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…6263656768…327

Comments

  • #1922
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    Now, back to the topic


    Some time ago, a number of posters brought up a previous finding about 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Marriage.

    A website and a chart was provided. This chart went through hundreds of important provisions, contained in Legislation. Such provisions go through everything from property, taxation, criminal procedures, immigration, employment, property and family.

    I have gone through a few of them in previous posts, specific parts of the charts. I have identified that there are legitimate areas of concern for the gay community, thus, increasing their desire to marry, in order to avail of similar protections.

    However, I also suggested , and gave examples (which despite such, the usual "there is no argument") that there is definitely less than 160 and shall be less when the relevant family law acts come into force. I had suggested that many of these remaining differences will be changed in light of the child acts. I have suggested that it could be possible for the Civil Partnership Act to be amended to give better rights (and this would happen, if , the referendum, was to loose)

    Another poster came to a conclusion, for whatever reason, that he saw little difference between Civil Partnership and Marriage and questioned the so called discrimination

    Since the gay campaign has brought this up on many occasions before, along with the usual points above love etc , surprising , that the best some posters can come up with when invited to go through these 160 differences in our legislation, was say, "oh they are there, there is no need to explain them"

    Well, there is a need. I have already acknowledged that there are important differences (though fixable without marriage)

    So, let the Yes side finally go through the 160 differences and disgust them, prove to the No side that they haven't just thrown that up without knowing how drastic the differences are, if any


  • #1923
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,647 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Now, back to the topic


    Some time ago, a number of posters brought up a previous finding about 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Marriage.

    A website and a chart was provided. This chart went through hundreds of important provisions, contained in Legislation. Such provisions go through everything from property, taxation, criminal procedures, immigration, employment, property and family.

    I have gone through a few of them in previous posts, specific parts of the charts. I have identified that there are legitimate areas of concern for the gay community, thus, increasing their desire to marry, in order to avail of similar protections.

    However, I also suggested , and gave examples (which despite such, the usual "there is no argument") that there is definitely less than 160 and shall be less when the relevant family law acts come into force. I had suggested that many of these remaining differences will be changed in light of the child acts. I have suggested that it could be possible for the Civil Partnership Act to be amended to give better rights (and this would happen, if , the referendum, was to loose)

    Another poster came to a conclusion, for whatever reason, that he saw little difference between Civil Partnership and Marriage and questioned the so called discrimination

    Since the gay campaign has brought this up on many occasions before, along with the usual points above love etc , surprising , that the best some posters can come up with when invited to go through these 160 differences in our legislation, was say, "oh they are there, there is no need to explain them"

    Well, there is a need. I have already acknowledged that there are important differences (though fixable without marriage)

    So, let the Yes side finally go through the 160 differences and disgust them, prove to the No side that they haven't just thrown that up without knowing how drastic the differences are, if any

    Here's one.

    It's not called marriage. Can you justify that?


  • #1924
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    Here's one.

    It's not called marriage. Can you justify that?

    I find it impressive that people are still capable of going for the separate but equal thing. Along with the needing mothers and fathers you would think some people were never taught history. These things were tried before and are now considered human rights abuses.


  • #1925
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Now, back to the topic


    Some time ago, a number of posters brought up a previous finding about 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Marriage.

    A website and a chart was provided. This chart went through hundreds of important provisions, contained in Legislation. Such provisions go through everything from property, taxation, criminal procedures, immigration, employment, property and family.

    I have gone through a few of them in previous posts, specific parts of the charts. I have identified that there are legitimate areas of concern for the gay community, thus, increasing their desire to marry, in order to avail of similar protections.

    However, I also suggested , and gave examples (which despite such, the usual "there is no argument") that there is definitely less than 160 and shall be less when the relevant family law acts come into force. I had suggested that many of these remaining differences will be changed in light of the child acts. I have suggested that it could be possible for the Civil Partnership Act to be amended to give better rights (and this would happen, if , the referendum, was to loose)

    Another poster came to a conclusion, for whatever reason, that he saw little difference between Civil Partnership and Marriage and questioned the so called discrimination

    Since the gay campaign has brought this up on many occasions before, along with the usual points above love etc , surprising , that the best some posters can come up with when invited to go through these 160 differences in our legislation, was say, "oh they are there, there is no need to explain them"

    Well, there is a need. I have already acknowledged that there are important differences (though fixable without marriage)

    So, let the Yes side finally go through the 160 differences and disgust them, prove to the No side that they haven't just thrown that up without knowing how drastic the differences are, if any

    If im honest with you I could not list many of the 160 differences. Even if there was zero difference between civil partnership and marriage, civil partnership is not good enough. Words and symbolism are important. I don't want to have a civil partnership. I don't want to enter into a separate institution than the rest of society, even if they are equal in every way but name.

    I'm a part of this society. For the most part I'm like everyone else. My reasons for wanting to marry are the same as most peoples, my relationship is like most good relationships. It's an insulting and unnecessary to lock me out of marriage and it sends a very clear message to gay people that we and our relationships are less valued by society.

    If Civil partnership and marriage are identical in rights and responsibilities (which they aren't) then why is it necessary to have civil partnership in the first place? Why not allow us have access to marriage then? Again that sends gay people a clear message about how we are valued in society. I don't want to be part of a separate society within society. I'm not asking for separate rules and institutions. I just want to be treated like everyone else. I don't feel particularly different different to anyone else. My partner just happens to be someone of the same sex and for that some people insist on treating me like i'm different.

    Anyway "Will you civil partnership me" sounds ridiculous :pac:


  • #1926
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    .............

    So, let the Yes side finally go through the 160 differences and disgust them, prove to the No side that they haven't just thrown that up without knowing how drastic the differences are, if any

    But why should there be any difference, at all? Why not the same for everyone?


  • Advertisement
  • #1927
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Nodin wrote: »
    But why should there be any difference, at all? Why not the same for everyone?

    Now that won't do... He wants you to go through every difference and say why gay people should be allowed to have that right. Although I'm of the opinion that he should go through every difference and tell us why they shouldn't be allowed have that right.

    Of course we know that he'll select the points that won't apply to gay people anyway and make a big deal about it.


  • #1928
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,454 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Votáil Níl.

    If in doubt throw it out. The world won't end.


  • #1929
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Votáil Níl.

    If in doubt throw it out. The world won't end.

    Great. There is no doubt that equality is best. Vote yes.


  • #1930
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Votáil Níl.

    If in doubt throw it out. The world won't end.It doesn't affect me.


    Fyp


  • #1931
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    On the contrary: the law states when a husband is to be presumed the father.<..>
    The law, as is plain as day, assumes there is something called "the husband of the marriage".

    That phrase won't work anymore.

    As I said before, I know you don't have an answer to the question. I don't understand why you are going round again.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Both of your fake questions are constructed so that you can answer "No because irrelevant waffle I put into the question which has nothing to do with the referendum question".
    Only one way of finding out.

    I'm not answering a question I don't understand. I've given two wordings that I do understand. Apparently, people actually don't want an answer.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    How about answering the question you will be asked on the day - Yes or No?
    But, sure, I've already said that I'm voting No to the referendum. The question I'm being asked by the posse is "Art thou a witch".


  • Advertisement
  • #1932
    SummerSummit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 103 ✭✭SummerSummit


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    A lot of misguided focus on Catholicism in this thread but you don't have to be religious to see being gay as wrong or a disorder.

    Knew it...


  • #1933
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    I see the "No" tally on the poll has just nosed past 16% for the first time. I could almost get excited.


  • #1934
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,454 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I see the "No" tally on the poll has just nosed past 16% for the first time. I could almost get excited.

    There is a big quiet no vote out there. Thing with Irish people is they tend to tell you what you want to hear while being different in private.


  • #1935
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,454 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    You're good at the auld generalisation, aren't you?

    Easy to generalise when you know your own flock so well.


  • #1936
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I see the "No" tally on the poll has just nosed past 16% for the first time. I could almost get excited.

    I wouldn't bother. Thing you're probably not spotting is that this is a new poll correlating to the re-started thread. I personally only just saw that today and realised that my old vote no longer counted. I imagine that this new poll reflects that issue more than it reflects a change in the balance of yes to no voters among boards members.


  • #1937
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    There is a big quiet no vote out there. Thing with Irish people is they tend to tell you what you want to hear while being different in private.

    Not saying there isn't a quiet no vote out there but why on earth would anyone 'tell someone what they want to hear' in a telephone poll? How does that work?

    RTE announced the results of a poll last night where 1000 randomly selected people were asked which way they intended to vote - no debate just yes/no/undecided - what would be the point in lying? :confused:


  • #1938
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    seamus wrote: »
    2. You don't care. In which case you're probably better off abstaining.

    If he doesnt care about the substance of the issue, is he not better advised to vote Yes ?
    Whether you care one way or another about SSM, it will affect how Ireland is seen internationally. If yes, then not much comment. But a No vote will make the country look backwards with its legislation and culture still heavily influenced by religion. Time to shake of that perception.


  • #1939
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Shrap wrote: »
    I wouldn't bother. Thing you're probably not spotting is that this is a new poll correlating to the re-started thread. I personally only just saw that today and realised that my old vote no longer counted. I imagine that this new poll reflects that issue more than it reflects a change in the balance of yes to no voters among boards members.

    Sure Iona's financial backers probably have a room full of people furiously scouring the internet and creating sock puppet accounts to 'argue' against SSM and vote no in polls.

    Would you even be surprised?


  • #1940
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I'm not answering a question I don't understand.

    So you aren't even going to vote after all that hot air?


  • #1941
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    So you aren't even going to vote after all that hot air?

    ZING!


  • Advertisement
  • #1942
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    Sure Iona's financial backers probably have a room full of people furiously scouring the internet and creating sock puppet accounts to 'argue' against SSM and vote no in polls.

    Would you even be surprised?

    By the looks of things there are a number of them posting on this site.


  • #1943
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    How Soon Is Now wrote: »
    I never taught about voting no i was always going to vote yes. Weather certain yokes on here believe that

    If you read my post again - I never suggested otherwise - nor did i question it. But I am questioning whether your reasoning for not voting at all is accurate.

    If you choose not to vote - my only point was to be sure your reasons for it are accurate - and not a successful manipulation of you by a no campaign that has been selling this narrative about the decorum and conduct of the yes campaign from day 1.

    But it does seem -
    How Soon Is Now wrote: »
    I dont know what im doing on the day ill more then likely be working as normal where can i even vote? Does it have to be the normal place in the area im registered in ?

    - that you are now engaging in that introspection and re-considering. Which is a good thing. I wish you well with it. As for your question - if you give some not too revealing details about your general location I am sure people will offer up suggestions on where you need to be to vote. Generally employers will usually give you leave to do so. Though I must plead ignorance on whether they are in any way compelled to do so legally.
    How Soon Is Now wrote: »
    For me i think what annoyed me mostly was the fact that people had a chance to show the gay community in the right light with this referendum.

    I think they have. Take the "yes bus" that has been going around. I know at least two people working closely with that - meeting people on the ground. And reports have been generally VERY good in both directions from it. These are the real yes campaigners.

    I do not know what narrative you have been fed or what conduct you think yes campaigners have been engaging in. But I am not seeing it.
    How Soon Is Now wrote: »
    People selling things with vote yes on them making money off of an important situation for others.

    Have you traced any of that money? Firstly many such things being sold are not for profit - but to finance the campaign! Raising money in this fashion is not uncommon at all and there is nothing morally questionable about it either.

    Even those few who may be selling it for profit - so what? They are providing a service. There are people who genuinely want to express themselves or raise awareness - and they can not make their own tshirts and badges. So there is a genuine niche for a service there. And such is the foundation of our society - that through free enterprise two parties can be happy. One by making money - the other by obtaining a desired product. So what is the problem?
    How Soon Is Now wrote: »
    The same people who where protesting for equality where telling others they had no right to have any other opinion other then what they taught was right and if they where to go against this they where clearly homophobic.

    That is the narrative that the "no" side has been selling that I mentioned before. But the narrative is faked and exaggerated. The numbers of people dropping into rhetoric about bigotry and homophobia is relatively minor. But when and where it happens - the no side are there to leap on it - exaggerate it - and feed you the narrative.

    Go over the threads on this forum and other parts of boards.ie. List for yourself the numbers of users on the yes side who dropped into that rhetoric - and the numbers like myself - or Nozzferrahhtoo - or jimbob - or sonics - or many many others - who stayed calm - civil - expressive - articlate - and cordial.

    See the numbers for yourself - do not trust a narrative sold to you by the no side. Let us know what you come up with! I suspect you will find the narrative does not reflect the reality that much at all.


  • #1944
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    But, sure, I've already said that I'm voting No to the referendum.

    I'm sorry, I must have missed that plain statement amongst all your other stuff.

    If you are really a No voter after this much consideration, I have no more to say to you.


  • #1945
    ronivek
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,919 ✭✭✭ronivek


    I'll be voting yes.

    One thing I have noticed however is the barrage of Internet advertising from the 'No' side; today in particular I keep getting an Iona Institute video about the horrors of raising children without a mother and father.


  • #1946
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,928 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I'm sorry, I must have missed that plain statement amongst all your other stuff.

    If you are really a No voter after this much consideration, I have no more to say to you.

    They have said they're voting no for at least a week, in fairness.


  • #1947
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    If he doesnt care about the substance of the issue, is he not better advised to vote Yes ?
    Whether you care one way or another about SSM, it will affect how Ireland is seen internationally. If yes, then not much comment. But a No vote will make the country look backwards with its legislation and culture still heavily influenced by religion. Time to shake of that perception.

    Our culture will always be heavily influenced by religion, nothing will change that. It's crap like the Anglo debacle and millionaires squatting in mansions that make us look backwards.


  • #1948
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Votáil Níl.

    ..........


    Why?


  • #1949
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    And Jedward. Jedward make us look backward. Not sure Jedward and gay marriage are two things I want to have on my mind at the same time.


  • #1950
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Canvassing again tonight quite split - Alot of support from younger people - hope they turn out to vote!


  • Advertisement
  • #1951
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Now, back to the topic


    Some time ago, a number of posters brought up a previous finding about 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Marriage.

    A website and a chart was provided. This chart went through hundreds of important provisions, contained in Legislation. Such provisions go through everything from property, taxation, criminal procedures, immigration, employment, property and family.

    I have gone through a few of them in previous posts, specific parts of the charts. I have identified that there are legitimate areas of concern for the gay community, thus, increasing their desire to marry, in order to avail of similar protections.

    However, I also suggested , and gave examples (which despite such, the usual "there is no argument") that there is definitely less than 160 and shall be less when the relevant family law acts come into force. I had suggested that many of these remaining differences will be changed in light of the child acts. I have suggested that it could be possible for the Civil Partnership Act to be amended to give better rights (and this would happen, if , the referendum, was to loose)

    Another poster came to a conclusion, for whatever reason, that he saw little difference between Civil Partnership and Marriage and questioned the so called discrimination

    Since the gay campaign has brought this up on many occasions before, along with the usual points above love etc , surprising , that the best some posters can come up with when invited to go through these 160 differences in our legislation, was say, "oh they are there, there is no need to explain them"

    Well, there is a need. I have already acknowledged that there are important differences (though fixable without marriage)

    So, let the Yes side finally go through the 160 differences and disgust them, prove to the No side that they haven't just thrown that up without knowing how drastic the differences are, if any

    And what have the Jews to do with this do you think? Care to clarify why you felt the need to question gay peoples involvement in the holocaust? Or do you just want to slur the travelling community again?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement