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

Ave Sodalis · 12-05-2015 04:15PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

****e :pac:.

Right ok this doesn't happen very often :P but i think a lot of you have made me think i should change my mind. Not about how i feel the yes vote was put forward i stilll dont really agree with that but the fact at the end of the day if i actually feel it should happen i should at least add to it by voting for it.

Ill have to figure out how the feck im gonna go about doing it now though seeing as i dont live there anymore!.

Can I just thank you for listening to what was being said. It's very refreshing to see and I sincerely appreciate it.

El Weirdo · 12-05-2015 04:16PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

****e :pac:.

Right ok this doesn't happen very often :P but i think a lot of you have made me think i should change my mind. Not about how i feel the yes vote was put forward i stilll dont really agree with that but the fact at the end of the day if i actually feel it should happen i should at least add to it by voting for it.

Ill have to figure out how the feck im gonna go about doing it now though seeing as i dont live there anymore!.

Good stuff.

You know it makes sense.

Maximus Alexander · 12-05-2015 04:16PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

****e :pac:.

Right ok this doesn't happen very often :P but i think a lot of you have made me think i should change my mind. Not about how i feel the yes vote was put forward i stilll dont really agree with that but the fact at the end of the day if i actually feel it should happen i should at least add to it by voting for it.

Ill have to figure out how the feck im gonna go about doing it now though seeing as i dont live there anymore!.

I have the same problem myself. I'll have to head home after work, pick up the car and then drive out to the polling station at my old address. It's a bit of a pain but it's my own fault for not updating my details. :pac: I'll be sorting that out on May 23rd for sure!

Kiwi in IE · 12-05-2015 04:19PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

****e :pac:.

Right ok this doesn't happen very often :P but i think a lot of you have made me think i should change my mind. Not about how i feel the yes vote was put forward i stilll dont really agree with that but the fact at the end of the day if i actually feel it should happen i should at least add to it by voting for it.

Ill have to figure out how the feck im gonna go about doing it now though seeing as i dont live there anymore!.

Have any of you lot who are complaining about how the yes side is conducting itself paid any heed at all to the behaviour, nastiness and dirty campaigning of the no side? The are deliberately misleading the public, spreading lies and attempting to incite fear of imaginary consequences. You only had to watch Ronan Mullen blatantly lying throughout the interview with Claire Byrne last night to get a good overview.

I really don't understand!

I'm not picking on you Howsoonisnow and I'm glad you have decided to vote yes, but I really am struggling to understand how people can claim to dislike the yes side to the point of changing their vote from yes to no, with the way Mullen & Quinn et al are carrying on.

Zubeneschamali · 12-05-2015 04:19PM

LookingFor wrote: »

Any means at all will do if it works.

Well, of course. If you read the Iona so-called-Institute's website, their mission is not to protect children, or advance human rights, or ensure fairness and equality, it is:

The Iona Institute promotes the place of marriage and religion in society.

...and they don't mean religion in general, they mean Opus Dei pre-Vatican II Irish Catholicism.

So that's where they start, with the conclusion that Catholic dogma is best, and then they try to work backwards and come up with arguments and cherry pick evidence which would point to that conclusion, and then put out those arguments and evidence as if these are why they believe their conclusion, instead of the exact opposite.

While it is possible and even necessary to refute their arguments and debunk their evidence, it is important to realize that this will not change their conclusions, since those came first, and the arguments and evidence are just camouflage for Catholic dogma.

They are not just bad at considering real world evidence and trying to reach a rational conclusion, they are enemies of that process.

Peist2007 · 12-05-2015 04:22PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Have any of you lot who are complaining about how the yes side is conducting itself paid any heed at all to the behaviour, nastiness and dirty campaigning of the no side? The are deliberately misleading the public, spreading lies and attempting to incite fear of imaginary consequences. You only had to watch Ronan Mullen blatantly lying throughout the interview with Claire Byrne last night to get a good overview.

I really don't understand!

Because the complaints about the conduct of the yes side are red herrings.

efb · 12-05-2015 04:23PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

****e :pac:.

Right ok this doesn't happen very often :P but i think a lot of you have made me think i should change my mind. Not about how i feel the yes vote was put forward i stilll dont really agree with that but the fact at the end of the day if i actually feel it should happen i should at least add to it by voting for it.

Ill have to figure out how the feck im gonna go about doing it now though seeing as i dont live there anymore!.

Thank you

Dan_Solo · 12-05-2015 04:24PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It is Lies, and in the head, that the ban to marry another of the same sex, makes him a "second class citizen"

So if you don't have the same rights as another citizen you aren't a second class citizen?
You might give us a point by point on that one boss.

How Soon Is Now · 12-05-2015 04:24PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Can I just thank you for listening to what was being said. It's very refreshing to see and I sincerely appreciate it.

Im gonna assume u dont know much about me and how i act on things but if i feel very strongly about something that much people usually dont change my mind.

The thing about this was though i did originally want to vote yes and i mean that.

I just wasnt happy with how i viewed the whole yes campaign which was turning me off voting the last few months.

Ive looked at what some people are saying on here though and even though deep down i knew it i know what there saying makes sense and if i have the option of taking part and i want something to happen i should at least vote on it.

You dont need to thank me i haven't done anything

i dont think any of us should even have to vote on this i feel very strongly it will pass because it shouldn't even need to be addressed!!

Ill try and figure out a way of getting there on the day so unless something drastic happens between now and then :P.

Kiwi in IE · 12-05-2015 04:25PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I have the same problem myself. I'll have to head home after work, pick up the car and then drive out to the polling station at my old address. It's a bit of a pain but it's my own fault for not updating my details. :pac: I'll be sorting that out on May 23rd for sure!

The voting system here is really weird in that regard. I don't understand why you have to physically present at the electorate you are enrolled with. In NZ you can go to vote anywhere you like and present your voting card which will be entered for your electorate no matter which polling booth you physically present at.

LookingFor · 12-05-2015 04:25PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Have any of you lot who are complaining about how the yes side is conducting itself paid any heed at all to the behaviour, nastiness and dirty campaigning of the no side? The are deliberately misleading the public, spreading lies and attempting to incite fear of imaginary consequences. You only had to watch Ronan Mullen blatantly lying throughout the interview with Claire Byrne last night to get a good overview.

I really don't understand!

I'm not picking on you Howsoonisnow and I'm glad you have decided to vote yes, but I really am struggling to understand how people can claim to dislike the yes side to the point of changing their vote from yes to no, with the way Mullen & Quinn et al are carrying on.

The yes campaign is more ubiquitous. And - yes - may sometimes carry an impression of righteousness. And I get how these things can annoy some people. Self-righteousness can be off putting. But, I mean, I really do think it's a righteousness founded in something in this case, and for some of us, this is deeply personal. The veracity with which some in the yes campaign push a point might turn off some people, but all I'd say is to please bear in mind that for some of us this is really a deeply personal issue that will affect the rest of our lives.

OK, I'll get off that high horse again...

I'm glad though, and I hope, that people on the fence can see past the personality, or perceived personality of the campaigning and drill down to the issues and the logic of the arguments on either side. So kudos to you, How Soon Is Now.

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 04:26PM

smash wrote: »

You do realise that the majority of yes campaigners aren't gay?

And this will affect them how?

again, the rest of your post isn't worth replying to.

Sorry, I was being extremely short handed. I wasn't suggesting that all of the campaigners were gay, but I can see where one would get that view. "the gay's, though, wrongly, meant the gay community and yes side,

Not worth responding too...

In other words, can't and won't deal with what's put to you

Ignore the fact that you lot use a word that you don't understand, "equality "

And refuse,despite several requests, to explain in detail the so called 160 differences currently in existence, between civil partnership and marriage.

The basics of the gay argument

"i want Marriage, I will be a second class citizen without it"

But why?

"equality before the law"

Sure, but equality doesn't mean everyone is equal,...

"Wha Wha Wha, homophobe....., you have havent given 1 reason..."

Eh, equality treats people differently

"Wha Wha Wha, not listening, not interested, refuse to deal with reality "

So, the so called 160 differences...

"oh, check it out for yourself," (shows link)

But, eh, that links only shows what civil partnership now does, a good thing

"i will charge 50 per hour"

Okay, we have looked at all of the so called differences, in fact, we put it to you that, there are very little to hang your coat up on

"Wha Wha Wha, no actual arguments have been made...... Your not worth responding to

Well, eh, since this cote will go to the wire, and many don't knows, I think you and your pals better deal with the stuff that has been put before you. Arrogance don't win votes. Up to you, you just probably confirmed the opinion of the previous poster anyway..

Zubeneschamali · 12-05-2015 04:26PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It is self-evidently ludicrous to both assume there is a husband, and apply a balance of probabilities test before admitting the possibility that someone else is the father.

What it is self evidently ludicrous is to suppose there is any doubt on the balance of probabilities when there is absolute certainty. There is no husband, therefore there is no doubt. By any standard of proof you like, on the balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt, or rigorous philosophical proof: the father is not the husband in the marriage.

You might as well ask why there is no clause defining how the presumption of paternity is to be determined when a man gives birth.

iDave · 12-05-2015 04:26PM

How I see this is simple. 2 tier societies don't work. They are doomed to failure either in a cataclysmic manner or gradually dismantled. Either way societies with different sets of rules are doomed.
In South Africa the apartheid regime lasted so long before it came crumbling down. The same can be said of segregation in the United States. In Northern Ireland the Unionist apartheid state was a complete failure and top to bottom reform was needed, a process still to be completed.
In the Middle East Israel continues to struggle keeping together its 2 tier society.
Islamic states continue to struggle keeping together their conservative discrimination policies as external inclusive notions begin to influence the population.
Discrimination is harmful, its creates social unrest, resentment, murder, bullying etc.
Every state that has extended the franchise and employment opportunities to women has been enriched.
The sexuality apartheid state needs to be dismantled.
A society can only function at its best when you bring as many as possible into the fold instead of leaving them out in the cold. Be it the voting, civil, marriage or economic rights.

Dan_Solo · 12-05-2015 04:29PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The voting system here is really weird in that regard. I don't understand why you have to physically present at the electorate you are enrolled with. In NZ you can go to vote anywhere you like and present your voting card which will be entered for your electorate no matter which polling booth you physically present at.

Because it keeps those darned uppity yoofs from voting for the "wrong" things as they're much less likely to be in their home constituency.

Ave Sodalis · 12-05-2015 04:29PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Im gonna assume u dont know much about me and how i act on things but if i feel very strongly about something that much people usually dont change my mind.

The thing about this was though i did originally want to vote yes and i mean that.

I just wasnt happy with how i viewed the whole yes campaign which was turning me off voting the last few months.

Ive looked at what some people are saying on here though and even though deep down i knew it i know what there saying makes sense and if i have the option of taking part and i want something to happen i should at least vote on it.

You dont need to thank me i haven't done anything i dont think any of us should even have to vote on this i feel very strongly it will pass because it shouldn't even need to be addressed!!

Ill try and figure out a way of getting there on the day so unless something drastic happens between now and then :P.

You've done more than you know, mostly for the mental health of the people here

It's extremely frustrating when people hide behind the "I was gonna vote yes" which is most likely why you (I'm not sure if it did happen, I haven't followed the last few pages closely) got grief for it. Thus far, it has been very much a case of people pretending they were voting yes. I just thought you should know it was appreciated that someone actually listened to what was being said then.

smash · 12-05-2015 04:30PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Not worth responding too...

In other words, can't and won't deal with what's put to you

You put nothing to me. Your posts are generally aggressive and mostly incoherent. Therefore, not worth replying to

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

And refuse,despite several requests, to explain in detail the so called 160 differences currently in existence, between civil partnership and marriage.

They don't need to be explained. They're there, and as such civil partnership is not equal to marriage.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Okay, we have looked at all of the so called differences, in fact, we put it to you that, there are very little to hang your coat up on

This is a non argument. It's akin to when blacks could not use the seats on a bus. People said "Well they're allowed on the bus, that's good enough"

Dan_Solo · 12-05-2015 04:31PM

LookingFor wrote: »

The yes campaign is more ubiquitous. And - yes - may sometimes carry an impression of righteousness. And I get how these things can annoy some people. Self-righteousness can be off putting. But, I mean, I really do think it's a righteousness founded in something in this case, and for some of us, this is deeply personal. The veracity with which some in the yes campaign push a point might turn off some people, but all I'd say is to please bear in mind that for some of us this is really a deeply personal issue that will affect the rest of our lives.

It's still a million times better than "God told us to vote no" or "I hate the quaaaars".

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 04:31PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So if you don't have the same rights as another citizen you aren't a second class citizen?
You might give us a point by point on that one boss.

But , you do have the right to marry. ITS THE SAME RIGJTS AS ANOTHER CITIZENS

All citizens, of sound mind, have a right to marry.

The right has restrictions.

All citizens can only marry if their partner is of the opposite sex, over 18 and of sound mind and not related

A man can't marry a woman, despite being of the opposite sex, if she is his third cousin. Does that make him a second class citizen?

Maximus Alexander · 12-05-2015 04:33PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

But , you do have the right to marry. ITS THE SAME RIGJTS AS ANOTHER CITIZENS

Ah would you get the boat.

Dan_Solo · 12-05-2015 04:33PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

And refuse,despite several requests, to explain in detail the so called 160 differences currently in existence, between civil partnership and marriage.

Sorry to use the oldest line in the book, but if there's no difference between them anyway, what problem do you have with them being voted as 100% equivalent?

kunst nugget · 12-05-2015 04:35PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

But , you do have the right to marry. ITS THE SAME RIGJTS AS ANOTHER CITIZENS

All citizens, of sound mind, have a right to marry.

The right has restrictions.

All citizens can only marry if their partner is of the opposite sex, over 18 and of sound mind and not related

A man can't marry a woman, despite being of the opposite sex, if she is his third cousin. Does that make him a second class citizen?

I'm pretty sure there's no restriction on marrying your third cousin… unless they're the same sex as you.

Dan_Solo · 12-05-2015 04:37PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

But , you do have the right to marry. ITS THE SAME RIGJTS AS ANOTHER CITIZENS

All citizens, of sound mind, have a right to marry.

The right has restrictions.

All citizens can only marry if their partner is of the opposite sex, over 18 and of sound mind and not related

And, er, that would be the inequality bit, yes?
As a matter of (little) interest, do you think straight marriages will become gayified or something is gay marriages are permitted? Or maybe guys and gals won't ever marry each other again and we'll all be in gay marriages now as if this was the only thing preventing it?

MrWalsh · 12-05-2015 04:37PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

But , you do have the right to marry. ITS THE SAME RIGJTS AS ANOTHER CITIZENS

All citizens, of sound mind, have a right to marry someone they love.

The right has restrictions.

All citizens can only marry if their partner is of the opposite sex, over 18 and of sound mind and not related
Yes, thats what we are voting to change because if people dont love someone of the opposite sex then they cant marry someone they love.

A man can't marry a woman, despite being of the opposite sex, if she is his third cousin. Yes he can actually. Or his first cousin. Does that make him a second class citizen?

Answered above.

mrkiscool2 · 12-05-2015 04:38PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

But , you do have the right to marry. ITS THE SAME RIGJTS AS ANOTHER CITIZENS

All citizens, of sound mind, have a right to marry.

The right has restrictions.

All citizens can only marry if their partner is of the opposite sex, over 18 and of sound mind and not related

A man can't marry a woman, despite being of the opposite sex, if she is his third cousin. Does that make him a second class citizen?

That is such a strawman it isn't even funny. You can't marry your cousin due to the fact that if you had a child it could have serious mental and/or physical complications, not to mention the fact one could have groomed the other from an early age to only want them.

Comparing two people of the same gender to incest is an absolute disgrace and is homophobic. They DO NOT HAVE THE SAME LEGAL PROTECTION AS A HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE! How hard is that to understand? And they don't want to marry a person of the opposite gender as that would be denying who they are, which is quickly erodes at a person's self-confidence and mental stability. If we don't treat them the same way we treat heterosexual couples then we are denying people equal rights. Simple as.

Oh, by the way, if gay marriage was made legal a male couldn't marry his male third cousin. So equal.

EDIT: MrWalsh clarified you could marry your cousin, I did not know that!

smash · 12-05-2015 04:38PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

All citizens can only marry if their partner is of the opposite sex

Yet article 44 states: The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

So Article 41 is being adjusted to back this up.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 12-05-2015 04:39PM

The Saint wrote: »

Lets try this again.

Do you believe that same sex couples should have the right to get married? Yes or No?

What do you mean by a right to get married?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What it is self evidently ludicrous is to suppose there is any doubt on the balance of probabilities when there is absolute certainty. There is no husband, therefore there is no doubt. By any standard of proof you like, on the balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt, or rigorous philosophical proof: the father is not the husband in the marriage.

You might as well ask why there is no clause defining how the presumption of paternity is to be determined when a man gives birth.

Erm, we're not debating the physical facts, which we clearly agree on.

We're discussing (or at least one of us is) the obvious fact that the wording in the section setting out the presumption of paternity needs to change to accommodate SSM, as it assumes the existence of a husband in every marriage and incoherently refers to applying a balance of probabilities test where paternity is contested.

I know you don't have an answer. No need to keep cycling around on the point, when you've nothing to contribute.

kunst nugget · 12-05-2015 04:40PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there's no restriction on marrying your third cousin… unless they're the same sex as you.

Actually, I didn't realise until I read it up that there's not even a legal restriction on you marrying your first cousin.

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

Of course, if the gays get the marriage, every second first cousin will be marrying themselves all over the shop. It'll be anarchy.

Maximus Alexander · 12-05-2015 04:42PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Actually, I didn't realise until I read it up that there's not even a legal restriction on you marrying your first cousin.

Did not realise this either. That's gas.

MrWalsh · 12-05-2015 04:42PM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

EDIT: MrWalsh clarified you could marry your cousin, I did not know that!

Actually I think a priest will not allow a religious marriage between cousins and permission has to be sought from Rome - but for civil marriages, cousins are fair game!

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

Comments