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…238239241243244…327

Comments

  • #7202
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    Adamantium wrote: »
    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

    Who have you contacted to inform them of your discovery? The government, lawyers etc need to know before its too late.


  • #7203
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    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

    Yes, but it doesn't deal with the issue raised on radio today.


  • #7204
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,169 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    I find it unlikely that for some lines like "mothers in the home", that there's going to be a replacement that "adds to the size of the state".


  • #7205
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Why, sure you don't bother half the time.

    I know I'm in the wrong, but I really don't get why it's that big of a deal to you. Smart ads comments tend to happen in after hours. If I genuinely offended you then I apologise.

    Thank you, for the second paragraph, not the first line.


  • #7206
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Adamantium wrote: »

    If you have half a brain and don't drool

    .

    If you have half a point and don't insult people...


  • Advertisement
  • #7207
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    If you have half a point and don't insult people...

    Im sure the usual people will be here any second to condemn generalizations about yes voters as they do about no voters.


    Any second now...


    Anyone?

    Or maybe its a yes voter thats trying to gain sympathy for the yes side? Yes, that must be it.


  • #7208
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Yes, but it doesn't deal with the issue raised on radio today.

    Maybe because there's no issue there. Who was it that stated that there might be (or is) an issue?

    Also, the Law Society of Ireland seems to be happy...
    https://www.lawsociety.ie/News/Media/Press-Releases/The-Law-Society-of-Ireland-calls-for-equality-supports-the-Marriage-Referendum/


  • #7209
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Not a NSA agent wrote: »
    Im sure the usual people will be here any second to condemn generalizations about yes voters as they do about no voters.


    Any second now...


    Anyone?

    They were falling all over themselves to condemn Kermit last night...

    oh... wait... there wasn't a peep


  • #7210
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    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?

    You mean we won't be able to talk about surrogacy after 2 pm?

    Well what will we talk about?

    SSM?


    :pac:


  • #7211
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Adamantium wrote: »
    We're not chipping way at anything, we're adding to it and the state is big enough

    That's not the opinion of the Attorney General, the Referendum Commission, the All Party Committee on the Constitution, the Constitutional Convention or the Law Society, so I'm going to guess that you are simply wrong here.


  • Advertisement
  • #7212
    Riverireland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 833 ✭✭✭Riverireland


    osarusan wrote: »
    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?


    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.

    No it the aggressive, attacking, condescending tone. I actually thought you might be a No campaigner trying to irritate me. You could consider that just might be an area you need to work on in order to achieve your aims or maybe not.


  • #7213
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Yes, but it doesn't deal with the issue raised on radio today.

    It's a working draft.

    I'm sure they will get around to the minor details even without the No Campaign dredging them up and blowing them out of all proportion.

    What no-one seem to have considered is that gay couples are unlikely to be virgins prior to getting married and will more than likely have already 'consummated'.


  • #7214
    Adamantium
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭Adamantium


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Exaggeration?
    Misogynistic definition, reflecting or exhibiting hatred, dislike, mistrust, or mistreatment of women.

    Article 41 has shown no hatred, dislike, mistrust or mistreatment of women. Read what you want into it.
    Human nature does not change, do you think lawmakers at the time nastier just because the number on the calendar was lower. Were all our ancestors slab headed thickos? Did none of them get it right? We live a rare lifestyle and stable country, I think it has served us well. Seems like women get a lot of respect in this part of the constitution. Now I understand it's a certain type of admiration or respect that isn't down to your personal taste, that's fine and your own business.

    Bruce Arnold wrote about this a couple of months back but not many took him seriously.
    Some lawyers have said as much but a lot have said "it will have little or no legal repurcussions".
    The reason why?
    Kerchinngg! This amendment is good news for the legal profession as it means more work for them sorting out all sorts of legal cluster****s caused by this.
    The professions are well in with the Government, they look after each other, a symbiotic relationship, and so every party is pushing a 'Yes' vote.
    And also of course to try and carry favour with the hipster/SJW/millenial/LGBT demographic which might help them get re-elected.

    The almost 100% feminist support for this is partly cos they want to abolish or make null and void any references to women having 'duties in the home', like it does here in Article 41, cos in their silly little brains, this equals male oppression. It does not


  • #7215
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    Adamantium wrote: »
    The almost 100% feminist support for this is partly cos they want to abolish or make null and void any references to women having 'duties in the home', like it does here in Article 41, cos in their silly little brains, this equals male oppression. It does not

    Do you just assume everyone who doesnt think the same as you is stupid?

    No votes will be won like that.


  • #7216
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,169 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Why does there need to be a reference to "duties in the home" as being specifically a mother's duties? There's more and more fathers staying at home to look after kids.
    Adamantium wrote: »
    The almost 100% feminist support for this is partly cos they want to abolish or make null and void any references to women having 'duties in the home', like it does here in Article 41, cos in their silly little brains, this equals male oppression. It does not

    Nothing a few rape threats from sockpuppet Twitter accounts can't solve, amirite?


  • #7217
    joe40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭joe40


    cos in their silly little brains, this equals male oppression. It does not[/QUOTE]

    Must be one of the stupidest comments I have read on this forum


  • #7218
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    WWN answers any questions a person might still have

    http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/05/21/will-gay-people-eat-my-children-other-referendum-questions-answered/


  • #7219
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,167 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Zen65 wrote: »
    Have you a link to that? I'd love to see it

    I don't know how to get the link up. However a photo image of the same gent with the jacket was posted about an hour ago on F/B of him handing out leaflets on the footpath across from Trinity where the Cigar shop etc are located.


  • #7220
    libelula
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,212 ✭✭✭libelula


    Sssssshhhhhh :)


  • #7221
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Adamantium wrote: »
    The reason why? Kerchinngg!

    Thank you Adamantium, this is, at least to me, an entirely new reason for voting No.

    I have really not seen this before: the idea that the Amendment is a conspiracy by the legal profession to mess up our laws and generate fees sorting out the resulting legal confusion.

    Kudos to you for coming up with something new. Paranoid, certainly, deranged, perhaps, but new.


  • Advertisement
  • #7222
    Adamantium
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭Adamantium


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Thank you Adamantium, this is, at least to me, an entirely new reason for voting No.

    I have really not seen this before: the idea that the Amendment is a conspiracy by the legal profession to mess up our laws and generate fees sorting out the resulting legal confusion.

    Kudos to you for coming up with something new. Paranoid, certainly, deranged, perhaps, but new.

    What if it wasn't an active conspiracy to make money and just a way of making more money, that came handy?


  • #7223
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You mean we won't be able to talk about surrogacy after 2 pm?

    Someone always asks about the moratorium before a vote.

    The answer up to now has been that it does not apply on social media. Imagine trying to shut Twitter up!


  • #7224
    lovemammy60
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1 ✭lovemammy60


    Duggy747 wrote: »
    Yea, how about tackling the problem of bullying rather than using this bullshít excuse to sweep it under the carpet?

    Well said. Infuriating nonsence.


  • #7225
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Adamantium wrote: »
    What if it wasn't an active conspiracy to make money and just a way of making more money, that came handy?

    What if the lizard people behind the British Throne are behind this, too?


  • #7226
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    Bless the Dutch and their meticulous record-keeping :) Now we can do some math and predict how the end of society as we know it will come about. I am going to assume that

    a) the percentage of gay couples is about the same
    b) the percentage of gay couples who want to get married is about the same (about 20%, apparently)

    I am getting most of my figures from the dutch CBS

    If we get a yes vote, and things go the same way they did in the Netherlands, then we are likely to see about 650 marriages in the first year as we deal with the backlog of gay people who have been waiting to get hitched, but couldn't. Another 1000 or so will get married in the second and third year (combined) after it becomes possible.

    Peak gay wedding time will be in the first few months after it becomes possible to get married. So get your wedding suit and your best dress out of the hot press: party season is coming, with a bit of luck.

    After that we are likely to see about 250 marriages a year

    By 2025 we will have seen about 3900 marriages between gay people in total, but we will also have seen 284 divorces between same sex spouses. That seems like a surprisingly low divorce rate (only 7% compared to 42% for different-sex marriages!) , but this number is likely to change as more numbers come in over the next 25 years or so.

    We have seen no demands for surrogacy at all, or problems around gay adoption. 85% of Dutch people are in favor of gay marriage and a slightly lower number are in favor of gay adoption.

    We tried it, and so far, we have no complaints. What's more, we like it! So don't worry. It'll be grand like.


  • #7227
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,167 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    But if the person was going to vote no then surely not voting is a yes vote? :confused:

    Not say Riverireland intended voting no btw…

    It's more like the chance of one less YES vote, rather than a definite NO vote. Like in the other ditty, every vote counts. :D


  • #7228
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    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?

    Gay people can be homophobic. I was.

    Also I imagine it's easier to convince yourself that this isn't about your rights, dignity and value in society that potentially face that fact that the majority of Irish people don't think you deserve that. Just a theory.


  • #7229
    Fat Christy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,866 ✭✭✭Fat Christy


    I am more curious about voter turnout than anything else. Nearly crunch time.


  • #7230
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,169 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    Bless the Dutch and their meticulous record-keeping :) Now we can do some math and predict how the end of society as we know it will come about. I am going to assume that

    a) the percentage of gay couples is about the same
    b) the percentage of gay couples who want to get married is about the same (about 20%, apparently)

    I am getting most of my figures from the dutch CBS

    If we get a yes vote, and things go the same way they did in the Netherlands, then we are likely to see about 650 marriages in the first year as we deal with the backlog of gay people who have been waiting to get hitched, but couldn't. Another 1000 or so will get married in the second and third year (combined) after it becomes possible.

    Peak gay wedding time will be in the first few months after it becomes possible to get married. So get your wedding suit and your best dress out of the hot press: party season is coming, with a bit of luck.

    After that we are likely to see about 250 marriages a year

    By 2025 we will have seen about 3900 marriages between gay people in total, but we will also have seen 284 divorces between same sex spouses. That seems like a surprisingly low divorce rate (only 7% compared to 42% for different-sex marriages!) , but this number is likely to change as more numbers come in over the next 25 years or so.

    We have seen no demands for surrogacy at all, or problems around gay adoption. 85% of Dutch people are in favor of gay marriage and a slightly lower number are in favor of gay adoption.

    We tried it, and so far, we have no complaints. What's more, we like it! So don't worry. It'll be grand like.

    Yes, but what about this new class of Dutch lawyers living in gold-plated houses with a rocket car in the driveway? :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #7231
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    Fat Christy wrote: »
    I am more curious about voter turnout than anything else. Nearly crunch time.

    Well considering how many are worrying about "the children" Id imagine it will be very high - oh wait, didnt the Childrens Referendum only have a 34% turn out? Pity they werent concerned then.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement