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…3738404243…327

Comments

  • #1172
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


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

    [ul]htps:/twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/597719017672040448[/url]

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

    They tend to ignore the referendum commission when it suits them. As usual, along with redefining marriage they have yet to explain that the actual problem is.

    GCU wouldnt even come up with something that bad.


  • #1173
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I do know the numbers, because I posted them when I first raised this topic.

    So you are well aware that if Gay Marriage is a big waste of time because there'll only be hundreds of marriages, then gay under 18 marriage is a no big deal, when there might be none or one per year, and only with a court's approval.


  • #1174
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    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?

    I once met a fellow straight guy that was making fun of me.....


  • #1175
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    smash wrote: »
    More so to do with you just ignoring their valid points.
    Really, no. I put specific points. They retreat into generalities. I point out that's what they're doing. To cover the collapse of their argument, they say "troll, we're putting you on ignore".

    That's about the pattern.

    Anyway, I've something to check on the list of 160 differences. Au reservoir. Just talk among yourself until I get back.


  • #1176
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    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.

    No, they're not the reason. The 160 differences are there just to point out how civil partnership is not equal to marriage.
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Really, no. I put specific points. They retreat into generalities.
    The Irony...


  • Advertisement
  • #1177
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    smash wrote: »
    No, they're not the reason. The 160 differences are there just to point out how civil partnership is not equal to marriage.

    I should really make that flowchart, some people find it an incredibly difficult thing to comprehend.


  • #1178
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    So you are well aware that if Gay Marriage is a big waste of time because there'll only be hundreds of marriages, then gay under 18 marriage is a no big deal, when there might be none or one per year, and only with a court's approval.
    Erm, you might just notice that the incidence of under 18 marriage isn't necessarily randomly distributed across the population. I'm making no statements about the expected frequency of such marriages.

    I'm solely dealing with the fact that Marriage Equality think it worthy of my attention.


  • #1179
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    dodderangler wrote: »
    ....my experience with them I've found very ignorant and abusive especially towards my type if hobbies etc.

    What hobbies do gay people not like?


  • #1180
    lak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭lak


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    But, sure, the existing law is applied equally. That's a nonsense argument.
    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.

    I couldn't find that list on the links given,can you point me to a page which has the full list


  • #1181
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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 means.

    Another way should be found around it in my view to keep everyone happy.
    I don't think this ref is as simple as yes for equality, no for inequality (although it is painted that way).

    Again, how is this break in a pillar occurring. How will my right to marry affect marriage for heterosexual couples or their marriages in any way whatsoever?

    How will the rights of any heterosexual couple be affected or changed at all. You specifically mentioned changing rights, so I presume you can point to such a change.

    What is this other way?

    You mentioned a separate but equal proposal earlier - same rights, but different name.

    If you do not oppose us being given the same rights as a matter of law - just the right to use the words "marriage" or "family" - how can you contend that there would be any substantive effect from allowing us to marry.


    If you don't see any threat from giving us equality in substance and as a matter of law, how and why is equality in name a threat?


  • Advertisement
  • #1182
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    smash wrote: »
    No, they're not the reason. The 160 differences are there just to point out how civil partnership is not equal to marriage.
    Yeah, which is why they argue marriage offers additional necessary protections.

    How do I know the basis of the Yes campaign better than you?

    Seriously, stop playing silly with the issue.


  • #1183
    lak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭lak


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    What hobbies do gay people not like?

    Cow tipping?

    And no,it's not bull.


  • #1184
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Erm, you might just notice that the incidence of under 18 marriage isn't necessarily randomly distributed across the population. I'm making no statements about the expected frequency of such marriages.

    I'm solely dealing with the fact that Marriage Equality think it worthy of my attention.

    They think that a lot of other points are worthy of your attention too. Mainly Equality, but sure that doesn't serve your cause very well.


  • #1185
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    lak wrote: »
    Cow tipping?

    And no,it's not bull.

    At least there would be a cow. If it was two cows then there could be a problem because just like you can't start a herd with two bulls it's the same with two cows. :pac:


  • #1186
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Yeah, which is why they argue marriage offers additional necessary protections.

    It does. you can not deny that.


  • #1187
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    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. Don't see what this has to do with anything, other than suggesting a particularly creepy analysis of the situation.

    The age of marriage for straight couples should be the same as the age of marriage for LGBT couples.

    If you do not like the age of marriage it would make more sense to campaign fothis to be changed, rather than trying to prevent LGBT couples from marrying on the basis that they will gain access to the legal age of marriage which you don't agree with.

    Another truly pathetic red herring!


  • #1188
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    What hobbies do gay people not like?

    Making babies with their partner...


    :pac:


  • #1189
    Dimithy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 351 ✭✭Dimithy


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Don't see what this has to do with anything, other than suggesting a particularly creepy analysis of the situation.

    Just using the same logic you are.

    One of the consequences of allowing women to drive is that you increase the scope for car related deaths.

    I'm going to keep working on this, and see how many other things we shouldn't allow on the small chance that something bad might happen


  • #1190
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    I think that a same sex couple with a child would be regarded as a family unit under the constitution also. I then think that this will lead to A LOT of further complications and legal minefields in future. Things are complicated enough as they are...

    The Law Society disagree. They have called for a Yes vote, and said that a Yes vote is in the best interests of society and of Children.

    Alan Shatter, who you referred to earlier (and widely regarded as a Family Law expert) has forcefully called for a yes vote.

    As has the Children's Minister (unpopular as he is).

    Similarly the ISPCC, Barnados, the social workers organisation and many other child welfare groups have also called for a Yes vote as being in the best interests of children (primarily those who will grow up to be gay, but also those being raised by gay parents).

    Have you considered that your gut may not be as informed as the experts and professionals in the area who all support a yes vote. Again, while you may have a gut feeling, is it rational or logical to follow it?


  • #1191
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,346 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    dodderangler wrote: »
    I was called a scumbag by a bloke who was handing out leaflets for voting yes when I didn't take it off him. When he asked why, I told him because I'm voting no.
    I was called a scumbag and he basically followed me saying this. I have my reasons and he didn't exactly help change my mind about it.

    Report the incident, time, date and location of the incident to Marriage Equality. We don't need that happening.


  • Advertisement
  • #1192
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Was in town with my kids and wearing a Yes badge when someone on a pro life stand at the GPO called me selfish and a bad mother. She then screamed baby killer at us because I wouldn't buy a foetus necklace. It's unsettling and quite scary, this girl was only a young one herself, how do they get so militant.

    Actual bad mothers.
    Whatever your stance on abortion, she was clearly raised without any manners


  • #1193
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,928 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Dimithy wrote: »

    I'm going to keep working on this, and see how many other things we shouldn't allow on the small chance that something bad might happen
    Only living people kill others, so when you save somebody's life with a heart transplant, you help increase the murder rate.

    #surgeonsaremurderers


  • #1194
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Dimithy wrote: »
    Just using the same logic you are.

    One of the consequences of allowing women to drive is that you increase the scope for car related deaths.

    I'm going to keep working on this, and see how many other things we shouldn't allow on the small chance that something bad might happen

    Crossing the road increases the chances of getting knocked down.
    Talking on the phone increases the chances of the person at the other end hanging up before you.


  • #1195
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    The 160 differences are, absolutely, being advanced as the reason why an amendment is necessary and civil partnership is not enough.

    The 160 differences are a reason, they are not what we are voting on. So when Smash said one of those differences was not what we were voting on, and you said:
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    It still is what we're voting on, and it's down specified as one of the 160 differences.

    you can see now that you were wrong. The list of differences is a reason we are voting on allowing SSM. We are not voting on the differences, we are not voting on civil partnership at all.

    And, as many people have pointed out, even if there was no difference in law between civil partnership and marriage today, one has constitutional protection and the other doesn't, so we would still need an amendment.

    The 160 differences list is one reason for the referendum, but not the only reason.


  • #1196
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    osarusan wrote: »
    Only living people kill others, so when you save somebody's life with a heart transplant, you help increase the murder rate.

    #surgeonsaremurderers

    Only living people are rapists, so if you save a drowning person you increase the rape rate.


  • #1197
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    dodderangler wrote: »
    Well I've never considered any person gay or straight a paedophile unless I've actually had proof( thank god I've never met one either)
    But my reasons are my own and it's not in you to tell me to change my mind.
    Whatever way the voting goes we have to live with it.
    I won't lose sleep either way.

    This is the funny thing. Clearly from the above, you know it will make little or no difference to your life either way.

    It will make a big difference to mine as a gay man, as it will to every other gay person young and old in the country (particularly the young and vulnerable if the referendum is lost).

    I am personally don't understand how you could vote no in such circumstances, but so be it I guess.


  • #1198
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    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

    When I'm walking down stairs, I get a gut feeling that the under the stairs monster is going to reach out and grab my feet, and pull me into his hellish under( the stairs) world.

    But I don't think people should only live in bungalows.


  • #1199
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,346 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Seriously. Originally Posted by Magenta View Post. David Quinn/Iona now saying that a Yes vote would mean straight people marrying their own gender for tax evasion/a laugh therefore vote No.

    That's some red herring....


  • #1200
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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.

    And I had a straight guy who knew i was gay threaten to beat the crap out of me for staring at his girlfriends breasts and chatting her up.

    Just like straight people, some gay people are idiots and some are assholes.

    However, punishing all of us (or even holding prejudices against us) because you have had unpleasant encounter with some gay people is ignorant, abusive and then some.


  • Advertisement
  • #1201
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,928 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Seriously. Originally Posted by Magenta View Post. David Quinn/Iona now saying that a Yes vote would mean straight people marrying their own gender for tax evasion/a laugh therefore vote No.

    That's some red herring....

    I like to think it is a sign of real desperation.

    I mean, the whole 'surrogacy' argument is on that could tug at people's heartstrings, horribly misleading though it is.

    But I can't imagine anybody reading that tweet and thinking anything other than 'what the f*ck is that nonsense?'


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement