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…299300302304305…325

Comments

  • #9032
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    gravehold wrote: »
    We have very strict keep personal opinions and politics off any work account cause some partners might not agree, employees should keep work accounts only for work related posts no matter how innocuous it might seem to them as it can cost the company a lot of money.

    Not going into details, but the particular account has a stance on this. They're not neutral on SSM.
    Thanks for your advice, but we don't need legal advice on our social media policies. :)


  • #9033
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Sir Oxman wrote: »
    Just now.
    A pub in Dublin, an aulfella watching the racing opines "I see all the queers are voting next week"
    What says the man sitting beside him, so he repeats it and adds "fckin disgustin bastards"
    The other fella says well I'm voting too and I'm straight anyways, it's all us straight people havin the gay kids, did ya ever think about that?

    Get out and vote.

    The George really has gone downhill.


  • #9034
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Not going into details, but the particular account has a stance on this. They're not neutral on SSM.
    Thanks for your advice, but we don't need legal advice on our social media policies. :)

    Odd a pro ssm account got hate for retweeting a pro ssm tweet would think they would attack you direct, just block and move on they obviously will never be your customers.


  • #9035
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,007 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I find it curious that frostyjacks and gravelhold both started posting at pretty much the same time again after a noticeable couple of hour's absence, not implying anything just drawing attention to how curious it is :P


  • #9036
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    VinLieger wrote: »
    I find it curious that frostyjacks and gravelhold both started posting at pretty much the same time again after a noticeable couple of hour's absence, not implying anything just drawing attention to how curious it is :P

    I have being posting all morning check my history, only stopped during my lunch break


  • Advertisement
  • #9037
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Not going into details, but the particular account has a stance on this. They're not neutral on SSM.
    Thanks for your advice, but we don't need legal advice on our social media policies. :)

    Do you work for charleville lodge hotel? :P they're quite pro ssm :D


  • #9038
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    No bother.
    I was there yesterday.

    Jaysus, so was I. Rotten form altogether. Even dropped my dinner on the floor to cap off the day.

    Stay strong spacetime! Tomorrow is another day.


  • #9039
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    VinLieger wrote: »
    I find it curious that frostyjacks and gravelhold both started posting at pretty much the same time again after a noticeable couple of hour's absence, not implying anything just drawing attention to how curious it is :P

    Don't rush to join the gardai anytime soon.


  • #9040
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Don't rush to join the gardai anytime soon.

    I love the fact you both came into the thread at the same time while I have being posting all morning. But here he is bulling anyone that doesn't follow his agenda as being all sock accounts.


  • #9041
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    You tax me like everyone else. Treat me like everyone else.

    I'd like to see cash spent on therapy measures.
    Sir Oxman wrote: »
    Just now.
    A pub in Dublin, an aulfella watching the racing opines "I see all the queers are voting next week"
    What says the man sitting beside him, so he repeats it and adds "fckin disgustin bastards"
    The other fella says well I'm voting too and I'm straight anyways, it's all us straight people havin the gay kids, did ya ever think about that?

    Get out and vote.

    First bit a bit funny, but second part is poor form.


  • Advertisement
  • #9042
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,007 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    gravehold wrote: »
    I love the fact you both came into the thread at the same time while I have being posting all morning. But here he is bulling anyone that doesn't follow his agenda as being all sock accounts.

    I said nothing of the sort but continue to put words in peoples mouths its not like its a new tactic for you or anything


  • #9043
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    VinLieger wrote: »
    I said nothing of the sort but continue to put words in peoples mouths its not like its a new tactic for you or anything

    "find it curious that frostyjacks and gravelhold both started posting at pretty much the same time again"

    Yes I am putting words in your mouth :rolleyes:


  • #9044
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Rightwing wrote: »
    I'd like to see cash spent on therapy measures.

    For whom and to what end?

    Rightwing wrote: »
    First bit a bit funny, but second part is poor form.

    Thats pretty shameful.


  • #9045
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    Rightwing wrote: »
    I'd like to see cash spent on therapy measures.



    Oh yes? Tell us more...


  • #9046
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    gravehold wrote: »
    "find it curious that frostyjacks and gravelhold both started posting at pretty much the same time again"

    Yes I am putting words in your mouth :rolleyes:

    You are. You said "here he is bulling anyone that doesn't follow his agenda as being all sock accounts." when that's not what he's doing.


  • #9047
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    gravehold wrote: »
    Odd a pro ssm account got hate for retweeting a pro ssm tweet would think they would attack you direct, just block and move on they obviously will never be your customers.

    It was just a random thing I think. Someone RT and we ended up getting caught in the crossfire


  • #9048
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    Just saw the latest Iona video.

    2 lies in this video:
    "you are not only being asked to redefine marriage but also redefine family" -You are not being asked to redefine either, just extend the protection of marriage to same sex couples

    "If this referendum passes gay couples will be allowed to marry and adopt children" - whether this referendum passes or not, gay couples will be allowed to apply to adopt children.

    And of course their ending graphics was two children moving from a straight couple to two gay couples. As if to subtly suggest children will be taken of their lovely Mammies and Daddies and given to the gays. So a third lie?

    In true open and honest Iona fashion they disabled comments on the video.

    Irish people, are being asked to redefine the Irish law on marriage to include same sex couples. How marriage is defined elsewhere is not relevant to Irish law and Irish society

    It is true, that one is not asked to redefine "family". However, as the CONSTITUTIONAL family is defined as the Married Family, and not for example a de facto family (non married couples), you are asked to redefine the Constitutional Family.

    In the 1980's there was a battle in the social welfare and taxation field to give support to single mothers, that some married couples complained (going to court) and argued that it was an attack on the constitutional family as the single mother got "better" or similar advantages/protection as a married couple. The argument got no where. Conceivably, the Partnership Act can be amended to offer further taxation , property , social welfare, succession protective measures to completely quell the nonsense about "2nd class citizens"


    The issue about adoption comes from the argument that the concept that the child's best interest would be to have both a mother and a father, will not be allowed to be considered , because to do so, it would discriminate other married couples, ie same sex married couples - again note, Article 41 only protects married couple. It is highly likely, to keep the figures up, that the adoption board will want to approve a set number of cases to gay couples, so as to ensure the gays don't go bringing allegations that straight married couples are still being preferred. All, without really looking at the best interest of the child


    Good luck to single fathers, by the way (when dealing with break down of relationships with mother who enters another relationship with a gay person ), yet another group will take a step before them in the family law custody/access battles


  • #9049
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,007 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    gravehold wrote: »
    "find it curious that frostyjacks and gravelhold both started posting at pretty much the same time again"

    Yes I am putting words in your mouth :rolleyes:

    Theres a couple of implications you could take from that, I could have been implying you both work for the no campaign online team and simply were both on your lunch breaks, I could also have been implying you both are secretly closeted gay lovers who were off having a romp.

    It really depends on how you read it tbh

    MOD: Take a few days off.


  • #9050
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Irish people, are being asked to redefine the Irish law on marriage to include same sex couples. How marriage is defined elsewhere is not relevant to Irish law and Irish society

    I know people love this 'redefine' word, but it's false. The referendum will insert a line into the constitution. Marriage is not defined in the constitution. Irish people are being asked if they want to allow everyone access to marriage, marriage itself will continue to be defined in legislation, as it always was.


  • #9051
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,678 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Good luck to single fathers, by the way (when dealing with break down of relationships with mother who enters another relationship with a gay person ), yet another group will take a step before them in the family law custody/access battles

    Not another group - just the same group with more members


  • Advertisement
  • #9052
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    It is true, that one is not asked to redefine "family". However, as the CONSTITUTIONAL family is defined as the Married Family, and not for example a de facto family (non married couples), you are asked to redefine the Constitutional Family.

    no so, The state recognises that the marriage is the basis of " The Family " and seeks to defend that. This referendum, in no way affects " The Family:, since the rights of such as not in any way being diminished


    The issue about adoption comes from the argument that the concept that the child's best interest would be to have both a mother and a father,
    Thereis no acceptance as to what is considered in a childs " best interest" and this topic has no relevant to SSM or this referendum, since marriage and " father and mother " are in fact completely different

    The IONA video is incredibly duplicitous


  • #9053
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    I know people love this 'redefine' word, but it's false. The referendum will insert a line into the constitution. Marriage is not defined in the constitution. Irish people are being asked if they want to allow everyone access to marriage, marriage itself will continue to be defined in legislation, as it always was.

    The Constitution takes its meaning from BOTH the text of the Constitution AND Case law which dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution! To suggest what you said is disingenuous nonsense.

    Marriage has been clearly defined , in a Constitutional Context , as meaning man + women and the Superior Courts have refused to give the definition of marriage a different meaning. This was recent. Even the ECHR have acknowledged the problem in Member States, and refused to acknowledge it as a human right.


    That is why we are having a referendum in the first place. The additional line that is proposed to be inserted , clarifies that the Irish people now wish to state that marriage includes same sex couples.


    Legislation makes it clear that marriage is man + women, actually.It also outline what age one has to be, and what blood relations (if any) one can marry. This obviously has to be amended too once the Constitution is amended


  • #9054
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Marriage has been clearly defined , in a Constitutional Context , as meaning man + women

    This is 100% false. That's an old societal perception.


  • #9055
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,678 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    Currently marriage is most definitely defined as a man and a woman.

    A Family has no such definition.

    This referendum is to amend the concept of marriage to allow for same sex unions.

    Nothing hard to understand there


  • #9056
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    Not another group - just the same group with more members

    Right

    On one hand; You got the mother , single - or even cohabiting with her non partner male partner

    To the centre, you got mother and her new husband

    and to the right, you got mother and her wife

    Didn't know the latter could procreate unaided

    On que to usual barrel scraping about married couples with no children of their own (a minority) , versus gay couples who don't have children together, exclusive of other former partners (the majority)
    As usual, apparently, the minority speaks for everyone, yes


  • #9057
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    The Constitution takes its meaning from BOTH the text of the Constitution AND Case law which dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution! To suggest what you said is disingenuous nonsense.

    Marriage has been clearly defined , in a Constitutional Context , as meaning man + women and the Superior Courts have refused to give the definition of marriage a different meaning. This was recent. Even the ECHR have acknowledged the problem in Member States, and refused to acknowledge it as a human right.


    That is why we are having a referendum in the first place. The additional line that is proposed to be inserted , clarifies that the Irish people now wish to state that marriage includes same sex couples.


    Legislation makes it clear that marriage is man + women, actually.It also outline what age one has to be, and what blood relations (if any) one can marry. This obviously has to be amended too once the Constitution is amended

    Marriage as defined in the constitution is being extended to include same sex etc. Normally an extension to somewhat does not fall over the definition of " redefine", changes that impacted on the status quo, could possibly be defined as " redefine". but article 41 is being left in its totality

    if my neighbour buys a car, is my car ownership being " redefined " , No, If my neighbour in the process of buying his car, destroys mine, then " yes its begin redefined". Clearly that is not happening in this referendum

    the concept of marriage as defined by the constitution and case law, is clearly being " extended" to include SSC. Marriage in itself is not being re-defined


  • #9058
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Right

    On one hand; You got the mother , single - or even cohabiting with her non partner male partner

    To the centre, you got mother and her new husband

    and to the right, you got mother and her wife

    Didn't know the latter could procreate unaided



    Because being gay means your genitals stop working.


  • #9059
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    Currently marriage is most definitely defined as a man and a woman.

    Not in our constitution.


  • #9060
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,678 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Right

    On one hand; You got the mother , single - or even cohabiting with her non partner male partner

    To the centre, you got mother and her new husband

    and to the right, you got mother and her wife

    Didn't know the latter could procreate unaided

    On que to usual barrel scraping about married couples with no children of their own (a minority) , versus gay couples who don't have children together, exclusive of other former partners (the majority)
    As usual, apparently, the minority speaks for everyone, yes

    You made the point that a gay woman after separating from her husband - with kids - who enters into a gay marriage, now introduces another group that is held ahead of a single man with regard to child custody.

    My point is that this new gay marriage scenario is no different in legal terms - to the father - than if she went off and married a man.


  • Advertisement
  • #9061
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    smash wrote: »
    Not in our constitution.

    The Constitution does not define marriage. Nor does it specify who is entitled to marry and who is not. So a Yes vote would not change the Constitutional status of marriage. In the absence of a constitutional definition, the Referendum Commission explains, the generally accepted common law definition of marriage is “the voluntary union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others”. This definition has been adopted by the Irish courts on a number of occasions.... irish times

    The constitution is being amended to prevent legal challenge to the laws that will allow SSM


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement