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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

1…195196197198199201»

Comments

  • #10002
    222233
    Registered Users Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭222233


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    No have you not heard? RedPaddy has just discovered that if we legalise gay marriage we will soon find ourselves with robot-feline marriage equality.

    Oh really, thats fascinating!


  • #10003
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    Just reading the comments section on an article about Enda visiting BLongTo and a young woman breaking down in tears discussing the ref.

    It's worrying the amount of people who appear to want to simply go against Kenny. They're apparently prepared to vote No simply because Enda is supporting the Yes side.

    Thoughts?

    It's quite sad actually. Donegal is well known for the protest vote and if the surveys and reports are to be believed, for this referendum it will happen again.


  • #10004
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    We're nearly at 10,000. It should really end dramatically like having Pam wake up and go into the bathroom to fin Bobby in the shower except now he's turned gay and he's filling the house with the sounds of sodomy.

    :D Funny and offensive at the same time. So this is Frankie Boyle's username is it?


  • #10005
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    gravehold wrote: »
    I doubt enda really even cares about gays

    Oh I've no doubt- he knows it's popular and progressive to leaglise gay marriage. I just find it sickening that anyone could want to vote against it purely because they don't like the current government.


  • #10006
    RedPaddyX
    Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭RedPaddyX


    BoatMad wrote: »
    I have asked you to explain your point of view , you have consistently refused to do that

    My friend I am genuinely trying to engage your points/questions.

    Question

    (a) How is " equality " a twist on words.
    As above because clearly this ref is only as you say seeking to extend marriage to 2 same sex, but no further. Hence a form of inequality (to say polygamists). My point is there is always a form of inequality - that is inherent to defining a relationship.

    (b) How will a specific amendment , lead to allowing more then 2 people to marry , when the text is specific
    It removes any logical reason for objection to further redefinition - the only argument I've heard so far is: nobody wants it yet.


    (c) Are you actually saying you are voting No because you would prefer an amendment that support you marrying 8 women !

    No mate, I'm simply flagging the inconsistency of argument.


  • #10007
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Motley Crue wrote: »
    It is offensive to either partner to introduce a third person into a marriage, be it a same sex marriage or otherwise...unless such a situation is agreed upon by both parties beforehand for some reason. That is my firm belief.

    Polygamous relationships all agree to be together it woule be the same in their marriage. Not sure how you could have a surprise polygamy marriage


  • #10008
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    smash wrote: »
    It's quite sad actually. Donegal is well known for the protest vote and if the surveys and reports are to be believed, for this referendum it will happen again.


    I've a little bit more faith in my county still :p As with a lot of the country, it'll be down to the younger generation to go vote though so hopefully.


  • #10009
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    Ok let me rephrase my point: please explain to me why marriage (regardless of this ref) should be limited to 2 people?

    Marriage is between two people now. Marriage will be between two people whether this referendum passes or fails. So voting Yes or No this time has nothing to do with polygamy.

    If you want to marry several women and a gay penguin, go ahead and start a campaign to have a referendum on that issue.

    Meanwhile, why would you deny your gay fellow citizens the right to marry by voting No this time?


  • #10010
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    gravehold wrote: »
    Polygamous relationships all agree to be together it woule be the same in their marriage. Not sure how you could have a surprise polygamy marriage
    Give over


  • #10011
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    This thread is a flat circle. Everything we've ever done or will do, we're gonna do over and over and over again.


  • Advertisement
  • #10012
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    No mate, I'm simply flagging the inconsistency of argument.

    No you are not. You haven't pointed out one inconsistency. Not a single one. You've made what you think is a 'point' but it isn't and you've been embarrassingly shown up in the last few pages.


  • #10013
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    This thread is a flat circle. Everything we've ever done or will do, we're gonna do over and over and over again.
    groundhog thread


  • #10014
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »


    Meanwhile, why would you deny your gay fellw citizens the right to marry by voting No this time?

    Maybe cause they make fun of their relationship and say things like this

    'If you want to marry several women and a gay penguin, go ahead'


  • #10015
    tigger123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,521 ✭✭✭tigger123


    (I should follow my own advice, but...)

    Don't feed the troll.


  • #10016
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    it'll be down to the younger generation to go vote though so hopefully.

    Yes but these are not voters, middle Ireland is where the people that vote are.

    Personally I think it will be carried by a simple Dublin majority


  • #10017
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,664 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    Surely those interested in a polygamous marriage would support the ssm as apart from anything else it gets them a step closer. There is no polygamous relationship that doesn't involve same sex interaction.


  • #10018
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 17,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    I just find it sickening that anyone could want to vote against it purely because they don't like the current government.
    Agreed. Voting no to spite the government is, to me, worse than voting no for Iona's reasons. It's petty and selfish and an insult to others.

    There were a couple of posters near me advocating a no vote over Irish Water. Angered me no end and, given the fact they didn't last long, angered others too.


  • #10019
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    gravehold wrote: »
    Maybe cause they make fun of their relationship and say things like this

    'If you want to marry several women and a gay penguin, go ahead'

    No, I said that, and I'm straight and already married.


  • #10020
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Thread roundup:

    Blah, blah, babies, blah, blah, polygamy, blah, blah, I'm not a homophobe, blah, blah, women, blah, blah, bullying, blah, blah, posters, blah, blah, not equality, blah, blah…


  • Advertisement
  • #10021
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    BoatMad wrote: »
    Yes but these are not voters, middle Ireland is where the people that vote are.

    Personally I think it will be carried by a simple Dublin majority

    I'm not so sure for this one. I know in my home town that people tend to get stubborn headed about things but it just so happens that the majority of people I've seen/talked to are voting Yes. It's just about making sure they actually go out and vote.


  • #10022
    RedPaddyX
    Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭RedPaddyX


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Marriage is between two people now. Marriage will be between two people whether this referendum passes or fails. So voting Yes or No this time has nothing to do with polygamy.

    If you want to marry several women and a gay penguin, go ahead and start a campaign to have a referendum on that issue.

    Meanwhile, why would you deny your gay fellow citizens the right to marry by voting No this time?


    But why the limitation on 2? What is so special about 2 people?


  • #10023
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    But why the limitation on 2? What is so special about 2 people?

    Because that's what is legal at the moment.


  • #10024
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,198 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    But why the limitation on 2? What is so special about 2 people?

    Special is having zero wives.


  • #10025
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    But why the limitation on 2? What is so special about 2 people?

    It would require a reworking of a lot of legislation. Everything is from the perspective of 2 people splitting things 50:50.

    With multiple people can they get married one by one or do they need to be married as a group? Is everyone married to everyone else or does John mary Ann and Mary but Mary and Ann arent married?

    The referendum is to allow 2 people to marry regardless of their genders. Nothing is preventing a referendum on polygamy.


  • #10026
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    But why the limitation on 2? What is so special about 2 people?

    Why just 'people'? What is so special about people?


  • Advertisement
  • #10027
    RedPaddyX
    Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭RedPaddyX


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Because that's what is legal at the moment.

    So are you personally ok with extending this to multiple persons if it came up as referendum next year? You care about equality afterall.


  • #10028
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    But why the limitation on 2? What is so special about 2 people?

    What is special about 2 people is that that is the current definition of marriage. Similarly, marriage is between two humans at present, no other species are allowed. Changing this would also require a referendum.

    So a guy, three girls and a gay penguin is right out, and you'll need to start a campaign for change if that is what you want.

    But it is nothing to do with the current referendum.


  • #10029
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    So are you personally ok with extending this to multiple persons if it came up as referendum next year? You care about equality afterall.


    I'd have no problem with it.


  • #10030
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    So are you personally ok with extending this to multiple persons if it came up as referendum next year? You care about equality afterall.

    Herp derp


  • #10031
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    Surely those interested in a polygamous marriage would support the ssm as apart from anything else it gets them a step closer. There is no polygamous relationship that doesn't involve same sex interaction.

    I doubt anyone bringing it up are actually interested in it.


  • Advertisement
  • #10032
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Marriage is between two people now. Marriage will be between two people whether this referendum passes or fails. So voting Yes or No this time has nothing to do with polygamy.

    If you want to marry several women and a gay penguin, go ahead and start a campaign to have a referendum on that issue.

    Meanwhile, why would you deny your gay fellow citizens the right to marry by voting No this time?
    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Why just 'people'? What is so special about people?

    Consent


  • #10033
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    So are you personally ok with extending this to multiple persons if it came up as referendum next year? You care about equality afterall.

    Yeah Id be in favour too. Why not? If Truples or Quadruples or Octuples want to marry who am I to stop them?

    Ill bet itd be very complicated to arrange legally though so probably wont ever happen.


  • #10034
    RedPaddyX
    Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭RedPaddyX


    Not a NSA agent wrote: »
    It would require a reworking of a lot of legislation. Everything is from the perspective of 2 people splitting things 50:50.

    With multiple people can they get married one by one or do they need to be married as a group? Is everyone married to everyone else or does John mary Ann and Mary but Mary and Ann arent married?

    The referendum is to allow 2 people to marry regardless of their genders. Nothing is preventing a referendum on polygamy.

    Yes totally agree. But my point is this referendum is therefore not really about equality. In the words of a yes campaign, "there is no such thing as nearly equal"


  • #10035
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    So are you personally ok with extending this to multiple persons if it came up as referendum next year? You care about equality afterall.

    What you are attempting to do is so glaringly obvious and even if it weren't we've been through this almost word for word in this thread and in others.

    The referendum is not about 'equality' as some abstract total goal. If it were it would surely about the abolition of marriage in its entirety.

    So glib, so shallow. So pseudo-intellectual.


  • #10036
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    Yes totally agree. But my point is this referendum is therefore not really about equality. In the words of a yes campaign, "there is no such thing as nearly equal"

    Everyone is equally denied polygamous marriages.


  • #10037
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    Yes totally agree. But my point is this referendum is therefore not really about equality. In the words of a yes campaign, "there is no such thing as nearly equal"

    We've already gone over this. Just because it doesn't include every single bit of equality issues ever to exist, doesn't mean it's not still about equality.


  • #10038
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    Yes totally agree. But my point is this referendum is therefore not really about equality. In the words of a yes campaign, "there is no such thing as nearly equal"

    It creates equality between homosexual and heterosexual couples. If everything had to be made equal at the same time for it to be equality there would be no such thing as equality.


  • #10039
    RedPaddyX
    Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭RedPaddyX


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Yeah Id be in favour too. Why not? If Truples or Quadruples or Octuples want to marry who am I to stop them?

    Ill bet itd be very complicated to arrange legally though so probably wont ever happen.

    Ok fair enough. Thanks for at least honestly answering my question. I have to admit I'm surprised but I agree it's the logical and coherent conclusion if you one is in favour of redefining it this time.


  • #10040
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    Yes totally agree. But my point is this referendum is therefore not really about equality. In the words of a yes campaign, "there is no such thing as nearly equal"

    Is this like the way the Suffragettes and the African-American Civil Rights Movement couldn't be said to have been looking for equality, because they didn't resolve every single legal issue, for everyone, ever?

    Great reasoning sir!


  • #10041
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,642 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    Yes totally agree. But my point is this referendum is therefore not really about equality. In the words of a yes campaign, "there is no such thing as nearly equal"

    "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"


    Those are the exact words with which you will be deciding yes or no. Again, it has nothing to do with polygamy. But of course, you already know that.


  • Advertisement
  • #10042
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    Ok fair enough. Thanks for at least honestly answering my question. I have to admit I'm surprised but I agree it's the logical and coherent conclusion if you one is in favour of redefining it this time.

    No it isn't.


  • #10043
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    I'm beginning to wonder the few new reg posters who are looking for polygamy rights are all actually sitting at home beside each other right now :D


  • #10044
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    The thread is over 10k posts, so I've set up a second thread here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95391600


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement