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…3637394142…327

Comments

  • #1142
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    For me this is what the Yes side are really fighting against. The No voters who have their own - probably valid for them - reasons for not wanting SSM, but who actually don't care whichever way the vote turns out.

    Why? Cause they know it actually doesn't affect them. Selfish is a word some might use.

    Careful now you don't want to be accused of bullying.


  • #1143
    anvilfour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 720 ✭✭✭anvilfour


    I mentioned earlier that my Father is married to a very nice man.

    Dad wasn't always openly gay. He married three women and fathered two children before he decided it would make him happy.

    I won't have the argument put in terms of our family somehow being less valid, or ethical or worthwhile.

    If anything Dad has had a singularly horrible time of being involved with a woman. He also stayed with my Mother a lot longer than he should "for the sake of the family."

    So please take your words like "institution of the family" and kindly shove them where the sun don't shine. We're doing just fine thank you.


  • #1144
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    If the minority breaks down one of pillars of society for the majority if the rights are changed (as they will be) then I believe that it is not the right thing to do.
    How can the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the the majority. it will completely re-write what a family unit

    Can you please explain how heterosexual marriages will supposedly be changed by LGBT people being able to marry? I mean really explain, not providing quotes from the constitution or personal ideas of what your ideal family consists of.

    I am a member of the straight, married majority and we have a child. Apparently this referendum is going to have some sort of awful, unforeseen affect on my own marriage and family which I am unaware of, we are both voting yes so you had better explain before we do. How will LGBT marriage affect my marriage and family?


  • #1145
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    smash wrote: »
    Voting yes or no will not change these laws.
    Yes, it will. It's an inevitable consequence.

    It might only be one consequence. But the wider scope will come automatically.

    One consequence of voting Yes will be to increase the scope where under 17 year old marriages can occur.

    I'm sorry, but it is simply a fact that Marriage Equality included this as a difference that justifies a Yes vote. All I did was read their goddam list, which is obviously more than many of ye did before linking it.

    Don't mind the quality, feel the width of my 160 differences. Sheesh, you actually read the list? Now you're asking questions about it? That's textbook homophobic behavior.


  • #1146
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Yes, it will. It's an inevitable consequence.

    It might only be one consequence. But the wider scope will come automatically.

    One consequence of voting Yes will be to increase the scope where under 17 year old marriages can occur.

    I'm sorry, but it is simply a fact that Marriage Equality included this as a difference that justifies a Yes vote. All I did was read their goddam list, which is obviously more than many of ye did before linking it.

    Don't mind the quality, feel the width of my 160 differences. Sheesh, you actually read the list? Now you're asking questions about it? That's textbook homophobic behavior.


    Um... you don't even know what the current age of marriage is and yet you think you can justify your posts?


  • Advertisement
  • #1147
    dodderangler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,204 ✭✭✭dodderangler


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    I can assure you it is in me to tell you to change your mind, you just won't. I am interested in general though to see and hear your reasons so I can better understand those who want to keep me a second class citizen and consider me their inferior.

    Again my reasons are my own.
    And yes there are I'm sure some lovely lgbt people out there but my experience with them I've found very ignorant and abusive especially towards my type if hobbies etc.
    example: I had a gay lad make a holy show of me one night for no reason at all other than talking to his friend who I worked with.
    He made me out to be some sort of perv and his boyfriend was trying to tell me he's just drunk but he kept going at me and saying he'd bitch slap the fcuk out of me. And of course I was laughed at over it. I walked away being the bigger man but if I had of hit him I'd have had trouble over it. And don't say I wouldn't of.


  • #1148
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    That assumes that someone feels marriage under age 17 is a Good Thing.

    No, it doesn't. All citizens should be equal before the law. If the law is a Bad Thing, you should change the law, but until it is changed, it should be applied equally.

    By the way, you realise that the number of such marriages is very small, and the focusing on them is a Big Waste Of Time, per your criticism of this whole debate?

    After all, we can expect a lot more over 18 gay marriages than under 18 straight marriages, never mind under 18 gay marriages, so if working for over 18 gay marriage is a big waste of time (per your earlier opinions), then working to prevent under 18 gay marriages is a waste of time within a waste of time.

    Yet here you are, wasting your time on it. Things that make you go "Hmmm".


  • #1149
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    LOL the Iona Institute crew getting better and better, apparently we have to vote no in case friends get married!

    https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/597719017672040448

    That David Quinn guy he's a laugh a minute :rolleyes:


  • #1150
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    dodderangler wrote: »
    And yes there are I'm sure some lovely lgbt people out there but my experience with them I've found very ignorant and abusive especially towards my type if hobbies etc.

    Equality before the law applies even to people who are ignorant and abusive.


  • #1151
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Um... you don't even know what the current age of marriage is and yet you think you can justify your posts?

    He's just SPAMing again. Same crap, different day.


  • Advertisement
  • #1152
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    So your telling me to read Shatter's family law book....that was murder the first time!

    You can't have paid too much attention to it...


  • #1153
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,928 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    By the way, you realise that the number of such marriages is very small, and the focusing on them is a Big Waste Of Time, per your criticism of this whole debate?

    I think 11 people got approval from the court last year.

    With legalised SSM, this might go up to.....say...15?

    Oh Sweet Jesus, an increase of more than 30%!

    30%!

    Armagayddon! Save us Bruce Willis, save us.


  • #1154
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    dodderangler wrote: »
    Again my reasons are my own.
    And yes there are I'm sure some lovely lgbt people out there but my experience with them I've found very ignorant and abusive especially towards my type if hobbies etc.
    example: I had a gay lad make a holy show of me one night for no reason at all other than talking to his friend who I worked with.
    He made me out to be some sort of perv and his boyfriend was trying to tell me he's just drunk but he kept going at me and saying he'd bitch slap the fcuk out of me. And of course I was laughed at over it. I walked away being the bigger man but if I had of hit him I'd have had trouble over it. And don't say I wouldn't of.

    Because of THAT you don't want to give them equal rights?


  • #1155
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    One consequence of voting Yes will be to increase the scope where under 17 year old marriages can occur.
    You're scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Previously you were going on about changing the meaning of 'family'.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but it is simply a fact that Marriage Equality included this as a difference that justifies a Yes vote. All I did was read their goddam list, which is obviously more than many of ye did before linking it.
    It's a difference, therefore it was listed.


  • #1156
    sunshine and showers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭sunshine and showers


    GCU, I have already dismantled your age related argument against SSM....

    sunshine and showers wrote: »
    Right, actually, let's settle this once and for all.

    We're both wrong. I went and looked into it and the Family Law Act 1995.

    The age of consent for marriage is not 17 - it's 18. You do not need parental consent to marry under the age of 18, but you do need a Court Exemption Order. To be granted such an order, you have to prove that there are good reasons for your application and that the granting of an Order is in the best interests of the parties to the intended marriage. (Generally, as a minor, an applicant would also need to prove parental consent, barring exceptional circumstances.)

    Your concern about the under 18 year olds marrying is currently being addressed by the Oireachtas - last year the Government supported a proposal by Labour party senators to remove the ability for under 18 years to marry - Exemption Order or not.

    Therefore your concern for underage gay Irish citizens, while touching, is not a reason to vote no to the SSM Referendum.


  • #1157
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    gandalf wrote: »
    LOL the Iona Institute crew getting better and better, apparently we have to vote no in case friends get married!

    https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/597719017672040448

    That David Quinn guy he's a laugh a minute :rolleyes:

    Damn....I forgot to add that my wife must be a complete stranger when I got married.


  • #1158
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    No, it doesn't. All citizens should be equal before the law. If the law is a Bad Thing, you should change the law, but until it is changed, it should be applied equally.
    But, sure, the existing law is applied equally. That's a nonsense argument.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    By the way, you realise that the number of such marriages is very small, and the focusing on them is a Big Waste Of Time, per your criticism of this whole debate?
    I do know the numbers, because I posted them when I first raised this topic. After I looked at the frequently linked (but rarely read) list of 160 differences.


  • #1159
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    Because I feel that the family unit of mother.father and child is the strongest possible unit above all else. That includes hetrosexual/homosexual or whatever else.

    Therefore further re-defining of the family I think will be bad for society as a whole. Have I am evidence for it? No. Is it a gut feeling primal instinct? yes

    Why is it bad? What negative consequence will there be?

    Can you point to anything tangible?

    Yes, you are entitled to vote based on a gut feeling and theres nothing anybody can do to stop you.

    But at a certain point you have to ask yourself is it a mature and rational thing to do, or are you just acting on a baseless bias or prejudice and for no objective purpose.

    If you can't point to any specific harm, negative consequence or prejudice to a yes vote, is voting no just because your "gut" tells you something a mature, responsible and compassionate citizen would do?

    We all know countless examples throughout history were people held biases and prejudices based on gut feelings which we now consider to be gravely wrong.

    So I'm sure your smart enough to know that just because you feel something in your gut it doesn't mean it's the right way to think or act.

    Can ask then why are you certain that this is the right way to vote, and can you say that it is a reasonable or fair basis to vote against the rights of people like myself?


  • #1160
    Jimmy Bottlehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,935 ✭✭✭Jimmy Bottlehead


    dodderangler wrote: »
    Again my reasons are my own.
    And yes there are I'm sure some lovely lgbt people out there but my experience with them I've found very ignorant and abusive especially towards my type if hobbies etc.
    example: I had a gay lad make a holy show of me one night for no reason at all other than talking to his friend who I worked with.
    He made me out to be some sort of perv and his boyfriend was trying to tell me he's just drunk but he kept going at me and saying he'd bitch slap the fcuk out of me. And of course I was laughed at over it. I walked away being the bigger man but if I had of hit him I'd have had trouble over it. And don't say I wouldn't of.

    Unless your hobby is gay-bashing, I doubt any gay man took offence to your hobby JUST because he's gay.

    I had a taxi driver a while back who thought weightlifting was stupid. Maybe I should try to have rights reduced for all white male taxi drivers because I had a bad experience with one?


  • #1161
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    smash wrote: »
    You're scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Previously you were going on about changing the meaning of 'family'.
    ? I've raised other points, none of which have been answered. They still stand. This doesn't replace any of them.
    smash wrote: »
    It's a difference, therefore it was listed.
    I actually didn't check. Did they include the presumption of paternity?


  • Advertisement
  • #1162
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    sunshine and showers wrote: »
    GCU, I have already dismantled your age related argument against SSM....
    You may have missed it, but I dismantled your dismantling
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Delighted that people accept this issue deserves this much attention. While your post is helpful in explaining some of the matter to people who might have no familiarity with these things, unfortunately it doesn't settle the matter.
    • The point I'm referring to is one set out by Marriage Equality as one of the 160 differences to be removed. So, if there was any error, it wouldn't be mine.
    • The context set by the Marriage Equality material relates to offences where the relevant threshold age is 17.
    • The Oireachtas has made no commitment to change the existing law; the motion you referred to related to forced marriage, and Government only committed to examine if a change in the law was warranted. The Government's position is actually that forced marriage is already an offence, and that none of the marriages under age 18 are forced marriages. (http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/seanad2014062500026?opendocument)
    • Hence, the issue remains live, exactly as myself and Marriage Equality would suggest.
    I take it as implicit in your post that you regard this as a negative consequence of a Yes vote. Would you make that explicit?


    Now that we've established its a live issue, can anyone finally give me a positive reason for extending the scope of the right to marry under age 17?

    EDIT: Oh, and as I said, there's no requirement for parental consent to marriage at any age.
    Perhaps you'll now appreciate why I don't individually respond every time a Yes poster says exactly the same thing as the last one.


  • #1163
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    ? I've raised other points, none of which have been answered. They still stand. This doesn't replace any of them.
    Your points have all been dissected and disproved. You just ignore the replies and keep going with your masked anti-gay crusade.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I actually didn't check. Did they include the presumption of paternity?
    What's that got to do with anything?


  • #1164
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    It still is what we're voting on, and it's down specified as one of the 160 differences.

    I don't see where civil partnership or the 160 differences are referenced in the amendment. In fact, I don't see where either is referenced in the Constitution anywhere, before or after the amendment.

    So, we are not voting on civil partnership or the 160 differences.

    Perhaps you are confused between what we are voting on and why we are voting on it. Or perhaps you are trying to create that confusion in others.


  • #1165
    Dimithy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 351 ✭✭Dimithy


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

    One consequence of voting Yes will be to increase the scope where under 17 year old marriages can occur.

    One of the consequences of having children is that you increase the scope where child abuse can occur.

    By having children you are enabling paedophiles.


  • #1166
    anvilfour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 720 ✭✭✭anvilfour


    dodderangler wrote: »
    Again my reasons are my own.
    And yes there are I'm sure some lovely lgbt people out there but my experience with them I've found very ignorant and abusive especially towards my type if hobbies etc.
    example: I had a gay lad make a holy show of me one night for no reason at all other than talking to his friend who I worked with.
    He made me out to be some sort of perv and his boyfriend was trying to tell me he's just drunk but he kept going at me and saying he'd bitch slap the fcuk out of me. And of course I was laughed at over it. I walked away being the bigger man but if I had of hit him I'd have had trouble over it. And don't say I wouldn't of.

    Yes, if you hit people for making fun of you, you would be arrested.

    Maybe you should just grow up and recognise there are people who are going to insult you everywhere and that has nothing to do with their sexuality.


  • #1167
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    smash wrote: »
    Your points have all been dissected and disproved. You just ignore the replies and keep going with your masked anti-gay crusade.
    No, in fact a few have loudly put me on ignore because they've been unable to address the points raised.
    smash wrote: »
    What's that got to do with anything?
    I'll get back to you.


  • #1168
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    No, in fact a few have loudly put me on ignore because they've been unable to address the points raised.

    More so to do with you just ignoring their valid points.


  • #1169
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    No, in fact a few have loudly put me on ignore because they've been unable to address the points raised.I'll get back to you.


    Or they do not wish to read the same SPAM over and over from bigots.


  • #1170
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I don't see where civil partnership or the 160 differences are referenced in the amendment. In fact, I don't see where either is referenced in the Constitution anywhere, before or after the amendment.

    So, we are not voting on civil partnership or the 160 differences.

    Perhaps you are confused between what we are voting on and why we are voting on it. Or perhaps you are trying to create that confusion in others.
    That's a nonsense argument. The 160 differences are, absolutely, being advanced as the reason why an amendment is necessary and civil partnership is not enough.

    If you find the debate is going against you, have the decency to admit it.
    Dimithy wrote: »
    One of the consequences of having children is that you increase the scope where child abuse can occur.

    By having children you are enabling paedophiles.
    Don't see what this has to do with anything, other than suggesting a particularly creepy analysis of the situation.


  • Advertisement
  • #1171
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    dodderangler wrote: »
    Again my reasons are my own.
    And yes there are I'm sure some lovely lgbt people out there but my experience with them I've found very ignorant and abusive especially towards my type if hobbies etc.
    example: I had a gay lad make a holy show of me one night for no reason at all other than talking to his friend who I worked with.
    He made me out to be some sort of perv and his boyfriend was trying to tell me he's just drunk but he kept going at me and saying he'd bitch slap the fcuk out of me. And of course I was laughed at over it. I walked away being the bigger man but if I had of hit him I'd have had trouble over it. And don't say I wouldn't of.

    You met an unpleasant gay person and so want to deny all LGBT people the right to marry on the basis of that?

    I work with a black person who is really quite unpleasant. What type of person would you consider me to be if I declared that I want interracial marriage banned because I know an unpleasant black person?

    What are your hobbies that you mention by the way? I am intrigued!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement