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

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've diluted no question. I'm simply clarifying what question I'm be asked.

I can answer either of the questions I've set out. Which one do you mean?

I'll give a straight yes or no, and a brief explanation of why.

Um, you could answer both of them. It would be immensely faster for everybody than whatever it is you're currently doing.

iDave wrote: »

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.

So, comparing gay people, who have pretty much the majority of the civil rights every other individual enjoys , in the free world, to Apartheid , because they , like many hetro's, who can't marry certain fellow hetro's. ....


Right.

Another made up term, eh "sexuality apartheid"

I can see why the Jews get very precious of how the term "holocaust" gets bandied about

What do you call the refusal of the Court of Human Rights , to recognise gay marriage as a human right so? I know they must respect the sovereign rights of other countries, but if the right was so obvious and so universal, they would have ignored that , right?


Oh right on!

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I could, but suddenly find I don't want to.

So pick your question, and get your answer.

If you want an answer.

I wouldnt bother asking you anything. I know what you are. You have illustrated it perfectly.

smash wrote: »

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


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

How is stating that the 160 argument is flawed, aggressive ? Or that it is a lie to say equality means, treat everyone equally?

Incoherent? Ya, good one;)

Eh, sorry , sugar, they (160 differences argument) do need to be explained. The Gay campaigners are the ones making the allegations (see previous posts) after all..... (And ye whinge about the nonsense from Iona, lol)

I wager that the people putting up the comments about 160 differences, couldn't even cite 60 of them (hence, the down right refusal to discuss that point) .


And, if they knew what the differences where, they would know that as of May 2015, a fair proportion of that 160 are no longer valid. Also, they would know what some of them have no relevancy to gay people.

Come now, cite 60, and explain it in a way that we know that you haven't copied and paste them, that you understand their relevancy .

smash wrote: »

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"

You have no qualification to make that statement

The argument was there is 160 differences between CP and Marriage. One fellow poster and myself have called on ye to explain them. It was put to those who rely on that argument, that it's a flawed argument. No rebuttal , so far . No actual effort to address it. Apparently, it is not worth


Comparing to the Black Civil Rights Movement? Oh dear oh dear, the desperation. Martin Luther, a good baptist , would be turning in his grave . I think the black lads had more to worry about than being allowed to marry white folk.....

The bus analogy. Oh dear. Well, the bus is for transporting people ; which means everyone should get a seat. That is what a bus service is suppose to be for, it shouldn't discriminate on colour. However, marriage, in this part of the world,always for only one select group, heterosexuals

Anita Blow wrote: »

For the very same reason that we're voting on our own constitution- Article 12 of the ECHR makes no reference to gender but the courts have interpreted it as a heterosexual union because the concept of homosexual unions in the 1950s, when it was written (or in 1930s in the case of our constitution), did not exist.

This is why we have referendums on constitutions, because they are living documents that change with society. Many amendments to our constitution would've been unthinkable in the 1930s when it was originally written.

Correct.

But, both the Constitution and the ECHR have the ability to recongise new rights. After all, it is patiently clear that contraceptives were a no no in 1930 Ireland (well, officially) but by 1973 they were accepted amongst married women (Judges used the Catholic Preamble, to make the living document idea, to do this by the way!!!!!)

Bannasidhe wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Roll eyes , all you want, you know it's true, and you know Luther King was a bit of a playa