriage to include those of the same sex, who then defines marriage and where do you draw the line?

    I actually want polygamous people to have the same rights as some of my firends are in a polygamous relationship, i just find the yes equality stuff hypocritical as there is no equality being sought after


  • #8939
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    gravehold wrote: »
    Hence posters show have YES SSM not YES EQUAILTY, the yes posters are being dishonest.

    "The proposed amendment to the Constitution is contained in the Thirty-Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015."

    This is from the Referendum Commission http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/
    The Yes posters are accurately reflecting what we are voting on according to the official Government wording. If you don't feel that's correct then you should take it up with the Government.


  • #8940
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    floggg wrote: »
    You know that criticising the content of a poster is an exercise of free ****ing speech.

    Honestly, the only ones who have raised free speech in this thread are the ones who have know idea that it also includes a freedom to rebut and a freedom to criticise.

    You are allowed to criticise it, just not remove them cause of hate and want it so they are not allowed to be put up like some people have asked


  • Advertisement
  • #8941
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    If you're posing for a happy family shot with a husband, wife and child, for a royalty free image, the chances are that it's probably going to be used by the Christian right at some stage. They signed away their rights to that image so they can hardly crib about how it was used.

    You can voluntarily sign away the rights and still be legitimately upset about how it's used.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement