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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

1…89111314…327

Comments

  • #302
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    lisar816 wrote: »
    it clearly says here is an extract meaning it's not the whole thing

    They have every part of article 41 in the booklet apart from the most import part, so hardly an extract.

    This is the only thing that was left out in article 41 in the booklet

    In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
    The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home

    How is that the most important part? :confused:

    One is a meaningless platitude and the other has never, ever, been enforced.


  • #303
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,622 ✭✭✭swampgas


    lisar816 wrote: »
    it clearly says here is an extract meaning it's not the whole thing

    They have every part of article 41 in the booklet apart from the most import part, so hardly an extract.

    This is the only thing that was left out in article 41 in the booklet

    In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
    The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home

    And your point is what exactly? That because you imagine there is some sinister sneaky omission going on in the booklet (which nobody else seems to have a problem with) that somehow you now feel justified in voting No?

    It sounds to me that you don't want equality for gay people, and are stitching together a flimsy fig leaf in order to give yourself an out.


  • #304
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    lisar816 wrote: »
    It's article 41 this referendum will change not 40

    Out of all that you picked up on a typo as being the important part?


  • #305
    upinthesky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭upinthesky


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    How is that the most important part? :confused:

    One is a meaningless platitude and the other has never, ever, been enforced.

    Because it contains the word women.


  • #306
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    lisar816 wrote: »
    Because it contains the word women.

    It doesnt say the family must contain a woman.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    upinthesky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭upinthesky


    And there adding this

    without distinction as to their sex


  • #308
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    lisar816 wrote: »
    Because it contains the word women.

    And where does it state that all women have to be married?

    What about nuns? Are they not also women?


  • #309
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    lisar816 wrote: »
    And there adding this

    without distinction as to their sex

    In a different article - one that deals with Marriage and by extention families.

    Women do not have to get married. Not even McQuaid went that far - this passage was to encourage women - all women- Unmarried or married - to not work outside the home and 'take men's jobs'. It has nothing to do with marriage.

    Suffering sweet divine who I don't believe in grant me patience.:mad:


  • #310
    upinthesky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭upinthesky


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    And where does it state that all women have to be married?

    What about nuns? Are they not also women?

    Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland deals with the family which is stated to be founded on marriage


  • #311
    upinthesky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭upinthesky


    lisar816 wrote: »
    Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland deals with the family which is stated to be founded on marriage

    Marriage will be defined after this referendum is passed, at present it is not.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    lisar816 wrote: »
    Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland deals with the family which is stated to be founded on marriage

    And those two sections do not mention marriage or families - they are specifically aimed at only at women be they married or unmarried.

    Since you are being so literal - Article 41 doesn't mention men anywhere - are they therefore not involved in either marriage or families?


  • #313
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    lisar816 wrote: »
    Marriage will be defined after this referendum is passed, at present it is not.

    No. It won't be 'defined'.

    It will just say 'marriage may be contracted' without an actual definition of what that contract consists of.


  • #314
    upinthesky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭upinthesky


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    And those two sections do not mention marriage or families - they are specifically aimed at only at women be they married or unmarried.

    Since you are being so literal - Article 41 doesn't mention men anywhere - are they therefore not involved in either marriage or families?

    omg, do you not understand what i am trying to point out here, women and same sex do not belong in the same article, if the government had pointed this out fair enough but they didn't, which leaves me to ask why not, and what else have they not said, and what are they planning next, point made.


  • #315
    allym
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,368 ✭✭✭allym


    lisar816 wrote: »
    omg, do you not understand what i am trying to point out here, women and same sex do not belong in the same article, if the government had pointed this out fair enough but they didn't, which leaves me to ask why not, and what else have they not said, and what are they planning next, point made.

    It's not mentioned because it's not what we're voting on. Pretty simple really


  • #316
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    lisar816 wrote: »
    omg, do you not understand what i am trying to point out here, women and same sex do not belong in the same article, if the government had pointed this out fair enough but they didn't, which leaves me to ask why not, and what else have they not said, and what are they planning next, point made.


    What do you refer to by this?


  • #317
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    lisar816 wrote: »
    omg, do you not understand what i am trying to point out here, women and same sex do not belong in the same article, if the government had pointed this out fair enough but they didn't, which leaves me to ask why not, and what else have they not said, and what are they planning next, point made.

    What I don't understand is why you are threatening to vote against equality because a booklet produced by the independent Referendum Commission (not the Government) did not include in what was clearly stated is an extract two sections which refer specifically and only to all women, sections which will not be impacted upon by the Referendum on May 22 2015.

    Meaningless sections at that!


  • #318
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    allym wrote: »
    It's not mentioned because it's not what we're voting on. Pretty simple really

    The point is a yes has ramifications of stuff fair outside just ssm, but yes just want you to believe a yes will just mean gay people can have a wedding


  • #319
    upinthesky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭upinthesky


    You can be sure it's to do with money anyway,there already winding down the one parent family allowance, stopped them doing ce schemes and claiming there payment together, maybe get rid of tax credits for married women, i dont no.


  • #320
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,622 ✭✭✭swampgas


    gravehold wrote: »
    The point is a yes has ramifications of stuff fair outside just ssm, but yes just want you to believe a yes will just mean gay people can have a wedding

    That's ridiculous. It's a referendum on marriage, not on weddings.


  • #321
    Drumpot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    I find much of the arguments against a yes vote to be as flimsy as you would expect in this kind of subjective referendum.

    If you strip down all the bullsh*it, one has to ask what benefits are there to not allowing a loving couple marry?

    - there is no scientific evidence to prove that children would be better served in a family with two parents of the opposite sex. It's subjective, not objective to state that a woman-man parentage is more beneficial to a child.

    - the state has the right to grant equal status to all its citizens. No religion has a right to dictate how the state should grant equality to its citizens.

    For me this boils down to fear. People who fear what they don't understand and people who fear that this threatens their own beliefs. its not necessarily fair to call all the no campaign homophobic but it's difficult to see how any of their arguments are anything other then personal opinions based on fear of change.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,622 ✭✭✭swampgas


    lisar816 wrote: »
    You can be sure it's to do with money anyway,there already winding down the one parent family allowance, stopped them doing ce schemes and claiming there payment together, maybe get rid of tax credits for married women, i dont no.

    No, you really don't know. But plenty of people here are patiently trying to explain it to you. It's not a conspiracy. The referendum is exactly what it says on the tin.


  • #323
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    lisar816 wrote: »
    You can be sure it's to do with money anyway,there already winding down the one parent family allowance, stopped them doing ce schemes and claiming there payment together, maybe get rid of tax credits for married women, i dont no.

    So you've no actual idea what you think they're "up to" at all?


  • #324
    upinthesky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭upinthesky


    swampgas wrote: »
    No, you really don't know. But plenty of people here are patiently trying to explain it to you. It's not a conspiracy. The referendum is exactly what it says on the tin.

    Fine, thats why i came on here hoping someone would give a valid reason as to why all the article was not published and a very important part (imo) was left out, and i have yet to hear the reason, and i'm sure there was a reason whether you believe it or not.


  • #325
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,103 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    lisar816 wrote: »
    omg, do you not understand what i am trying to point out here, women and same sex do not belong in the same article, if the government had pointed this out fair enough but they didn't, which leaves me to ask why not, and what else have they not said, and what are they planning next, point made.


    Lisa I understand what you're trying to say, but you're reading far too much into the Articles and putting far too much significance on the word 'woman' when the section it refers to isn't actually related to the section on marriage.

    The Government actually have nothing to do with this referendum. The Referendum Commission are an independent body, the Fine Gael party are not Government either. Nobody in the above is trying to pull a fast one on you.

    The no campaign are presenting misleading information and spreading fear among people to try and tell them to be suspicious of Government, trying to introduce issues which they know are not actually going to change either way regardless of the outcome of the referendum, and trying to use this to support a no vote, when the only thing that will change is that two people will be allowed enter into the marital contract in accordance with law without distinction as to their sex.


  • #326
    upinthesky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭upinthesky


    Nodin wrote: »
    So you've no actual idea what you think they're "up to" at all?

    No i don't at the minute i am just going on what is fact!


  • #327
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Lisa, I'm not really sure where it is you're getting confused. The two parts you're referring to aren't talking about the same thing. One is about marriage, one is for some reason, about women at home. They're seperate, they just happen to be in the same article. Why would they put it on the referendum leaflet when it's nothing to do with the referendum?


  • #328
    upinthesky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭upinthesky


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Lisa, I'm not really sure where it is you're getting confused. The two parts you're referring to aren't talking about the same thing. One is about marriage, one is for some reason, about women at home. They're seperate, they just happen to be in the same article. Why would they put it on the referendum leaflet when it's nothing to do with the referendum?

    Because it is article 41 we are adding to, and this section was left out! And i wouldn't mind but it was the only section left out, why leave a section out?


  • #329
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    lisar816 wrote: »
    Because it is article 41 we are adding to, and this section was left out! And i wouldn't mind but it was the only section left out, why leave a section out?

    The answer really is because it's not relevant to the referendum.


  • #330
    Drumpot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    gravehold wrote: »
    The point is a yes has ramifications of stuff fair outside just ssm, but yes just want you to believe a yes will just mean gay people can have a wedding

    This referendum is about equality. If it means knock on equality for gay people with regards to adoption then so be it.

    If the no campaign had of protested its side fairly and reasonably they could of conveyed these concerns to objective people who would of factored in these ramifications. If a campaign is based purely on fear it will either succeed or fail based on its audience. I think most people are prepared for the ramifications of a yes vote, it's just those on the no side refuse to accept that many of their arguments are shallow and purely subjective based on fear.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Drumpot wrote: »
    This referendum is about equality

    No it's not we have gone over this but we are not allowed to talk about how it's not equality for all adults


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement