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

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 09:15PM

swampgas wrote: »

Try Occam's razor. What seems more likely: option 1, that you alone truly understand why this referendum is a waste of time, and everyone else is a misguided idiot, or option 2, that your understanding of the situation is really not up to actual GCU standards, and you are on the wrong side of the argument.

But, sure, a referendum just needs to be proposed by the Oireachtas. Like, are you seriously suggesting that irrelevant stuff doesn't get proposed? Are you seriously suggesting the qualifying age for president is a pressing issue?

Anita Blow · 10-05-2015 09:16PM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

As a heterosexual female, I have no intention of physically demonstrating it to anyone either. Child of mine or not.

Off to the Magdalene Laundries with you

Bannasidhe · 10-05-2015 09:18PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Indeed. In fairness the poster was not wrong. As a gay male I will have no intention of physically demonstrating tampon insertion to anyone.

Not a gay male but neither do I!

Jeeze... my mother couldn't even say knickers if there was a male in the house - not to mention her vague references to 'Down There' and ' His Aul Man' - no way could she have even said tampon never mind give lessons in insertion...

What do be going on in some people's minds?

Zen65 · 10-05-2015 09:18PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Indeed. In fairness the poster was not wrong. As a gay male I will have no intention of physically demonstrating tampon insertion to anyone.

You could be perfectly creative and use a coke bottle!

Sofiztikated · 10-05-2015 09:20PM

Zen65 wrote: »

You could be perfectly creative and use a coke bottle!

This just in, a Yes Vote will involve manditory coke bottle insertions into young vaginas everywhere!

gormdubhgorm · 10-05-2015 09:21PM

I found this on wiki. I know it is only wiki and it can be edited by anyone but it gives a good history on the issue and present debate http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Zen65 · 10-05-2015 09:21PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What do be going on in some people's minds?

Barrels need to be scraped to avoid telling it like it is.

Bannasidhe · 10-05-2015 09:21PM

Zen65 wrote: »

My sisters did have a mother to show them how to use a tampon, but she would not, because she thought such things ruined a girl. .

My mother thought this too - it was all very confusing as she wouldn't say tampon or explain what 'ruined' meant...did girls who use tampons get put in the twintub with a red sock and get ruined? Could be...

swampgas · 10-05-2015 09:22PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, a referendum just needs to be proposed by the Oireachtas. Like, are you seriously suggesting that irrelevant stuff doesn't get proposed? Are you seriously suggesting the qualifying age for president is a pressing issue?

The qualifying age is not a pressing issue, and if the referendum was just to deal with that issue alone, I would think it pretty silly. As it is, there are two issues being voted on, and as at least one of them is (IMO) very significant, I don't have very much of an issue with the other. I imagine the cost of running a referendum is much the same regardless of how many issues are put before us.

LookingFor · 10-05-2015 09:23PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It seems perfectly reasonable to withhold consent until such time as the proposal is sensible.

Bear in mind, this point is listed as one of the 160 spam points that we're voting to eliminate. I choose not to eliminate it. And I notice you are not meeting the point head on, and explaining why extending the scope for under 17s getting married is a good idea.

Because it is the same marriage everybody else has. Warts and all. That is precisely the point.

Your argument is basically for discrimination against gay people because they're too good for marriage! Any aspects of marriage law you are unhappy with can be taken up with your local TD as mentioned earlier.

It's a thinly veiled argument for discrimination against a specific group of people. As I said elsewhere, the same as arguing women shouldn't have gotten the vote to prevent them having to deal with the stress of politics, or for women drivers to be banned to reduce the number of accidents on the road. Or, I don't know - let's ban white people form purchasing knives. It'll reduce knife accidents, right?

Sorry, not reasonable arguments at all. You're swinging a blunt instrument around - discriminately - when a scalpel (i.e. legislation in the area of concern to you) that applies to all will do.

gormdubhgorm · 10-05-2015 09:32PM

I just realised if this same sex marraige and presidential age ref passes - there could be a same sex married couple aged 21 in Aras an uachtarain!

Zen65 · 10-05-2015 09:37PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I just realised if this same sex marraige and presidential age ref passes - there could be a same sex married couple aged 21 in Aras an uachtarain!

Hopefully the partner would be >35 and might actually have something worthwhile to say to other heads of state?

Sofiztikated · 10-05-2015 09:55PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Hopefully the partner would be >35 and might actually have something worthwhile to say to other heads of state?

Well that's just ageism. I've had me some very interesting conversations with <35 year olds.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 09:58PM

swampgas wrote: »

The qualifying age is not a pressing issue, and if the referendum was just to deal with that issue alone, I would think it pretty silly. As it is, there are two issues being voted on, and as at least one of them is (IMO) very significant, I don't have very much of an issue with the other. I imagine the cost of running a referendum is much the same regardless of how many issues are put before us.

Fine, but can I suggest to you that there's no that big a jump between what you've said and accepting that my position is reasonable. By "reasonable", I just mean not oh so strange and bizarre as some are suggesting.

You accept that one of the issues isn't pressing. I'm contending neither of them is. You seem to at least accept the possibility that relatively unimportant issues might be put to a vote.

You feel one of them is significant (I take it you mean SSM). My contention is it's largely symbolic. Poke beyond the symbols, and you'll very quickly notice people being unable to give you a specific reason why marriage under age 17 is a good thing in itself, such that you'd want even more people to be able to do it. (And, indeed, I'm not suggesting it's a pivotal issue. It just demonstrates the lack of substance behind the Yes campaign.)

Again, I'm not asking you to share that judgement. Just to appreciate that someone might reasonably have that judgement.

One response to a time wasting referendum might be (as you seem to say on the age one) to just let it pass. Another is to take a step back, and refuse to consent to a series of time-wasting proposals - which is exactly what we'll get if the Government reckons we like voting for largely meaningless amendments.

If Government proposed an amendment to the Constitution that said "Flowers are pretty", I couldn't think of a particular reason for opposing the proposition. I'd still vote against it, as I'd see no point in consenting to such a pointless change. Would you vote in favour of it?

LookingFor wrote: »

Because it is the same marriage everybody else has. Warts and all. That is precisely the point.

And my point is I see no point in extending the incidence of warts.

gormdubhgorm · 10-05-2015 10:07PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Well that's just ageism. I've had me some very interesting conversations with <35 year olds.

Similar to this marriage referendum some people will view it as a move forward for equality, while others will view it as wrong.

LookingFor · 10-05-2015 10:09PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And my point is I see no point in extending the incidence of warts.

Or the good, evidently. Forgive me if I don't take it as altruistic, or if I suspect ulterior motivations, when someone withholds equality from someone 'for their own good'. It's pretty patronising and pretty transparent.

Zen65 · 10-05-2015 10:11PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Just to appreciate that someone might reasonably have that judgement.

One cannot reasonably have that judgement. Any secondary school maths student will point out to you that your suggestion that the SSM referendum will increase the number of marriages under for under-17-year-olds is incorrect. Moreover, choosing to try to limit it by excluding categories of persons availing of marriage on the basis of sexual orientation is neither reasonable nor fair. It is discrimination, of the most insidious order. It has all the rationale of saying "we have enough politicians, so let's not allow any more women in".

KingBrian2 · 10-05-2015 10:12PM

This society has already changed its opinions on homosexuals unlike other countries such as Saudi Arabia or Sudan that actively persecutes them. What is behind is the constitutional changes that are required for full participation in society.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 10:13PM

LookingFor wrote: »

Or the good, evidently. Forgive me if I don't take it as altruistic, or if I suspect ulterior motivations, when someone withholds equality from someone 'for their own good'. It's pretty patronising and pretty transparent.

I don't see how your point follows on. I'm looking for a positive reason for extending the scope for marriage of under 17 year olds.

The answer might be "There isn't one. That will be a negative consequence of a Yes Vote. We'd be better off if that particular difference wasn't eliminated."

In fact, I suspect that is the answer. I also expect I won't see any Yes voter admitting that.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 10:16PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Any secondary school maths student will point out to you that your suggestion that the SSM referendum will increase the number of marriages under for under-17-year-olds is incorrect.

How?

Zen65 wrote: »

It has all the rationale of saying "we have enough politicians, so let's not allow any more women in".

It's nothing like that at all. There's no reason why women should be excluded from politics. There is reason to exclude under 17s from marriage.

You are advancing a false argument.

I suspect this is simply a negative consequence of a Yes vote. I don't see any reason to speak of it otherwise. Some indirectly admit this, by using terms like "warts".

LookingFor · 10-05-2015 10:19PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't see how your point follows on. I'm looking for a positive reason for extending the scope for marriage of under 17 year olds.

That provision already exists.

You're being asked to extend marriage to more citizens under the same laws as everyone else. Whether you consider those laws good or bad, they will apply fairly to all.

That you don't like one aspect of marriage law is fine. Withholding marriage from some citizens unequally to try and address that aspect is logically fallacious in the extreme. You're not addressing that issue at all. "Nobody can marry at all because a tiny number of under 17s - like in any other marrying group - could marry". Why does the latter outweigh the agency of the former - of everyone else - for this group and this group only?

The logic you are using could be applied to 'justify' pretty much any discrimination you care for. This has been illustrated to you in several examples now. If you're looking for someone to soothe your conscience and say this is reasonable, I'm afraid you won't get that from me.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 10:21PM

LookingFor wrote: »

That provision already exists.

Yes, and I'm suggesting it's a bad provision which should be eliminated and not extended, and you're not giving me a reason for extending it.

You can't answer a specfic point by retreating into generalities.

Cody montana · 10-05-2015 10:24PM

I'm backing the one with the name most likely to be the winner.
This is like horse racing right?

Pherekydes · 10-05-2015 10:25PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

How?It's nothing like that at all. There's no reason why women should be excluded from politics. There is reason to exclude under 17s from marriage.

The current legal age for marriage in Ireland is 18. The Marriage referendum will not change this.

Your "concerns" are, I wager, an intellectually dishonest reason for voting No.

You are advocating a No vote, yet you say the referendum is a waste of time, which jars with your "concern" for the under 17s.

traprunner · 10-05-2015 10:25PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Fine, but can I suggest to you that there's no that big a jump between what you've said and accepting that my position is reasonable. By "reasonable", I just mean not oh so strange and bizarre as some are suggesting.

You accept that one of the issues isn't pressing. I'm contending neither of them is. You seem to at least accept the possibility that relatively unimportant issues might be put to a vote.

You feel one of them is significant (I take it you mean SSM). My contention is it's largely symbolic. Poke beyond the symbols, and you'll very quickly notice people being unable to give you a specific reason why marriage under age 17 is a good thing in itself, such that you'd want even more people to be able to do it. (And, indeed, I'm not suggesting it's a pivotal issue. It just demonstrates the lack of substance behind the Yes campaign.)

Again, I'm not asking you to share that judgement. Just to appreciate that someone might reasonably have that judgement.

One response to a time wasting referendum might be (as you seem to say on the age one) to just let it pass. Another is to take a step back, and refuse to consent to a series of time-wasting proposals - which is exactly what we'll get if the Government reckons we like voting for largely meaningless amendments.

If Government proposed an amendment to the Constitution that said "Flowers are pretty", I couldn't think of a particular reason for opposing the proposition. I'd still vote against it, as I'd see no point in consenting to such a pointless change. Would you vote in favour of it?And my point is I see no point in extending the incidence of warts.

Glad to see you're picking another point since refusing to answering my question a few days ago where it basically proved that your issue is your homophobia and not all the other failed arguments you come up with.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 10:29PM

LookingFor wrote: »

Why does the latter outweigh the agency of the former - of everyone else - for this group and this group only?

I think you're confusing yourself at this stage. I'm saying that extending a wrong is not a good thing.

If you're asking whether it's acceptable for people to profit from a wrong, well I suppose you could do worse than read that Ursula Le Guin short story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas
.

But, more immediately, just acknowledging that marriage of under 17 year olds is a bad idea, and one that should be discouraged rather than extended, would be a good step.

LookingFor · 10-05-2015 10:31PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yes, and I'm suggesting it's a bad provision which should be eliminated and not extended, and you're not giving me a reason for extending it.

Justice and equality is the reason on a number of fronts, including this one. As the full package, the same rules as everyone else is playing by, it should be extended. That is fairness. Specifically withholding marriage from one group because you don't think marriage is perfect is unjust treatment under the law. Extending (and amending, if you so wish) one law so it applies to all is the right way to go.

And the generalities you speak of serve to illustrate your logic's flaws.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, more immediately, just acknowledging that marriage of under 17 year olds is a bad idea, and one that should be discouraged rather than extended, would be a good step.

This is a false dillemma. I personally don't agree with under 17s marrying, but the same law should apply to all couples. Your point is like saying we should a specific group of people - say - driving cars until we make driving perfectly safe. That is not fair, and it's not addressing the root problem. We can address the issue of under 17s fairly for everyone, this referendum is not the means to do that.

Pherekydes · 10-05-2015 10:32PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, more immediately, just acknowledging that marriage of under 17 year olds is a bad idea, and one that should be discouraged rather than extended, would be a good step.

You do realise that under 18s require a court order to marry, and this will not change after the referendum?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 10:33PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

The current legal age for marriage in Ireland is 18. The Marriage referendum will not change this.

I'm not sure you've followed the background to the issue. One of the "160 differences" which Yes voters want us to eliminate (well, in fairness, I doubt that any of them actually read the list before posting it)provides the background to the issue.

I similar thought, initially, that the item on the list was redundant. But, apparently, 11 people aged under 17 were able to get an exemption order form the minimum age.

But be very clear - what I'm doing is asking Yes voters to stand over the material that they are advancing in support of their position.

Anita Blow · 10-05-2015 10:33PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think you're confusing yourself at this stage. I'm saying that extending a wrong is not a good thing.

If you're asking whether it's acceptable for people to profit from a wrong, well I suppose you could do worse than read that Ursula Le Guin short story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas
.

But, more immediately, just acknowledging that marriage of under 17 year olds is a bad idea, and one that should be discouraged rather than extended, would be a good step.

Am I missing something? Where is this notion that those under 17 will be able to get married? The amendment states "in accordance with law" and the law doesn't permit those under 17 to marry.

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

Comments