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

eviltwin · 10-05-2015 10:35PM

You miss a day on this thread, come back and oh what a surprise! A No voter has introduced yet another tangent.

Are we being as to vote on reducing the legal age of marriage? No!! So why is it being discussed. It's a non issue or is it the next step on that slippery slope we keep hearing about :rolleyes:

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 10:36PM

LookingFor wrote: »

Justice and equality is the reason on a number of fronts, including this one.

Justice and equality can't dictate that 17 year olds be allowed to get married. That's just verbiage.

Anita Blow wrote: »

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.

Check the "160 differences" spam list that Yes voters have linked several times. I'm sure one of them will help you get it, if you can't find it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 10:36PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Are we being as to vote on reducing the legal age of marriage?

Yes, it's one of the "160 differences" that will be eliminated by a Yes vote.

Pherekydes · 10-05-2015 10:37PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, apparently, 11 people aged under 17 were able to get an exemption order form the minimum age.

Were these 11 people straight?

How many gay people under 17 do you think might want to get married after the referendum?

Are you seriously advocating withholding marriage from all people because some under 17s might want to be married?

eviltwin · 10-05-2015 10:39PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yes, it's one of the "160 differences" that will be eliminated by a Yes vote.

How does the amendment as it stands change the legal age of marriage. I ain't reading pages and pages of ****e.

KingBrian2 · 10-05-2015 10:39PM

Does anyone know what the about the other referendum? Something about lowering the voting age for president. It seems to have completely gone off the radar.

LookingFor · 10-05-2015 10:41PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Justice and equality can't dictate that 17 year olds be allowed to get married.

Justice and equality means fair treatment under the same law, and that means the bits of the law that both need amendment and those that don't.

That the law allows 17 year olds to marry isn't the problem or fault of the specific group you're wishing to withhold marriage from, nor will doing so remedy that law one iota.

Yours is a wrong solution to a problem that is non-unique to the group of people in question, seemingly being used as a justification for discriminating against them.

It's basically a re-run of the old 'don't extend marriage because it will increase the number of divorces'.

traprunner · 10-05-2015 10:44PM

eviltwin wrote: »

How does the amendment as it stands change the legal age of marriage. I ain't reading pages and pages of ****e.

It allows marriage and then the law would respect that marriage includes same sex couples. This enables under 18 gay people apply for an exemption to get married. So GCU's latest spam post is showing his bigotry because he does not want gay people to apt for the exemption that can be awarded by the high court (I believe) to hetrosexual people. Just another pointless argument that he spams this and other threads with.

MrWalsh · 10-05-2015 10:46PM

eviltwin wrote: »

How does the amendment as it stands change the legal age of marriage. I ain't reading pages and pages of ****e.

I must say it's very peaceful for me now that I no longer see the trolling posts. You're quite right not to read pages of ****e.

I can summarise for you:
Troll : yet another fallacy
Everyone else : solid refutation
Troll : restate said fallacy continuously, ignoring all solid refutations.

And on it goes.

marienbad · 10-05-2015 10:49PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

I must say it's very peaceful for me now that I no longer see the trolling posts. You're quite right not to read pages of ****e.

I can summarise for you:
Troll : yet another fallacy
Everyone else : solid refutation
Troll : restate said fallacy continuously, ignoring all solid refutations.

And on it goes.

The ignore button is your friend

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 10:50PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Are you seriously advocating withholding marriage from all people because some under 17s might want to be married?

I'm seriously saying it's a negative consequence of a yes vote. Do you disagree?

MrWalsh · 10-05-2015 10:52PM

marienbad wrote: »

The ignore button is your friend

It's like the fuzzy warm button of boards isn't it? Instant switch off of irritating noise.

Looking forward to the May 23rd celebrations.

traprunner · 10-05-2015 10:52PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm seriously saying it's a negative consequence of a yes vote. Do you disagree?

I've yet to see someone agree with you. You are making up issues in your head to justify your bigotry.

Anita Blow · 10-05-2015 10:52PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Justice and equality can't dictate that 17 year olds be allowed to get married. That's just verbiage.
Check the "160 differences" spam list that Yes voters have linked several times. I'm sure one of them will help you get it, if you can't find it.

I have. What are you referencing in it specifically? There's nothing in there relating to the Marriages Act, and the only thing remotely related is the Age of Majority Act 1985 which has no similar provision in Civil Partnership.
Surely you must realise that if this was an actual consequence of a Yes vote there'd be more than just you talking about it? The No campaign would latch on to that, but they haven't because I presume they know that in no way could a yes vote be interpreted as enabling marriage among minors.

Pherekydes · 10-05-2015 10:53PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm seriously saying it's a negative consequence of a yes vote. Do you disagree?

It is already a consequence of court allowed under 18 marriages. So a Yes vote will not change anything.

Should we withhold marriage from all because some under 17s want to marry? Yes or no?

traprunner · 10-05-2015 10:53PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

It's like the fuzzy warm button of boards isn't it? Instant switch off of irritating noise.

Looking forward to the May 23rd celebrations.

I'm just glad I can waste his time here so he doesn't have time to influence people who aren't educated on the referendum.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 10:55PM

traprunner wrote: »

It allows marriage and then the law would respect that marriage includes same sex couples. This enables under 18 gay people apply for an exemption to get married. So GCU's latest spam post is showing his bigotry because he does not want gay people to apt for the exemption that can be awarded by the high court (I believe) to hetrosexual people.

Almost right. I'd vote against any proposition that extends or continues the scope for marriage of under 17 year olds. This referendum will extend the scope.

Fair play. You're the only one close to defending the marriage of 17 year olds as a good thing in itself.

MrWalsh · 10-05-2015 10:56PM

traprunner wrote: »

I'm just glad I can waste his time here so he doesn't have time to influence people who aren't educated on the referendum.

He has numerous posters dancing attendance responding to rubbish.

It feeds him. You're giving him what he wants, an audience.

No one is dumb enough to be taken in by the substandard fallacious logic.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 11:00PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

It is already a consequence of court allowed under 18 marriages. So a Yes vote will not change anything.

Should we withhold marriage from all because some under 17s want to marry? Yes or no?

I'm suggesting we certainly shouldn't extend the scope for under 17s to marry. Best would be none, but we're only being asked to vote on the extension consequent on this amendment.

That's a clear enough answer from my perspective. Do you feel widening the scope for marriage of under 17 year olds is a good thing?

One eyed Jack · 10-05-2015 11:00PM

floggg wrote: »

When we ask "what if your children are gay" we are still discussing adult rights. What if your child was to grow up knowing they would lack the same adult rights as you did.

That's not using children - its asking people to empathise. There is nothing objectionable about asking people who may feel removed from the debate to think of it from another perspective.

You're asking people to empathise with a concept that's more than just a simple hypothesis, that they have no experience of, and you're asking them to see something from your perspective about their own children. In case you hadn't noticed, people are very protective of their children and don't like them being used to prick their consciences. Has that whole hypothetical ever actually worked on anyone to change their minds? Let me know if it ever does, because unless people experience something for themselves, the odds are far more likely that they won't possibly come near imagining such a simplistic hypothesis.

It is also absurd to say the Yes side conduct their campaign without addressing the no side's claims. While we are not happy about having to continually counter these red herring or irrelevant arguments, if we don't address them people will absorb them and they will gain even further traction.

There are lots of people on the door steps who have concerns about surrogacy and children's rights because they have read the posters, the newspapers articles and listened to the radio.

And you think five minutes on their doorstep is going to change a lifetime thought process by telling them imagine if one of their children were LGBT?

You know I support marriage equality and what you're suggesting even to me sounds absurd, so I find it almost incredible that someone who has no familiarity with LGBT issues and is unsure about the whole idea is suddenly able to see clearly from your perspective.

I've said already that the no campaign have effectively shot themselves in the foot with their ill-considered campaign slogans, and people can see their hatred for what it is, but this is a campaign that people should have been fighting long ago to integrate into society so that support for marriage equality would have been a no brainer rather than a complete stranger turning up on their doorstep with two weeks to go before the referendum and asking them to imagine if their children were gay.

In order to persuade the undecided's an the soft no's we have to rebut their false claims.

Suggesting that we can run a debate without addressing the other sides arguments shows incredible naivety.

Incredibly naive to you perhaps, but then from my perspective, I'm not interested in "running debates" or "winning debates". I'm interested in gaining support among ordinary people who have no interest in the politics of a referendum. I'm interested in the future of Irish society for everyone, long beyond May 22nd.

We simply have different perspectives on achieving somewhat similar goals is all. You're thinking more short term, I'm thinking much, much longer term, when those hypothetical children you're speaking about actually are adults themselves.

traprunner · 10-05-2015 11:01PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

He has numerous posters dancing attendance responding to rubbish.

It feeds him. You're giving him what he wants, an audience.

No one is dumb enough to be taken in by the substandard fallacious logic.

I'd make a pretty crap audience. I exposed him a a bigot a few days ago so now I ignore him for the most part laughing at his latest change of argument. Rarely interacting now with his SPAM. Others are generally feeding him. I like to see him getting wound up and probably almost having a heart attack fighting off all the gay lovers.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 11:02PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

I have. What are you referencing in it specifically? There's nothing in there relating to the Marriages Act, and the only thing remotely related is the Age of Majority Act 1985 which has no similar provision in Civil Partnership.
Surely you must realise that if this was an actual consequence of a Yes vote there'd be more than just you talking about it? The No campaign would latch on to that, but they haven't because I presume they know that in no way could a yes vote be interpreted as enabling marriage among minors.

Look again, because you'll notice that the few informed yes voters aren't contesting the point.

floggg · 10-05-2015 11:04PM

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.

That's some dumb logic.

By voting no you confirm the waste of time. A whole lot of time, effort, money etc for no change.

Even if you don't vote think its a significant change, a yes vote still means there was some point to it all.

Now, I realise you don't actually believe the crap you're spouting, sou you probably already know this.

Or at least for your sake I hope so.

eviltwin · 10-05-2015 11:14PM

How many under 18s marry here as it is? Very few if any, isn't that why so many traveller weddings are held over the border to get round that so let's stop with this straw clutching. Even if it were to happen it's not a valid reason to deny marriage to the thousands of couples over 18. It's a weak argument.

10-05-2015 11:21PM

lazygal wrote: »

We'd simply add it to how we feel about Ireland and raising and educating young children here. Right now, as parents raising children without religion, the education system and its dominance by religious orders is a huge concern to us. Having schools teaching that gay marriage isn't right or indeed that being gay is a disorder isn't a system we want our children educated by. If my children are gay I don't want to have to put their education against religious run schools.

We raised a child as an atheist here (he's now 18). It went fine. He went to a non-religious primary school. It was fine. He went to a denominational secondary school. It was fine, and the school certainly does not promote the idea that marriage equality is wrong or that being gay is a disorder.

It's easier to raise a child in a non-religious way in Dublin, but it's getting easier in most other places too, mainly because of the presence of Educate Together. Also, the vast majority of my friends and workmates are Catholic, and the notion of people being atheists and raising their kids as atheists didn't exactly raise all that many eyebrows among them.

Like I said, it would be disappointing if there were a No vote, but I really do think it's a bit OTT to suggest you'd abandon the country because of it.

floggg · 10-05-2015 11:24PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm seriously saying it's a negative consequence of a yes vote. Do you disagree?

Yes.

The court will require you to show:

That there are good reasons for your application
That the granting of such an Exemption Order is in the best interests of the parties to the intended marriage

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/getting_married/legal_prerequisites_for_marriage.html

The court is in a much better position than you to say whether reducing the age requirement is in the best interests of the parties in any particular case.

Given the small number of cases, this clearly isn't an important issue. Its a very transparent attempt to introduce nonsense red herring arguments.

You know you're not going to convince anybody with such nonsense, and we know you are intent on voting no regardless of what we say and you don't need any specific reason to do so.

So the only question remains, why are you wasting everybody's time here - yours and ours?

eviltwin · 10-05-2015 11:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

We raised a child as an atheist here (he's now 18). It went fine. He went to a non-religious primary school. It was fine. He went to a denominational secondary school. It was fine, and the school certainly does not promote the idea that marriage equality is wrong or that being gay is a disorder.

It's easier to raise a child in a non-religious way in Dublin, but it's getting easier in most other places too, mainly because of the presence of Educate Together. Also, the vast majority of my friends and workmates are Catholic, and the notion of people being atheists and raising their kids as atheists didn't exactly raise all that many eyebrows among them.

Like I said, it would be disappointing if there were a No vote, but I really do think it's a bit OTT to suggest you'd abandon the country because of it.

You and your son are lucky. My 17 yr old is gay, went to Catholic schools as there wasn't an alternative and went through some tough times because of it most recently only a year or two ago when Pure in Heart paid a visit and came out with some anti gay stuff. We are lucky she is so strong mentally to cope, another kid might not have fared as well. Things are changing but it's hit and miss and down to individual schools.

floggg · 10-05-2015 11:27PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

I have. What are you referencing in it specifically? There's nothing in there relating to the Marriages Act, and the only thing remotely related is the Age of Majority Act 1985 which has no similar provision in Civil Partnership.
Surely you must realise that if this was an actual consequence of a Yes vote there'd be more than just you talking about it? The No campaign would latch on to that, but they haven't because I presume they know that in no way could a yes vote be interpreted as enabling marriage among minors.

If Mothers and Fathers First don't think an argument can be taken half way seriously, you know it bull****.

Anita Blow · 10-05-2015 11:28PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Look again, because you'll notice that the few informed yes voters aren't contesting the point.

Because it's an absurd point to contest. The exact same restrictions on marriage eligibility will apply to same-sex couples that apply to heterosexual couples currently should the referendum pass.

upinthesky · 10-05-2015 11:33PM

Don't forget to read the small print in regards to this referendum!

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

Comments