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

arayess · 21-05-2015 01:23PM

henryporter wrote: »

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)

I'm not talking about the No groups or their leaders - Quinn and Mullen are good debaters and can handle themselves. i'm talking about the normal person who say "i'm voting no, not to keen on this " only to be met with nasty labeling.
The old thread on this was full of unapologetic opinion of "if you vote no you are homophobic" and parallels to black segregation were commonly made. thats the kind of stuff

Riverireland · 21-05-2015 01:23PM

osarusan wrote: »

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

Thank you. Hopefully this will be addressed. So much for the constitution stating all children will be treated equally, that is the area that should be looked at imo.

Zubeneschamali · 21-05-2015 01:24PM

joe40 wrote: »

"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!!!

It doesn't say the State will succeed in this endeavour.

It doesn't even say it will try very hard.

lazygal · 21-05-2015 01:26PM

Riverireland wrote: »

Thank you. Hopefully this will be addressed. So much for the constitution stating all children will be treated equally, that is the area that should be looked at imo.

I think you're confusing the constitution with the proclamation. Ireland has never had a provision in the constitution stating all children will be treated equally. One such example of legal inequality is that 'illegitimate' children used to have a lesser legal standing in terms of inheritance rights, etc., until the law on this was changed. Much in the way children of gay parents now enjoy fewer legal rights under our current law. When gay people can get married, more children will benefit from being treated more equally.

StewartGriffin · 21-05-2015 01:26PM

Does anyone know if the Broadcast Moratorium applies to Boards.ie?

Strictly speaking I suppose online discussion is not effectively "broadcast" but if someone should post a youtube video or similar, I wonder would it fall under the same rules?

osarusan · 21-05-2015 01:26PM

Riverireland wrote: »

Thank you. Hopefully this will be addressed. So much for the constitution stating all children will be treated equally, that is the area that should be looked at imo.

Once again, I have to point out that there is no dispute that not all children are treated equally.

However, tomorrow there is a referendum which, if it passes, would result in one group of children receiving rights which they currently do not have.

I'm taking time out of my day to go and vote to help the referendum pass and give those children those rights.

You, in your own words, 'won't bother.'

So I don't see any reason to think that your comments on equality for all children is anything other than a load of faux-concern and waffle.

Riverireland · 21-05-2015 01:27PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It doesn't say the State will succeed in this endeavour.

It doesn't even say it will try very hard.

Cute hoorism even back then!

Adamantium · 21-05-2015 01:27PM

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.

You don't care? That's the problem with democracy, wouldn't it be a responsibility as a citizen to not vote something that will run headlong up against we already have. You're just going to wish it away. Solicitors won't be out of work for a while.

We're ****ing with something for no good reason, except for the feels. not logic or reason

Misogynistic? You do realise that is a pathological and rare hatred of all women for no reason what so ever. Nowhere in Article 41 could you read any such malicious behaviour.

RobertKK · 21-05-2015 01:28PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I didn't take issue with what was said on the radio this morning. Are you confusing me with someone else? You do come back on the same issue. Repeatedly. It's probably why no one is engaging you too much on this latest one. Because no matter what response you're given, you'll come back and mention it again tomorrow.
I didn't say that you came back today with the same issue. I said that throughout this thread you've repeatedly come back with the same issues, even after they've been dealt with. It's a shame, because I think you raise some valid points that would be interesting to discuss if you were willing to do so rationally.

But if you want to continue to play the victim, go ahead.

Ok then why did you highlight "not the researcher' and reply with "Oh we know?"
Are you going to claim you were not being personal?

jobbridge4life · 21-05-2015 01:29PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Does anyone know if the Broadcast Moratorium applies to Boards.ie?

Strictly speaking I suppose online discussion is not effectively "broadcast" but if someone should post a youtube video or similar, I wonder would it fall under the same rules?

Looking to get people in trouble?

Blahblah2012 · 21-05-2015 01:29PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

then return ten minutes later to cry victim when someone says something mean to you.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

But if you want to continue to play the victim, go ahead.

Kinda fond of using the word VICTIM aren't you!!!
Is that not the whole basis for your own argument to vote YES??

joe40 · 21-05-2015 01:29PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It doesn't say the State will succeed in this endeavour.

It doesn't even say it will try very hard.

I Know I was been tongue in cheek. But it Shows how parts this particular article are totally out of place in modern Ireland. It was also justification for many of the worst abuses of unmarried mothers

SireOfSeth · 21-05-2015 01:31PM

Adamantium wrote: »

You don't care? That's the problem with democracy, wouldn't it be a responsibility as a citizen to not vote something that will run headlong up against we already have. You're just going to wish it away. Solicitors won't be out of work for a while.

We're ****ing with something for no good reason, except for the feels. not logic or reason

Misogynistic? You do realise that is a pathological and rare hatred of all women for no reason what so ever. Nowhere in Article 41 could you read any such malicious behaviour.

Fighting for civil and human rights are NEVER for no good reason!

StewartGriffin · 21-05-2015 01:32PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Looking to get people in trouble?

That's it Jobbridge. Yeah.

frostyjacks · 21-05-2015 01:32PM

My prediction:

Yes - 59.4%
No - 40.6%

Best debaters: Colm O'Gorman and David Quinn.

Wouldn't have much time for a former PD but I thought O'Gorman was very sincere and eloquent in the debates. Quinn mightn't have the sincerity but, by jaysus, he's slick. I'd rather have him on my side than against me.

Highlight: Seeing the youth getting involved on both sides. Lets hope they can carry that enthusiasm onwards for other issues.

Lowlight: Girl-with-no-manners on the Late Late Show debate, pulling faces behind a person as they were speaking. If ever I wanted to give someone a clip round the ear...

sjb25 · 21-05-2015 01:32PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Does anyone know if the Broadcast Moratorium applies to Boards.ie?

Strictly speaking I suppose online discussion is not effectively "broadcast" but if someone should post a youtube video or similar, I wonder would it fall under the same rules?

Same could be said for Facebook Twitter etc etc so I doubt it

galljga1 · 21-05-2015 01:33PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Nope, down with the flaws in the constitution.

We could be here a while.

AtomicHorror · 21-05-2015 01:34PM

Could we not get a decent copy-editor in to do a job on the constitution, cover to cover? Then we could vote on it all in one big referendum and cry at all the money we wasted when it gets shot down.

Riverireland · 21-05-2015 01:34PM

osarusan wrote: »

Once again, I have to point out that there is no dispute that not all children are treated equally.

However, tomorrow there is a referendum which, if it passes, would result in one group of children receiving rights which they currently do not have.

I'm taking time out of my day to go and vote to help the referendum pass and give those children those rights.

You, in your own words, 'won't bother.'

So I don't see any reason to think that your comments on equality for all children is anything other than a load of faux-concern and waffle.

There are currently very few children of SSC's and many thousands od children of single parents, to me this is looking after the very few rather than the very many.

To be honest osarusan were I a fickle person some of your posts would have driven me to vote no so you should be glad I'm still in wont bother mode. Amiable persuasion may be an area to work on

RobertKK · 21-05-2015 01:35PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Because despite beinggiven plenty of information on.topics you raise, you contribute to ignore them

Well that is rich, you just totally ignored my question.

PopePalpatine · 21-05-2015 01:35PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And then there's a bit of patronising sexism:

Neckbeards love that sort of shit.

SireOfSeth · 21-05-2015 01:36PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It was argued today on the Pat Kenny show that same sex couples would be unable to consummate their marriages, and this could lead to their marriages being annulled rather than divorced if they decide to separate as non consummation is a grounds for annulment.
That in the law, there is only male/female consummation.

RobertKK wrote: »

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?

Maybe we can agree then that no case has been shown for being concerned at all about consummation. Happy that there's no basis for being worried about this?

Vivisectus · 21-05-2015 01:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Where did you get this from? Consummation applies to civil marriages also.

My mistake - I got mixed up with an old debate around gay marriage in the UK.

RobertKK · 21-05-2015 01:39PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Maybe we can agree then that no case has been shown for being concerned at all about consummation. Happy that there's no basis for being worried about this?

You don't know this. Listen to the podcast of the Pat Kenny show on this.

galljga1 · 21-05-2015 01:39PM

Adamantium wrote: »

You don't care? That's the problem with democracy, wouldn't it be a responsibility as a citizen to not vote something that will run headlong up against we already have. You're just going to wish it away. Solicitors won't be out of work for a while.

We're ****ing with something for no good reason, except for the feels. not logic or reason

Misogynistic? You do realise that is a pathological and rare hatred of all women for no reason what so ever. Nowhere in Article 41 could you read any such malicious behaviour.

Exaggeration?
Misogynistic definition, reflecting or exhibiting hatred, dislike, mistrust, or mistreatment of women.

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2015 01:39PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Have legislation ready in case of a yes vote.

Something like this?

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/General%20Scheme%20of%20the%20Marriage%20Bill%202015.pdf/Files/General%20Scheme%20of%20the%20Marriage%20Bill%202015.pdf

osarusan · 21-05-2015 01:40PM

Riverireland wrote: »

There are currently very few children of SSC's and many thousands od children of single parents, to me this is looking after the very few rather than the very many.

A small step is better than no step at all surely? For somebody who sees all children as equal and wants them to be treated equally?

Riverireland wrote: »

To be honest osarusan were I a fickle person some of your posts would have driven me to vote no so you should be glad I'm still in wont bother mode. Amiable persuasion may be an area to work on

Ah yes....it would have been my fault, not yours.

I wasn't going to vote because I couldn't bothered, even though I care about equality for children, but then somebody on an internet forum said that if I cared about equality as much as I said I did, I should vote yes to help some children achieve that equality...so I voted no instead.

RobertKK · 21-05-2015 01:40PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Sorry, I don't have the time to respond to every point.

Really, then stop posting if that is the case and come back later.

We can all see why you refused to answer, you are in the wrong here.

Zubeneschamali · 21-05-2015 01:41PM

joe40 wrote: »

But it Shows how parts this particular article are totally out of place in modern Ireland.

It's on the list for change, but it is a pretty meaningless bit of baloney, and doesn't really have any bad effects, so it's not at the top of the list.

Can you imagine John Waters blood pressure if this was addressed before fathers rights? :eek:

Adamantium · 21-05-2015 01:42PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

We're not chipping way at anything, we're adding to it and the state is big enough.

If we protected the rights of those laws that came before that would be a start, but now in practical terms it will be even more difficult because the new will contradict the old, even though the old stuff has legal superiority over it.

So families have to suffer years of legal limbo, and all this on the name of high minded we're chipping our way to a new future in the meantime

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

Comments