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…236237239241242…327

Comments

  • #7142
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I' agreeing with something you admitted yourself. Hardly attacking you.

    Funny how you respond to remarks like that but disappear whenever someone asks you a question you can't easily spout nonsense to.

    People are not stupid, and you shouldn't make out they are.
    You highlighted one part. You offered nothing but a personal attack.

    I disappear as I have to work for a living, I am not here all the time to post on this, I have other interests. I am not here for your beck and call. I have the 8th highest number of posts in this thread. I answered most questions, but I can't answer everyone or every post, being swamped by yes voters, and multiple people quoting, there is only so much that one can reply to.


  • #7143
    Riverireland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 833 ✭✭✭Riverireland


    osarusan wrote: »
    What point are yo trying to make?

    What do you not understand. I've used very simple words.


  • #7144
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    Giving the yes label no voters as bigots or homophobes I wonder what they think of that gay man saying hes voting no?
    Would they still try to label him a homophobe or bigot?


  • #7145
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Riverireland wrote: »
    I regard the children of same sex couples exactly the same as children of heterosexual couples and single parents. I also consider children of any race, social background, religion etc to be equal.

    The law does not. You can help by voting Yes.


  • #7146
    mailforkev
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭mailforkev


    kona wrote: »
    You are a couple so I'd define you as one and you'd have the same rights as every other couple.

    So me and my wife would no longer be a family? I did kinda see where you're coming from but that's more than a bit insulting to be honest.


  • Advertisement
  • #7147
    timetogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Giving the SOME yes voters label SOME no voters as bigots or homophobes I wonder what they think of that gay man saying hes voting no?
    Would they still try to label him a homophobe or bigot?

    Fixed that for ya.
    And in answer to your question: no.


  • #7148
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,894 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Riverireland wrote: »
    What do you not understand. I've used very simple words.
    I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

    What do you want to say about the rights of children of SSM relationships, children of unmarried couples, children of single parents, and children of married couples?


  • #7149
    henryporter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,088 ✭✭✭henryporter


    arayess wrote: »
    no probs.

    That's true but they generally were politer about being nasty (imo of course)
    I do genuinely object the the homophobic slur that was banded about

    Presuming of course that you acknowledge it was the side claiming to being branded 'homophobes' having run their entire campaign on other misinformation and irrelevancies making that particular claim (and once again not having one iota of proof)


  • #7150
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    lazygal wrote: »
    This change will include 'in accordance with law'. Law can be easily amended to refer to consummation, such as whether an elderly couple who may be physically incapable of traditional consummation, would be affected by the current stance. The law could remove any requirement to consummate a marriage. I don't ever remember bloody sheets being part of the deal when I married.
    This is the latest red herring by the no side, and exactly the same playbook used by the religious right in the US to stifle marriage rights for people they think are unnatural.

    Probably the last and final one before we all vote tomorrow. It basically amounts to *what about the gay sex...yuk!*


  • #7151
    Ketracel White
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4 ✭Ketracel White


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Giving the yes label no voters as bigots or homophobes I wonder what they think of that gay man saying hes voting no?
    Would they still try to label him a homophobe or bigot?

    A gay man publicly advocating a no vote will always get airtime, no matter how nonsensical and spurious his ramblings are. However, I would have thought a gay person, more than most, would realize the significance of this vote and live and let live.


  • Advertisement
  • #7152
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Giving the yes label no voters as bigots or homophobes I wonder what they think of that gay man saying hes voting no?
    Would they still try to label him a homophobe or bigot?

    Being gay doesnt prevent you from being prejudiced against other gay people. Look at how often you hear about someone who is campaigning against gay people turn out to be taking part in homosexual relations.


  • #7153
    henryporter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,088 ✭✭✭henryporter


    kona wrote: »
    You are a couple so I'd define you as one and you'd have the same rights as every other couple.

    Except of course that there is no definition of a couple in our constitution.


  • #7154
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Giving the yes label no voters as bigots or homophobes I wonder what they think of that gay man saying hes voting no?
    Would they still try to label him a homophobe or bigot?

    I replied to that video. Without labeling him a homophobe or a bigot.

    Post #7245

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95568385&postcount=7245


  • #7155
    mailforkev
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭mailforkev


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Giving the yes label no voters as bigots or homophobes I wonder what they think of that gay man saying hes voting no?
    Would they still try to label him a homophobe or bigot?

    Of course gay people can be homophobic. This was rather eloquently put by Ursula Halligan the other day. She said she used to be massively homophobic as she was afraid of being gay. Luckily for her mental health she has since come to terms with herself.


  • #7156
    Ketracel White
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4 ✭Ketracel White


    Not a NSA agent wrote: »
    Being gay doesnt prevent you from being prejudiced against other gay people. Look at how often you hear about someone who is campaigning against gay people turn out to be taking part in homosexual relations.

    Agreed. Watch the film 'Outrage' by Kirby Dick.


  • #7157
    henryporter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,088 ✭✭✭henryporter


    Not a NSA agent wrote: »
    Being gay doesnt prevent you from being prejudiced against other gay people.

    Yip - it goes with the maxim that 'haters gotta hate' unfortunately.


  • #7158
    Riverireland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 833 ✭✭✭Riverireland


    osarusan wrote: »
    I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

    What do you want to say about the rights of children of SSM relationships, children of unmarried couples, children of single parents, and children of married couples?

    Ok, children of SSC's have the same rights as children of single parents. Correct or incorrect?


  • #7159
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,894 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Riverireland wrote: »
    Ok, children of SSC's have the same rights as children of single parents. Correct or incorrect?

    I believe so. I haven't looked at it carefully, but I think that is correct.

    Are you saying it is correct?


  • #7160
    Adamantium
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭Adamantium


    How many of the people voting on Friday have even read Article 41 of the constitution? Or any of the constitution for that matter.

    If you have half a brain and don't drool you should see that the proposed amendment is contradictory to the rest of Article 41.

    ARTICLE 41

    The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

    The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

    In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

    The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

    The above bolded made me lol in particular.

    How the flying fcuk is the marriage of two guys compatible with any of that?


    If this passes it will reduce the rest of our constitution to a contradictory clusterfcuk the ramifications of which are incalculable.


  • #7161
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Riverireland wrote: »
    Ok, children of SSC's have the same rights as children of single parents. Correct or incorrect?

    Not in my case. Both fathers named on birth certs, have relationship with sons, who would be given automatic guardianship in the event of my death. Not the case for the parent in a SSC who isn't the birth/adoptive parent, even if the children were living with him/her as a parent all their lives.


  • Advertisement
  • #7162
    timetogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


    Riverireland wrote: »
    Ok, children of SSC's have the same rights as children of single parents. Correct or incorrect?

    I don't know about single parents.

    For the list of differences for a couple (this referendum is about marriage) have a look at this sheet.

    http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/xls/marriage_equality_missing_pieces_audit_full_list.xls

    and click on the parent - child relationship tab.


  • #7163
    Riverireland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 833 ✭✭✭Riverireland


    mailforkev wrote: »
    Of course gay people can be homophobic. This was rather eloquently put by Ursula Halligan the other day. She said she used to be massively homophobic as she was afraid of being gay. Luckily for her mental health she has since come to terms with herself.

    I'm happy and sad for her at the same time. Didn't like the way she treated Brian Lenehan at all though and that way noting to do with her being gay.


  • #7164
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Oh I'm not making out that you're stupid, you're evidently far from it, and apologies if I said otherwise. I do think you're engaging in very dishonest debating tactics though.

    I'm not talking about when you go to work or whatever, I'm taking about when people put the effort to make long and informative replies to you and you ignore them, then return ten minutes later to cry victim when someone says something mean to you. The points you keep making in this thread have been repeatedly debunked, yet you keep returning with the same points after the thread has moved on a bit. Do you think that's honest?

    That is a lie, when did I share what was said on the Pat Kenny show this morning about consummation and annulment?
    Do you think you have been honest before you start accusing me?


  • #7165
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    Adamantium wrote: »
    How many of the people voting on Friday have even read Article 41 of the constitution? Or any of the constitution for that matter.

    If you have half a brain and don't drool you should see that the proposed amendment is contradictory to the rest of Article 41.

    ARTICLE 41

    The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

    The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

    In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

    The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

    The above bolded made me lol in particular.

    How the flying fcuk is the marriage of two guys compatible with any of that?


    If this passes it will reduce the rest of our constitution to a contradictory clusterfcuk the ramifications of which are incalculable.

    Of course, here comes a no voter to claim everyone voting yes is stupid.

    Well done on noticing something that nobody else has, you should call the president and let him know. Im sure they never would have looked at the constitution.


  • #7166
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Adamantium wrote: »
    If this passes it will reduce the rest of our constitution to a contradictory clusterfcuk the ramifications of which are incalculable.

    Our constitution was an even worse contradictory clusterf*ck when it was adopted.

    That little section you quoted needs 7 changes to bring it into the 21st century, per the 2006 all party committee.

    We are chipping away at the nonsense, one line at a time.


  • #7167
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Adamantium wrote: »
    How many of the people voting on Friday have even read Article 41 of the constitution? Or any of the constitution for that matter.

    If you have half a brain and don't drool you should see that the proposed amendment is contradictory to the rest of Article 41.

    ARTICLE 41

    The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

    The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

    In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

    The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

    The above bolded made me lol in particular.

    How the flying fcuk is the marriage of two guys compatible with any of that?


    If this passes it will reduce the rest of our constitution to a contradictory clusterfcuk the ramifications of which are incalculable.

    What makes my marriage different to my gay friends' marriages? We were a family when we got married, we were never asked nor told about children when going through the legal process to marry.
    The only thing that will change when, I hope, this is passed tomorrow is that gay people can get married. They won't have any right to procreate, any more than infertile straight couples have right now. They won't have any right to adopt, any more than I do right now or you do or anyone else does.
    I have studied constitutional law and passed an exam in it. I'm voting yes and all of these mad predictions the No side try to present as some sort of legal fact are completely bogus, and have been found to be so by those in the legal profession and the referendum commission.


  • #7168
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Adamantium wrote: »
    How many of the people voting on Friday have even read Article 41 of the constitution? Or any of the constitution for that matter.

    If you have half a brain and don't drool you should see that the proposed amendment is contradictory to the rest of Article 41.

    ARTICLE 41

    The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

    The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

    In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

    The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

    The above bolded made me lol in particular.

    How the **** is the marriage of two guys compatible with any of that?.

    There's no logical incompatibility or contradiction here. There's a nonsequitur:
    In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home,woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

    And then there's a bit of patronising sexism:
    The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    Which is expressed in law in various ways- this is actually discriminatory against families lacking a mother, but it doesn't contradict the part being amended, which is the entry criteria for marriage/formation of a family unit.


  • #7169
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    What is a lie? I'm referring to your posting style throughout the thread, not one particular point you made this morning :confused:

    I've tried to be, maybe you have as well, but it certainly doesn't come across that way.

    You took issue with what was said on the radio this morning, you said I come back with the same issue. I come on with a different issue that was raised on national radio, but you choose to use it to attack me.
    A different issue but yet you lied and said I come back with the same issue, you can try and sneak your way out of what you said, and then you talk about honesty...


  • #7170
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    The constitution also states that a family is defined as two married adults, and as for all the misogynistic garbage you've highlighted, I couldn't give a feck if it's contradicted as it's outdated rubbish anyway.
    Yeah down with constitution.


  • Advertisement
  • #7171
    joe40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭joe40


    "The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."

    Tell that to my bank manager!!!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement