Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

Penn · 14-05-2015 09:14AM

Regardless of whether or not the guy who threw the egg was doing so to support a Yes vote or not, it's inexcusable. I really, really, really hate to agree with Paddy Manning on pretty much anything, but I saw a comment from him about it which I agreed with. He said that even though they couldn't have known the girl was allergic to eggs, they knew she was a 10 year old girl.

Even if there were no children there, that kind of behaviour is unacceptable.

Arseholes are arseholes. Whether they're a Yes or a No voter, they're arseholes.

ByfocalPhoto · 14-05-2015 09:19AM

Colm O'Gorman tweeted the following and I wholeheartedly agree.
"Throwing an egg at anyone, most especially a child, is despicable. Totally unacceptable. Don't care who you are or what you support"
I am happy to make that the last word on the subject.

Ash.J.Williams · 14-05-2015 09:21AM

i couldn't imagine an adult doing a drive by egg throw on a bike.

meglome · 14-05-2015 10:15AM

seamus wrote: »

Very first thing the "No" side did was attempt to use this little girl's medical emergency as a chance to take a swipe at the "Yes" side. That's pretty pathetic.

Like a bunch of teenagers on bikes throwing eggs were part of the yes campaign :rolleyes:

Not really any level David Quinn's side won't stoop to.

I've been egged in Dublin a few times by teenagers and above. There are flats on Dominic Street where there were consistently egg marks all over the pavements outside so you knew to keep your eyes open.

It could have been a yes voter but from my experience I think it's likely to be some teenagers. It would have been far better if the story made it clear that they didn't actually know who threw the egg rather than blame it on yes voters.

southstar · 14-05-2015 10:26AM

Paddy Manning despite some rather hyterical pleas to the contrary always strikes me as a man who would be much happier if he were straight...he will consort with people who I suspect would happily recriminalize homosexuality if they ever got a sniff that this might ever again became even a marginally respectable position to hold.Im sure hes been referred to as an Uncle Tom before, and I concur with that, not because I dont think he has a right to disagree with gay marriage but because of the collateral damage he is willing to cause with his overblown boorish ego. He knows well he gives a pass for the real homophobes to come out of their closet and into the debate.He shrieks on about the rights of free speech being threatened by the yes side,,,this is the con trick of the year...if you want to hear free speech almost bordering hate speech towards the yes side tune into some of the talk radio shows ...admittedly those at the @lower 'end of the spectrum.As i gay man I cannot relate to that man in any way. and why I think Manning personifies the fact that nobody chooses their sexuality.

gravehold · 14-05-2015 10:44AM

southstar wrote: »

Paddy Manning despite some rather hyterical pleas to the contrary always strikes me as a man who would be much happier if he were straight...he will consort with people who I suspect would happily recriminalize homosexuality if they ever got a sniff that this might ever again became even a marginally respectable position to hold.Im sure hes been referred to as an Uncle Tom before, and I concur with that, not because I dont think he has a right to disagree with gay marriage but because of the collateral damage he is willing to cause with his overblown boorish ego. He knows well he gives a pass for the real homophobes to come out of their closet and into the debate.He shrieks on about the rights of free speech being threatened by the yes side,,,this is the con trick of the year...if you want to hear free speech almost bordering hate speech towards the yes side tune into some of the talk radio shows ...admittedly those at the @lower 'end of the spectrum.As i gay man I cannot relate to that man in any way. and why I think Manning personifies the fact that nobody chooses their sexuality.

He is a libertarian that disagrees with marraige, where did you get he dislikes gay people I never once got that impression?

He has a right to campaign for an outcome that suits his political ideals, just cause yours are different doesn't make his any less valid.

meglome · 14-05-2015 10:50AM

gravehold wrote: »

He has a right to campaign for an outcome that suits his political ideals, just cause yours are different doesn't make his any less valid.

You're absolutely correct about the bolded part. What actually makes Paddy Manning and his chums views less valid are the many and myriad unrelated things they're using to justify their position. They are making stuff up plain and simple.

gravehold · 14-05-2015 11:05AM

meglome wrote: »

You're absolutely correct about the bolded part. What actually makes Paddy Mannings' and his chums views less valid are the many and myriad unrelated things they're using to justify their position. They are making stuff up plain and simple.

He is not making anything up and has said his reason he is voting no and is against marriage

jobbridge4life · 14-05-2015 12:17PM

gravehold wrote: »

He is not making anything up and has said his reason he is voting no and is against marriage

They are the referendum commission and the adoption authority have already made that crystal clear to all but the wilfully blind.

gravehold · 14-05-2015 12:20PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

They are the referendum commission and the adoption authority have already made that crystal clear to all but the wilfully blind.

What qoutes of paddy mannong do you have of him lying.

ByfocalPhoto · 14-05-2015 03:19PM

There was query about evidence of media yes bias.

The latest four podcasts on Newstalk 106.
An interview with the referendum commissioner - neutral
An interview with Enda Kenny on his journey to a yes vote - say no more.
Interview with a gay guy who lost his mother to cancer and is objecting to the "Mother's Love" No poster.
Interview with a mother who lost her gay son to suicide.

A debate with one each way on the right hook. Balanced

The score so far is two neutral, one yes, two strongly yes.

I will keep listening.

Hotblack Desiato · 14-05-2015 07:06PM

You might as well say Irish society is biased :rolleyes:

All political parties are in favour

Every opinion poll is in favour.

The idea that 50:50 time to each side is 'fair' is ridiculous and cowardly by the BAI.

gravehold · 14-05-2015 07:09PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You might as well say Irish society is biased :rolleyes:

All political parties are in favour

Every opinion poll is in favour.

The idea that 50:50 time to each side is 'fair' is ridiculous and cowardly by the BAI.

50:50 is fair.it's the definition of fair coverage, you you prefer if your side got less coverage

K-9 · 14-05-2015 08:14PM

gravehold wrote: »

50:50 is fair.it's the definition of fair coverage, you you prefer if your side got less coverage

Sometimes a logistical nightmare.

Tbh I wouldn't care about the ratio, more the quality. You could have 80/20, but the 20 making the best points.

timetogo · 14-05-2015 08:29PM

gravehold wrote: »

50:50 is fair.it's the definition of fair coverage, you you prefer if your side got less coverage

Nope. It's perfect. This morning I heard a guy talking convoluting his argument into children being taken from mothers in Africa.
This evening on RTE during their debate on the radio one guy on the no side said there was no point in voting yes as gay marriage would never be accepted by normal people anyway. There was a eery silence on the radio as the other people in the conversation were presumably thinking "WTF".

With people like that we should give them 100% airtime.

timetogo · 14-05-2015 08:31PM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

There was query about evidence of media yes bias.

The latest four podcasts on Newstalk 106.
An interview with the referendum commissioner - neutral
An interview with Enda Kenny on his journey to a yes vote - say no more.
Interview with a gay guy who lost his mother to cancer and is objecting to the "Mother's Love" No poster.
Interview with a mother who lost her gay son to suicide.

A debate with one each way on the right hook. Balanced

The score so far is two neutral, one yes, two strongly yes.

I will keep listening.

I only see 2 positive and one neutral.
http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/

Unless you mean the one about penis size in the animal kingdom. Is that a yes or strongly yes?

Good job you didn't listen yesterday the only one they had was Ger Brennan for the no side.

K-9 · 14-05-2015 08:45PM

timetogo wrote: »

Good job you didn't listen yesterday the only one they had was Ger Brennan for the no side.

QED

Stark · 14-05-2015 10:29PM

meglome wrote: »

Bigots of all types make me pretty angry but attacking them in any way is completely wrong. I don't suppose they meant to hurt anyone if they were throwing eggs but still.

It's a dangerous thing to do. A nurse was blinded in one eye a couple of years ago when someone threw an egg at her.

meglome · 14-05-2015 11:12PM

Stark wrote: »

It's a dangerous thing to do. A nurse was blinded in one eye a couple of years ago when someone threw an egg at her.

I'm not saying eggs don't or can't hurt. I'm saying if you really intended to hurt someone you'd throw stones.

Hotblack Desiato · 14-05-2015 11:47PM

meglome wrote: »

I'm not saying eggs don't or can't hurt. I'm saying if you really intended to hurt someone you'd throw stones.

Like in the bible?

FixdePitchmark · 15-05-2015 12:30AM

The more this goes on .

The more I think - The Yes Side - did not understand what the Yes is about.

I feel they furiously started asking "what is this 41 all about ?",
"I don't know ?" "Something about family"
"But they are bigoted anyway, if they question gay people, at all, or ever like"

"But did you know we were becoming a man and woman family ?"
"No - no way I'm having kids - losers like"
"But, I love my boyfriend"

At the start of this - a yes voter told me- I was a bigot - intellectually weak - a Joe Duffy listener - suddenly religious - against the 1950 black movement - not as good as my father.

All that is serious.

The more the debate has gone on

I think I can impose every accusation they imposed on me, with more validity and intellect back onto that person.

The Yes side have been a disgrace in this referendum.

They may have their hollow flawed Yes - but if their attitude is indicative of their marriages - it will not last long, as they are the most intolerant self righteous demanding people I have ever come across.

Ozymandius2011 · 15-05-2015 03:02AM

Summary of no side's arguments:

- Marriage is about children.

My Answer: Then why do we allow the infertile to marry?

- A child deserves a mother and a father.

My Answer: Gay couples can already adopt under the Children and Family Relationships Act and a no vote won't change that. Also individual gays have always have the right to adopt. According to Geoffrey Shannon of the Adoption Board, only 0-2% of adoptees go to same sex households. I personally don't know any gay men who want children. 36% of childeen are raised out of wedlock today. Clearly the egg did not ask for a marriage license before meeting the sperm.

- The institution of marriage is being redefined and this is bad.

My Answer: It was redefined before when the woman stopped being the husband's property, when the marriage ban in the civil service ended in 1979, when marital rape was banned in the 1990 Criminal Justice Act, and when men lost the right to beat their wives.

- The institution of marriage has been around since the dawn of time.

My Answer: So was slavery until 1866. It still exists unofficially in Mauretania.

- The biological parent should have a right to access.

Answer: That's an argument against adoption. I am adopted.

- Gay marriage will supposedly lead to increased surrogacy.

My Answer: Almost all demand for surrogacy in this country comes from straight infertile couples. This is a separate issue. The Referendum Commission Chairman Kevin Cross has said that the Constitutional right to procreate does not amount to a right to surrogacy.

ByfocalPhoto · 15-05-2015 07:22AM

Enda Kenny in his interview with Pat Kenny, which didn't even pretend to be balanced, pointed out that 40,000 young people have registered to vote. You can bet that is a huge yes vote bloc. I would say that will clinch it.

traprunner · 15-05-2015 07:25AM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

Enda Kenny in his interview with Pat Kenny, which didn't even pretend to be balanced, pointed out that 40,000 young people have registered to vote. You can bet that is a huge yes vote bloc. I would say that will clinch it.

Hopefully that 40,000 will vote Yes and everyone is treated equally.

Loafing Oaf · 15-05-2015 08:12AM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

They may have their hollow flawed Yes - but if their attitude is indicative of their marriages - it will not last long

You think there will be another referendum to repeal SSM within a short time? Really?

CramCycle · 15-05-2015 08:24AM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

Enda Kenny in his interview with Pat Kenny, which didn't even pretend to be balanced, pointed out that 40,000 young people have registered to vote. You can bet that is a huge yes vote bloc. I would say that will clinch it.

Thats not really how it works, PK can be challenging if he wishes but the onus is on Newstalk to provide a No campaigner to talk about the No campaign for the same amount of time. I think Nick Park was talking for the No side the day before.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 15-05-2015 09:09AM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Referendum Commission Chairman Kevin Cross has said that the Constitutional right to procreate does not amount to a right to surrogacy.

Indeed, but he says something of wider interest and significance

http://refcom2015.ie/answers-to-questions-on-surrogacy-and-adoption/

• As the referendum envisages only one constitutional status of marriage, any law which treated one type of married couple differently from another would be likely to be very carefully scrutinised by the Courts and the circumstances in which such different treatment could ever be permitted would likely be exceptional.

• Were such different treatment possible, and such laws introduced, they would be upheld only if they did not create invidious or arbitrary discrimination between opposite sex and same sex couples. This means – in practical terms – that the reason for the different treatment would have to be a very good reason, which served a legitimate legislative purpose. The difference in treatment would also have to be relevant to its purpose and both opposite sex and same sex couples would have to be treated fairly. Whether these requirements are satisfied in any given circumstance would depend on the evidence presented.

That's essentially confirming the concern expressed by John Waters, to the effect that the amendment could reduce the scope of the existing Constitutional protection, rather than extend it to all.

Because, on the face of it, it's not clear from the Commission's advice that legislation could be framed that reflects the fact that it's perfectly normal for straight married couples to have children together. For the sake of argument, if we want to continue the application of the presumption of paternity for straight married couples, we'd have to demonstrate that it's not "invidious discrimination".

And, no, that concern doesn't arise from the fact that some straight couples have fertility issues, as the framework is simply saying what happens if they do have children together.

15-05-2015 09:15AM

Can you explain why we might want this?

...any law which treated one type of married couple differently from another..

Thanks

timetogo · 15-05-2015 09:42AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Because, on the face of it, it's not clear from the Commission's advice that legislation could be framed that reflects the fact that it's perfectly normal for straight married couples to have children together. For the sake of argument, if we want to continue the application of the presumption of paternity for straight married couples, we'd have to demonstrate that it's not "invidious discrimination".

I don't understand this bit. Are you saying that married couples with children should be discriminated against married couples without children. I'm probably picking it up wrong there.

SireOfSeth · 15-05-2015 09:55AM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

The more this goes on .

The more I think - The Yes Side - did not understand what the Yes is about.

I feel they furiously started asking "what is this 41 all about ?",
"I don't know ?" "Something about family"
"But they are bigoted anyway, if they question gay people, at all, or ever like"

"But did you know we were becoming a man and woman family ?"
"No - no way I'm having kids - losers like"
"But, I love my boyfriend"

At the start of this - a yes voter told me- I was a bigot - intellectually weak - a Joe Duffy listener - suddenly religious - against the 1950 black movement - not as good as my father.

All that is serious.

The more the debate has gone on
I think I can impose every accusation they imposed on me, with more validity and intellect back onto that person.

The Yes side have been a disgrace in this referendum.

They may have their hollow flawed Yes - but if their attitude is indicative of their marriages - it will not last long, as they are the most intolerant self righteous demanding people I have ever come across.

I know. Isn't it just shocking the way some foke passionately fight tooth-and-nail for human rights and civil liberties. :rolleyes:

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

Comments