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…300301303305306…325

Comments

  • #9062
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    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.

    It's neither disingenuous, nor nonsense. Nowhere in the constitution does it define what marriage is. It contains no definition for marriage, though it has been interpreted to decide who it ought to be available to.

    This referendum will do nothing to 'redefine' marriage in the event that it passes. All it will do is explicitly broaden the scope of its availability. To try and paint it otherwise is a disingenuous attempt to push an agenda.


  • #9063
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,678 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    smash wrote: »
    Not in our constitution.

    Not directly but it is the law. Hence the need for the referendum.


  • #9064
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    Not directly but it is the law. Hence the need for the referendum.
    Yes but the point is that the constitution doesn't define it as such, yet the No side seem to think it does.


  • #9065
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    Not directly but it is the law. Hence the need for the referendum.

    Hence the 'argued' need for a referendum. Lets not pretend like that issue was conclusively settled.


  • #9066
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    I haven't seen a single poster about the scourge of youthful presidents that could be inflicted upon our country!

    We are having two referenda ... A lot of people don't realise this. :)

    It's redefining the whole concept of a president and may cause all sorts of problems with presidents having babies and demanding suragacy while in office.

    Also did I mention Irish Water!!??


  • Advertisement
  • #9067
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I haven't seen a single poster about the scourge of youthful presidents that could be inflicted upon our country!

    We are having two referenda ... A lot of people don't realise this. :)

    At a risk of going off topic (But, shure, hasn't this whole thread?) is there an argument for or against reducing the age?


  • #9068
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    The traditional Common law definition of marriage given in Hyde v Hyde as far back as 1866, defined marriage as “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others"

    1866... If this vote doesn't pass then I'd be ashamed of how backwards our country is.


  • #9069
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    At a risk of going off topic (But, shure, hasn't this whole thread?) is there an argument for or against reducing the age?

    No reason other then age discrimination to not lower the age. Vote YES


  • #9070
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    At a risk of going off topic (But, shure, hasn't this whole thread?) is there an argument for or against reducing the age?

    Mostly people are just ignoring the referendum entirely. I'd actually forgotten about it myself.


  • #9071
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    At a risk of going off topic (But, shure, hasn't this whole thread?) is there an argument for or against reducing the age?

    Current age is 35 or over to seek a nomination.

    Some will say no one under 35 would have the necessary experience or gravitas to represent Ireland.

    Michael Collins was 32 when he died.

    Make of that what you will....


  • Advertisement
  • #9072
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I haven't seen a single poster about the scourge of youthful presidents that could be inflicted upon our country!

    We are having two referenda ... A lot of people don't realise this. :)

    It's redefining the whole concept of a president and may cause all sorts of problems with presidents having babies and demanding suragacy while in office.

    Also did I mention Irish Water!!??


    indeed, and theres a huge risk of unforeseen issues with young presidents, that we havent talked about or discuss
    Vote NO


  • #9073
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    gravehold wrote: »
    No reason other then age discrimination to not lower the age. Vote YES

    But everyone knows that under 35's are drunken, useless good for nothings, that'll turn Áras an Uachtaráin into a Witherspoons. And it doesn't open it up to 2 people that might want to be president together, or to those under 21.

    Stop bullying me.

    :pac:


  • #9074
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    BoatMad wrote: »
    indeed, and theres a huge risk of unforeseen issues with young presidents, that we havent talked about or discuss
    Vote NO

    Especially unforeseen issues about keywords that have been scientifically calculated to cause the most eyebrow raising like: suragacy, children, parents and families !

    I mean if you just take this one step further we'd have cats running for president and everything!

    Somebody! Please think of the children!


  • #9075
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Especially unforeseen issues about keywords that have been scientifically calculated to cause the most eyebrow raising like: suragacy, children, parents and families !

    I mean if you just take this one step further we'd have cats running for president and everything!

    Somebody! Please think of the children!


    I heard theres a real risk that young presidents will cause issues with farm succession, VOTE NO to teen presidents


  • #9076
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    gravehold wrote: »
    No reason other then age discrimination to not lower the age. Vote YES

    That would be redefining the presidency though, and it would have a grave effect on the legacy of all former presidents. This is the way it has been for the entire history of the state, we don't need to change it.

    We could set up a vice-presidency instead, and make it very similar to the presidency, and make that open to people of all ages. Then nobody would be discriminated against.

    But of course what about the children? If we allow this it will inevitably lead to people looking for more. They'll want the age reduced to 6 next, and then we'll have children being torn away from their parents to go and serve as president. That's just not right in my view. Every child deserves a childhood.

    And further, what's to stop people looking for multiple presidents once we start redefining it? Where will it stop? When Ireland has 10 presidents? A hundred? Maybe everyone should just be president, since we want equality and all.


  • #9077
    MonkeyTennis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,095 ✭✭✭MonkeyTennis


    I am not going to adopt a president who is under 35 I can tell you that much.


  • #9078
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    But everyone knows that under 35's are drunken, useless good for nothings, that'll turn Áras an Uachtaráin into a Witherspoons. And it doesn't open it up to 2 people that might want to be president together, or to those under 21.

    Stop bullying me.

    :pac:

    You can still vote yes on the day and bring up these issues in the debate, yes 21 is still discrimination and too high and you are right to bring this up.


  • #9079
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    That would be redefining the presidency though, and it would have a grave effect on the legacy of all former presidents. This is the way it has been for the entire history of the state, we don't need to change it.

    We could set up a vice-presidency instead, and make it very similar to the presidency, and make that open to people of all ages. Then nobody would be discriminated against.

    But of course what about the children? If we allow this it will inevitably lead to people looking for more. They'll want the age reduced to 6 next, and then we'll have children being torn away from their parents to go and serve as president. That's just not right in my view. Every child deserves a childhood.

    And further, what's to stop people looking for multiple presidents once we start redefining it? Where will it stop? When Ireland has 10 presidents? A hundred? Maybe everyone should just be president, since we want equality and all.

    We could call it "Civil Leadership" - the presidency is reserved for people who have grey hair (even if it's dyed! You can't be redefining the presidency. And sure isn't civil leadership the same thing?


  • #9080
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    gravehold wrote: »
    You can still vote yes on the day and bring up these issues in the debate, yes 21 is still discrimination and too high and you are right to bring this up.

    You don't see the irony in what I've said, do you?


  • #9081
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    If we managed to elect a married homosexual 25 year old man with two surrogate children as the next president, I think I might chuckle a little. What would that old bat DeValera say?


  • Advertisement
  • #9082
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    You don't see the irony in what I've said, do you?

    You have an issue with yes being flawed and pointing out those flaws but you can still vote yes on the day cause it's better then voting NO.


  • #9083
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    seamus wrote: »
    If we managed to elect a married homosexual 25 year old man with two surrogate children as the next president, I think I might chuckle a little. What would that old bat DeValera say?

    Dunno about DeValera, but I'd say the Iona Institute would burst.


  • #9084
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Remember: Every president needs wrinkles AND grey hair!


  • #9085
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    seamus wrote: »
    If we managed to elect a married homosexual 25 year old man with two surrogate children as the next president, I think I might chuckle a little. What would that old bat DeValera say?

    I reckon we should just hook up some generators to that generations graves. The spinning would be a new source of renewable energy that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and power several small towns!


  • #9086
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Remember: Every president needs wrinkles AND grey hair!

    But only if they have a penis.


  • #9087
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Remember: Every president needs wrinkles AND grey hair!

    You are doing a huge disservice to our greatest president mary robinson.


  • #9088
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    But only if they have a penis.

    Men don't to have a penis


  • #9089
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    seamus wrote: »
    If we managed to elect a married homosexual 25 year old man with two surrogate children as the next president, I think I might chuckle a little. What would that old bat DeValera say?

    Some would suggest that part of that statement is already true...


  • #9090
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    gravehold wrote: »
    You are doing a huge disservice to our greatest president mary robinson.

    She just had excellent skin and naturally fabulous hair.

    (cough: presidential hair dresser and makeup team!


  • Advertisement
  • #9091
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    gravehold wrote: »
    Men don't to have a penis

    I never said a man did.

    This is getting a bit too weird now. Back to arguing about giving one couple the same rights as another couple.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement