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/

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

1…164165167169170…327

Comments

  • #4982
    colossus-x
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭colossus-x


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes I have and have yet to see someone explain exactly what it is.


    Also I have another question: If same sex marriage is permitted are we effectively writing in the acceptance of more than two people to the default definition of marriage?

    NO. And we're not writing in the acceptance of allowing marriage between 1 person and one thing either.


  • #4983
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,893 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Wouldent have the funding/media or political backing though polyamory would be great if we could get that one in.
    Nothing illegal about polyamory...go for it if you want to.


  • #4984
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,166 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    Using their plight to score points in a debate is worse.

    So would be the use of the je suis as a mean's of making a point. The value of a cake does not equate to human lives, rather a misuse of any-one's right to free speech, which was what those in Paris died for. Please don't let their memory be taken down the mud-slinging route, that would be truly abusive as a memorial to them, to be used in an on-line debate on SSM in another country. I've posted this as a debater, so to any-one who think's about writing something about back-seat modding, it's not. It's about common courtesy.


  • #4985
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ironé wrote: »
    The wording of the referendum is fairly straightforward - it specifically states that it is between two people.

    Two consenting same sex couples marrying harms noone - and is between themselves. How can you possibly put this on a par with rape and incest? I mean where is your logic here?

    Aside from anything else we are only being asked to allow TWO people two marry regardless of their gender - so the above is irrelevant.

    I wasent putting rape/insest on par with gay marriage that was more in rebuttal to the comment than gay was natural earlier and apologise.


  • #4986
    Ironé
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 260 ✭✭Ironé


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Wouldent have the funding/media or political backing though polyamory would be great if we could get that one in.

    It's already 'in' - I think maybe you are thinking of Polygamy which is more than two people being married. That is illegal here.

    Also nothing whatsoever to do with this referendum - let's stay on point will we?


  • Advertisement
  • #4987
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    osarusan wrote: »
    Nothing illegal about polyamory...go for it if you want to.

    Not allowed to marry more than one person I love though :(


  • #4988
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not alowed to marry more than one person I love though :(

    So start a campaign. You should know by now nothing just happens in this country. You want rights you have to fight for them.


  • #4989
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Well I waded through all the bitchy comments, thanks for the contribution, that really explained things to me, well done, well done



    Hyzepher wrote: »
    How did you come to the conclusion that a question like that was relevant

    I suppose it goes back to the whole uncertainty of the production of children. By default same a sex couple need a third party involved to produce children.


    So by permitting same sex marriage, are we effectively permitting the involvement of a third party as a default position?


  • #4990
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,024 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Ironé wrote: »
    It's already 'in' - I think maybe you are thinking of Polygamy which is more than two people being married. That is illegal here.

    Also nothing whatsoever to do with this referendum - let's stay on point will we?

    But if we stay on point, there's nothing to argue against. Therein lies the real issue. The No sides right to complain is being severely damaged by this referendum because they have to resort to making stuff up to argue against.


  • #4991
    matrim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,516 ✭✭✭matrim


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not alowed to marry more than one person I love though :(

    But in order to have polygamy you first have to have SSM. If you want it start a campaign for it.


  • Advertisement
  • #4992
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Ironé wrote: »
    The wording of the referendum is fairly straightforward - it specifically states that it is between two people.

    Two consenting same sex couples marrying harms noone - and is between themselves. How can you possibly put this on a par with rape and incest? I mean where is your logic here?

    Aside from anything else we are only being asked to allow TWO people two marry regardless of their gender - so the above is irrelevant.

    Irish law, through legislation currently prohibits certain heterosexuals from marrying. For example I cannot marry my late wife's auntie. After a yes vote on Friday no laws exist to prohibit me from marrying my late wife's uncle or her father, or her brother or my brother for that matter.
    That is a fact. Check it out.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #4993
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    bjork wrote: »
    Well I waded through all the bitchy comments, thanks for the contribution, that really explained things to me, well done, well done






    I suppose it goes back to the whole uncertainty of the production of children. By default same a sex couple need a third party involved to produce children.


    So by permitting same sex marriage, are we effectively permitting the involvement of a third party as a default position?

    Assuming that all gay couples want children.

    Big assumption to make.


  • #4994
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,024 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    bjork wrote: »
    Well I waded through all the bitchy comments, thanks for the contribution, that really explained things to me, well done, well done

    I suppose it goes back to the whole uncertainty of the production of children. By default same a sex couple need a third party involved to produce children.


    So by permitting same sex marriage, are we effectively permitting the involvement of a third party as a default position?

    Not all same-sex couples want children. Not all heterosexual couples want children. Not all heterosexual couples can have children.

    This referendum changes nothing in that regard. It only permits two people of the same sex to get married.


  • #4995
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Irish law, through legislation currently prohibits certain heterosexuals from marrying. For example I cannot marry my late wife's auntie. After a yes vote on Friday no laws exist to prohibit me from marrying my late wife's uncle or her father, or her brother or my brother for that matter.
    That is a fact. Check it out.

    This again?


  • #4996
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,046 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    bjork wrote: »
    So by permitting same sex marriage, are we effectively permitting the involvement of a third party as a default position?

    But there's no legislation on surrogacy for straight or gay couples, married or not. So how does it change anything?


  • #4997
    Ironé
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 260 ✭✭Ironé


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I wasent putting rape/insest on par with gay marriage that was more in rebuttal to the comment than gay was natural earlier and apologise.

    Being gay is a totally normal and natural thing. No-one chooses it. I know that for many the idea of being attracted to someone of the same sex is still taboo and abhorent to them. The only way that people can make sense of it is that it is purely some kind of devient sexual, purely physical fetish.

    Same sex relationships are the same as straight relationships - they love the same as us. We can't choose who we are attracted to.

    It's quite alright to feel this is taboo and it's great that we have religious freedom in this country. But we are a diverse country - there are all sorts of families, relationships, beliefs and we can accommodate them all. This is just civil marriage.

    My Dad is 78 - a staunch catholic - and he believes that marriage is the foundation rock of society. He believes that people should be encouraged to make llife long commitments to each other whether they are gay or straight.


  • #4998
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    bjork wrote: »
    So by permitting same sex marriage, are we effectively permitting the involvement of a third party as a default position?

    Why is that a bad thing? It's already happening. Many straight couples and single women use donor assistance to have children. The donor does it willingly. Where is the problem?


  • #4999
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Irish law, through legislation currently prohibits certain heterosexuals from marrying. For example I cannot marry my late wife's auntie. After a yes vote on Friday no laws exist to prohibit me from marrying my late wife's uncle or her father, or her brother or my brother for that matter.
    That is a fact. Check it out.

    Do we not have incest laws here? not that we should its a free for all apparently, but do the current incest laws cover only relatives of the opposite sex? Genuinly would like to know?


  • #5000
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


    aloyisious wrote: »
    So would be the use of the je suis as a mean's of making a point. The value of a cake does not equate to human lives, rather a misuse of any-one's right to free speech, which was what those in Paris died for. Please don't let their memory be taken down the mud-slinging route, that would be truly abusive as a memorial to them, to be used in an on-line debate on SSM in another country. I've posted this as a debater, so to any-one who think's about writing something about back-seat modding, it's not. It's about common courtesy.

    The "Je Suis X" slogan has settled into popular culture, for some it's a support for any cause they like, for others is an ironic statement, mocking those who take themselves too seriously, (recognise anyone?.)

    If you or anyone else is going to get upset every time you see a "Je Suis ..." T-shirt, I'm afraid you're in for a very distressing few years ahead.

    As to it being disgusting to use the plight of people killed, to score points in a debate, that was my original point.


  • #5001
    Magenta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭Magenta


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Irish law, through legislation currently prohibits certain heterosexuals from marrying. For example I cannot marry my late wife's auntie. After a yes vote on Friday no laws exist to prohibit me from marrying my late wife's uncle or her father, or her brother or my brother for that matter.
    That is a fact. Check it out.

    Prove it.


  • Advertisement
  • #5002
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Jenny Thalia wrote: »
    Assuming that all gay couples want children.

    Big assumption to make.

    It's not. It's wondering how those that do will go about it and what is the default position the constitution will have on the issue. To ignore it would presume no gay couples will want children?


  • #5003
    walkingshadow
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 369 ✭✭walkingshadow


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Why is that a bad thing? It's already happening. Many straight couples and single women use donor assistance to have children. The donor does it willingly. Where is the problem?

    Haven't you heard? The gays are the bad guys!


  • #5004
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,680 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    bjork wrote: »
    I suppose it goes back to the whole uncertainty of the production of children. By default same a sex couple need a third party involved to produce children.


    So by permitting same sex marriage, are we effectively permitting the involvement of a third party as a default position?

    Do you have the same opinion for infertile couples or aged couples who marry?


  • #5005
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    endacl wrote: »
    This again?

    Facts don't just go away just because you don't like them.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #5006
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    bjork wrote: »
    So by permitting same sex marriage, are we effectively permitting the involvement of a third party as a default position?

    By permitting marriage of infertile people, are we effectively permitting the involvement of a third party as a default position?


  • #5007
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    bjork wrote: »
    It's not. It's wondering how those that do will go about it and what is the default position the constitution will have on the issue. To ignore it would presume no gay couples will want children?

    What changes with a gay marriage, though? Gay men and women can already involve a third party into any plans they have for childbearing.


  • #5008
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,247 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Do we not have incest laws here?

    Yes.

    Beware strawmen.


  • #5009
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Irish law, through legislation currently prohibits certain heterosexuals from marrying. For example I cannot marry my late wife's auntie. After a yes vote on Friday no laws exist to prohibit me from marrying my late wife's uncle or her father, or her brother or my brother for that matter.
    That is a fact. Check it out.

    No it isn't. And the Referendum Commission have already stated same. However, if you are privy to some undisclosed facts, please do disclose them.


  • #5010
    Ironé
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 260 ✭✭Ironé


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Irish law, through legislation currently prohibits certain heterosexuals from marrying. For example I cannot marry my late wife's auntie. After a yes vote on Friday no laws exist to prohibit me from marrying my late wife's uncle or her father, or her brother or my brother for that matter.
    That is a fact. Check it out.

    No it doesn't this has been refuted by the Referendum Commission. If this is what you want to believe then that is your entitlement. It is not a fact, it is not the truth.

    Legal experts, independent experts have refuted this. If you think you know more than they do then there is nothing I can say to change your mind. Your prejudice is entrenched.


  • Advertisement
  • #5011
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Do we not have incest laws here? not that we should its a free for all apparently, but do the current incest laws cover only relatives of the opposite sex? Genuinly would like to know?

    Yes. Marriage prohibition only relates to those of opposite sex.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement