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…233234236238239…327

Comments

  • #7052
    arayess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭arayess


    osarusan wrote: »
    You don't think that voting against civil marriage for same sex couples would put a significant dent in Ireland's reputation as a tolerant country?

    no I don't
    liberals and the media will wail about it and politicians will tut-tut. But in practical terms what will that mean? probably not much.

    but our reputation around the world won't suffer cos they are other people in the world who arent liberal and life goes on to the next thing.

    People still go and do business with the USA despite it's large intolerant parts.
    The west still fawns after middle eastern and african dictatorships despite an intolerable human rights record. It's terrible to say but a lot of people don't care about this stuff. A facebook like isn't an action. When called upon to do action a lot of people are found lacking.


  • #7053
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    kona wrote: »
    I've a genuine question here, people are different, so if they are different can they be properly treated equally?

    So I blondes should be treated different than brunettes?

    kona wrote: »
    Why couldn't a standalone part of the constitution be written to cater for SSM rather than modifying the existing constitution.

    This is a very simple insertion into the constitution and look at the hassle. Imagine if it was a whole new article.

    Also, there shouldn't be duplication in the constitution.


  • #7054
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    kona wrote: »
    I've a genuine question here, people are different, so if they are different can they be properly treated equally?
    Why couldn't a standalone part of the constitution be written to cater for SSM rather than modifying the existing constitution.

    Should we do the same for black people? Or gingers?

    Our constitution states that everyone should be treated equally.


  • #7055
    timetogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


    kona wrote: »
    I've a genuine question here, people are different, so if they are different can they be properly treated equally?
    Why couldn't a standalone part of the constitution be written to cater for SSM rather than modifying the existing constitution.

    Like how women are different to men?


  • #7056
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Riverireland wrote: »
    I have sympathy for Paddy Manning. The man is entitled to his opinion, please remember that this is a democracy. He is actually a very brave man as far as I can see and has been outcast by the gay community for having his own opinion which is a great shame.

    He is certainly entitled to his opinions but he is not entitled to seek to deny others something because he, personally, doesn't want it.

    He has the courage of his convictions I'll give him that but he is also allowed an incredible access to the media to voice his opinions which is not quite democratic as Paddy gets to broadcast his personal opinions time and time again.

    'Outcast' have you any proof of this?

    Perhaps members of the gay community don't want to engage with someone they perceive as actively campaigning to deny them their civil rights - is that illegal now?


  • Advertisement
  • #7057
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    kona wrote: »
    I've a genuine question here, people are different, so if they are different can they be properly treated equally?
    Why couldn't a standalone part of the constitution be written to cater for SSM rather than modifying the existing constitution.

    Why should Gay people be legally segregated?


  • #7058
    mailforkev
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭mailforkev


    kona wrote: »
    I've a genuine question here, people are different, so if they are different can they be properly treated equally?
    Why couldn't a standalone part of the constitution be written to cater for SSM rather than modifying the existing constitution.

    But sure everybody is different. Should we have seperate laws for men and women, white people and black people etc.?

    This referendum, if passed, won't create a new institution called "same sex marriage". It will merely allow same sex couples to partake in the existing institution of "marriage".


  • #7059
    kona
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭kona


    traprunner wrote: »
    So I blondes should be treated different than brunettes?

    I prefer blondes so I suppose I would treat them differentley from a certain point of view.


  • #7060
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    kona wrote: »
    I've a genuine question here, people are different, so if they are different can they be properly treated equally?
    Why couldn't a standalone part of the constitution be written to cater for SSM rather than modifying the existing constitution.

    Men and women are different. They are treated equally.

    Also, why should it be? Why should there be separate but equal?

    My relationship is no threat to anybody. My relationship is no better or no worse than anybody else's.

    All that is being asked is that the state recognise it in the same way as it does my married friends.

    It won't change or effect there relationship - it will just be that the state now recognises both as equal good and worthwhile.


  • #7061
    arayess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭arayess


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    He is certainly entitled to his opinions but he is not entitled to seek to deny others something because he, personally, doesn't want it.

    He has the courage of his convictions I'll give him that but he is also allowed an incredible access to the media to voice his opinions which is not quite democratic as Paddy gets to broadcast his personal opinions time and time again.

    'Outcast' have you any proof of this?

    Perhaps members of the gay community don't want to engage with someone they perceive as actively campaigning to deny them their civil rights - is that illegal now?

    there was a mocking post by panti on facebook yesterday on him which was fine and fair but some of the comments below were just mean , very much playing the man and not the ball.
    Plenty of memes created of him in an unflattering light all met with whoops of backslapping online.
    That's outcast stuff there


  • Advertisement
  • #7062
    kona
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭kona


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Why should Gay people be legally segregated?

    Are they legally separated? As far as I know they enjoy all the rights I do.

    Isn't the only difference between marrige and civil law is one can be written out of law, an one needs to be voted on for change?


  • #7063
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    kona wrote: »
    I've a genuine question here, people are different, so if they are different can they be properly treated equally?
    Why couldn't a standalone part of the constitution be written to cater for SSM the constitution be amended rather than modifying the existing constitution amending the constitution.
    I've adjusted your post slightly to clarify the question you asked. Hope that's OK?


  • #7064
    Anita Blow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,935 ✭✭✭Anita Blow


    'Cast out by the gay community'.
    The hell is the gay community? You'd swear we have an AGM and weren't just regular people going about their normal days.


  • #7065
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    kona wrote: »
    I prefer blondes so I suppose I would treat them differentley from a certain point of view.

    Would you treat them different legally?


  • #7066
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    arayess wrote: »
    there was a mocking post by panti on facebook yesterday on him which was fine and fair but some of the comments below were just mean , very much playing the man and not the ball.
    Plenty of meme created of him in an unflattering light all meet with whoops of backslapping online.
    That's outcast stuff there

    Wow. People on the Internet mocked somebody.

    If that makes you an outcast, I really feel for the likes of Kim Kardashian, Beyoncé, Jerome Boateng, Kanye West etc. the poor outcasts.

    Also, we aren't required to like the man. Freedom of conscience and all that, as Keith himself would like to say.

    Sure doesn't he have plenty of friends on the No side anyway. They are always so keen to tell us about their gay friends.

    They really do love talking about Paddy and Keith.


  • #7067
    Riverireland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 833 ✭✭✭Riverireland


    osarusan wrote: »
    You asked a question about the impact of SSM on children - I told you which children it will impact.

    There is a lot of nonsense being talked by a lot of people - you heard some and asked for clarification - I explained what the people who know what this referendum actually means have to say about the impact on children. There was nothing condescending or insulting in what I said.

    Here is something you might be insulted by - you say that you consider all children to be equal, but yet you won't bother voting tomorrow on an issue that would bring equality to children in same sex families, so I have to question the extent of your commitment to equality for all children.

    Children of SSM are already equal as far as I'm concerned! There are elements of both sides of this debate tha t I do not like, seems to be bringing out the worst in some people's personalities.

    The element on the yes side is the apparent need for everyone's approval. No one ever has everyone's approval in life. Everyone has some predjuce be it gender, age, social class or many other things. You'll have to deal with that fact sooner or later, it's not just all about you and what you perceive to be equality.


  • #7068
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    In a marriage between two Llamas what is the definition of sexual intercourse? If it can be proven that sexual intercourse has not occurred, would that be grounds for annulment? Would that then mean that the Llamas involved would be free to engage in sexual intercourse with an Alpaca? Does the definition of sexual intercourse differ between Llamas and Alpacas. If so what are the different definitions of sexual intercourse between two Llamas, two Alpacas and one Llama and one Alpaca?

    Can someone please clarify this for me as soon as possible because I have to vote in the marriage referendum tomorrow? I will be asked whether human marriages should be available to all couples regardless of gender, I have serious concerns about the issues I have outlined above and I'm very confused.


  • #7069
    mailforkev
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭mailforkev


    kona wrote: »
    Are they legally separated? As far as I know they enjoy all the rights I do.

    Isn't the only difference between marrige and civil law is one can be written out of law, an one needs to be voted on for change?

    They enjoy all the rights you and me have except the right to get married. Hence tomorrow's referendum.

    Civil partnership is basically a constitutionally unprotected marriage-lite. There are many little differences. A quick google will find the details.

    I wouldn't swap my marriage for a civil partnership.


  • #7070
    kona
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭kona


    endacl wrote: »
    I've adjusted your post slightly to clarify the question you asked. Hope that's OK?

    Because I think the marrige between a man and a woman is different to marrige between a SS couple.

    I also think they should have the same rights. But the key difference is that one couple can procreate and the other cannot. That's what makes them differnt.

    I also don't think anybody has the right to have children, it's just something that is to do with nature and life, not laws and constitution.


  • #7071
    Anita Blow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,935 ✭✭✭Anita Blow


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    In a marriage between two Llamas what is the definition of sexual intercourse? If it can be proven that sexual intercourse has not occurred, would that be grounds for annulment? Would that then mean that the Llamas involved would be free to engage in sexual intercourse with an Alpaca? Does the definition of sexual intercourse differ between Llamas and Alpacas. If so what are the different definitions of sexual intercourse between two Llamas, two Alpacas and one Llama and one Alpaca?

    Can someone please clarify this for me as soon as possible because I have to vote in the marriage referendum tomorrow? I will be asked whether human marriages should be available to all couples regardless of gender, and I have serious concerns about the issues I have outlined above and I'm very confused.

    Kiwi raises a legitimate concern that the Yes side have remained suspiciously quiet about. Further to this, is there any legislation to stop two llamas/alpacas adopting a camel via surrogacy?


  • Advertisement
  • #7072
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Riverireland wrote: »
    Children of SSM are already equal as far as I'm concerned! There are elements of both sides of this debate tha t I do not like, seems to be bringing out the worst in some people's personalities.
    Unfortunately what you or I think at the moment doesn't matter a jot. It's the law and constitution that counts.

    SSM is not permitted at the moment.

    Children of SS parents are not equal to children of heterosexual married parents in the eyes of the law.

    This constitutional amendment would allow SS parents marry and make them and their children equal in the eyes of the law.


  • #7073
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Anita Blow wrote: »
    Kiwi raises a legitimate concern that the Yes side have remained suspiciously quiet about. Further to this, is there any legislation to stop two llamas/alpacas adopting a camel via surrogacy?

    Slow down. We still haven't sorted out the herring/gerbil debacle.


  • #7074
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,895 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Riverireland wrote: »
    Children of SSM are already equal as far as I'm concerned!
    But they are not equal as far as the protection provided by the constitution is concerned. This not opinion, this is fact.

    You could vote tomorrow to be one more voice in favour of giving them that equality, but you won't bother, right?


  • #7075
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    arayess wrote: »
    there was a mocking post by panti on facebook yesterday on him which was fine and fair but some of the comments below were just mean , very much playing the man and not the ball.
    Plenty of meme created of him in an unflattering light all meet with whoops of backslapping online.
    That's outcast stuff there

    That was Keith Mills not Paddy Manning.

    Not even bothering to find out his name - now that's outcast stuff there.


  • #7076
    kona
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭kona


    traprunner wrote: »
    Would you treat them different legally?

    No but SS couples ain't treated differently legally either.


  • #7077
    timetogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


    kona wrote: »
    No but SS couples ain't treated differently legally either.

    Where have you been the last few months?


  • #7078
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    traprunner wrote: »
    Would you treat them different legally?

    Legally Blonde? Wasn't that a documentary?


  • #7079
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    kona wrote: »
    No but SS couples ain't treated differently legally either.

    They are. All 160 differences. Some minor and some quite large.


  • #7080
    Anita Blow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,935 ✭✭✭Anita Blow


    kona wrote: »
    Because I think the marrige between a man and a woman is different to marrige between a SS couple.

    I also think they should have the same rights. But the key difference is that one couple can procreate and the other cannot. That's what makes them differnt.

    I also don't think anybody has the right to have children, it's just something that is to do with nature and life, not laws and constitution.

    That absolutely is a difference and I doubt anyone would deny that. The question is, is it such a fundamental difference that it justifies denial of constitutional protection? In practice on a day-to-day basis, is there any major difference between a straight couple and a gay couple who work a 9-5 job, maybe go out on the weekend with friends etc? And yet one couple is considered less than the other, for no other reason than just because.

    And I'd agree nobody has the right to have children, which is why our constitution confers no such right.


  • Advertisement
  • #7081
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    kona wrote: »
    Because I think the marrige between a man and a woman is different to marrige between a SS couple.

    I also think they should have the same rights. But the key difference is that one couple can procreate and the other cannot. That's what makes them differnt.

    I also don't think anybody has the right to have children, it's just something that is to do with nature and life, not laws and constitution.

    Good. I'm guessing you'll be voting YES then.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement