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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

Options
  • 08-05-2015 3:09pm
    #1
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭


    As the other thread has reach 10k posts, I'm setting up this second one.

    This thread is about the Same Sex Marriage Referendum, so keep the discussion to this subject. Dragging the thread off topic will result in deleted posts, warnings, infractions or bans.

    Also be aware that for many it's an emotive subject. As such, tempers will flare. Please make an effort to post in a civil manner.

    How will you vote in the upcoming Marriage Referendum? 1766 votes

    Yes
    0% 0 votes
    No
    73% 1299 votes
    Will spoil my vote
    18% 326 votes
    Won't vote
    0% 11 votes
    Haven't decided yet
    7% 130 votes
    Tagged:


«134567…333

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    Anyone wish to discuss the referendum this time or will we go back to parenting?


  • Options
    #3
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    From the last thread…
    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    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!

    I always thought Martin Luther King was a hypocrite for not looking for equality for Pygmies or not campaigning for bigger dress sizes to be available in high street shops.


  • Options
    #4
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,659 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    If those in favour of polygamy wanted to get married they'd be in favour of ssm

    I suspect polygamists aren't interested in marriage - ties them down too much


  • Options
    #5
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,547 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Maybe we should start this thread with what the referendum is about. It's about adding "without distinction of sex" to the end of the current Constitution article on marriage. The referendum is to decide whether or not two people of the same gender can get married.

    It does not affect adoption or children. See the Children and Family Relationship Bill.

    Polygamy is a seperate issue and not relevant.

    There's 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage.

    The church will not be forced to perform same sex marriages, it's a civil matter and seperate.

    By equality, it is known that it will not cover every equality issue on the planet however, that doesn't mean it's not an equality issue itself. Baby steps need to be taken to overcome inequality or we'd get no-where.

    Am I missing anything?


  • Options
    #6
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Maybe we should start this thread with what the referendum is about. It's about adding "without distinction of sex" to the end of the current Constitution article on marriage. The referendum is to decide whether or not two people of the same gender can get married.

    It does not affect adoption or children. See the Children and Family Relationship Bill.

    Polygamy is a seperate issue and not relevant.

    There's 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage.

    The church will not be forced to perform same sex marriages, it's a civil matter and seperate.

    By equality, it is known that it will not cover every equality issue on the planet however, that doesn't mean it's not an equality issue itself. Baby steps need to be taken to overcome inequality or we'd get no-where.

    Am I missing anything?

    Can we not just make shít up and crib about that instead?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,842 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    You forgot posts like, "I'm not a homophobe, but..."


  • Options
    #8
    RedPaddyX
    Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭RedPaddyX


    Alright guys, Gotta for now but to those of you who engaged in some good discussion thanks.

    Regardless of how ye vote we are still all fellow countrymen so let's respect eachothers opinions and right to disagree with eachother.


  • Options
    #9
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Can I start again with a clean slate? I'm not really a bigot, sorry for the stuff in the last thread.


  • Options
    #10
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Maybe we should start this thread with what the referendum is about. It's about adding "without distinction of sex" to the end of the current Constitution article on marriage. The referendum is to decide whether or not two people of the same gender can get married.

    It does not affect adoption or children. See the Children and Family Relationship Bill.

    Polygamy is a seperate issue and not relevant.

    There's 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage.

    The church will not be forced to perform same sex marriages, it's a civil matter and seperate.

    By equality, it is known that it will not cover every equality issue on the planet however, that doesn't mean it's not an equality issue itself. Baby steps need to be taken to overcome inequality or we'd get no-where.

    Am I missing anything?

    +10000


  • Options
    #11
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    You forgot posts like, "I'm not a homophobe, but..."

    And the obligatory 'Stop bullying me!' posts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    let's respect eachothers opinions

    If we all did that, nobody would vote No.


  • Options
    #13
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    Alright guys, Gotta for now but to those of you who engaged in some good discussion thanks.

    Regardless of how ye vote we are still all fellow countrymen so let's respect eachothers opinions and right to disagree with eachother.

    When you respect my right to get married as your fellow countryman and taxpayer and when you stop bringing nonsense such as polygamy into a debate on a referendum that expressly forbids it.


  • Options
    #14
    iDave
    Registered Users Posts: 3,750 ✭✭✭iDave


    I want gays to get married. I want everyone to feel the annoyance of invitation politics when it comes to planning a wedding.


  • Options
    #15
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Maybe we should start this thread with what the referendum is about. It's about adding "without distinction of sex" to the end of the current Constitution article on marriage. The referendum is to decide whether or not two people of the same gender can get married.

    It does not affect adoption or children. See the Children and Family Relationship Bill.

    Polygamy is a seperate issue and not relevant.

    There's 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage.

    The church will not be forced to perform same sex marriages, it's a civil matter and seperate.

    By equality, it is known that it will not cover every equality issue on the planet however, that doesn't mean it's not an equality issue itself. Baby steps need to be taken to overcome inequality or we'd get no-where.

    Am I missing anything?
    The 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage are?


  • Options
    #16
    RedPaddyX
    Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭RedPaddyX


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Maybe we should start this thread with what the referendum is about. It's about adding "without distinction of sex" to the end of the current Constitution article on marriage. The referendum is to decide whether or not two people of the same gender can get married.

    It does not affect adoption or children. See the Children and Family Relationship Bill.

    Polygamy is a seperate issue and not relevant.

    There's 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage.

    The church will not be forced to perform same sex marriages, it's a civil matter and seperate.

    By equality, it is known that it will not cover every equality issue on the planet however, that doesn't mean it's not an equality issue itself. Baby steps need to be taken to overcome inequality or we'd get no-where.

    Am I missing anything?

    Ok couldn't resist - I would argue the referendum is about redefining an institution that has been in place for millennia. Therefore I would make the case that we need to examine the fundamentals of how we define marriage in the first place.

    Is it base on love? Is it based sex? Is it based on procreation? Or child rearing? Why 1 man, 1 woman? Why 2 people?


  • Options
    #17
    folamh
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭folamh


    The gays should be able to get married.


  • Options
    #18
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,547 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    The 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage are?

    http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html


  • Options
    #19
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    Therefore I would make the case that we need to examine the fundamentals of how we define marriage in the first place.

    Is it base on love? Is it based sex? Is it based on procreation? Or child rearing?

    I find it's usually based on varying degrees of passive aggressiveness.


  • Options
    #20
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,547 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    Ok couldn't resist - I would argue the referendum is about redefining an institution that has been in place for millennia. Therefore I would make the case that we need to examine the fundamentals of how we define marriage in the first place.

    Is it base on love? Is it based sex? Is it based on procreation? Or child rearing? Why 1 man, 1 woman? Why 2 people?

    It's been about for millennia and it wasn't always heterosexual in that time. What's it based on now? It depends on the person. Some people do it for love, some for the legality and rights granted by it. If I was to make a personal guess, I'd say most do it for both. It's not about procreation because that's not needed to get married. Similarly, you don't need to rear a child to have a valid marriage. As for the last two, why indeed.


  • Options
    #21
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    Ok couldn't resist - I would argue the referendum is about redefining an institution that has been in place for millennia. Therefore I would make the case that we need to examine the fundamentals of how we define marriage in the first place.

    Is it base on love? Is it based sex? Is it based on procreation? Or child rearing? Why 1 man, 1 woman? Why 2 people?

    The referendum is about extending the institution of marriage which has existed and been redefined over thousands of centuries to same-sex couples. That is it.

    It is...

    NOT about surrogacy
    NOT about adoption
    NOT about AHR
    NOT about parenting

    and most certainly NOT about a slippery slope to polygamy especially since the wording of the referendum itself would introduce a constitutional bar on polygamy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    Ok couldn't resist - I would argue the referendum is about redefining an institution that has been in place for millennia. Therefore I would make the case that we need to examine the fundamentals of how we define marriage in the first place.

    Is it base on love? Is it based sex? Is it based on procreation? Or child rearing? Why 1 man, 1 woman? Why 2 people?

    Marriage as currently known and subject to change in this referendum has not been around for millennia . Even Christian Matrimony has not been around that long .


  • Options
    #23
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    The 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage are?

    Its been linked to endlessly in the last thread, in other threads, ask google etc.....


  • Options
    #24
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    The 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage are?

    Frankly, it doesn't matter what they are. There shouldn't be any legal differences between the rights afforded to a straight relationship and a gay relationship.


  • Options
    #25
    RedPaddyX
    Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭RedPaddyX


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    When you respect my right to get married as your fellow countryman and taxpayer and when you stop bringing nonsense such as polygamy into a debate on a referendum that expressly forbids it.

    Mate I do understand from your point of view and respect your view but I do disagree with you. Would much more happily have the debate with you in person. Peace


  • Options
    #26
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    Mate I do understand from your point of view and respect your view but I do disagree with you. Would much more happily have the debate with you in person. Peace

    No you don't. You've openly stated your intention to use the power of the state to keep me a second class citizen. And you are not debating anyone you are engaged in obfuscation thats it.


  • Options
    #27
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    If those in favour of polygamy wanted to get married they'd be in favour of ssm I suspect polygamists aren't interested in marriage - ties them down too much

    I fear you are mixing polygamy up with open relationships where people sleep around. In polygamy you are as dedicated to the relationship as any couple - the only difference is the number of people IN that relationship.

    So you will find people in polygamy type relationships - like myself - are no more - or less - worried about being tied down than any other married couple you know.

    But as I view it this thread - topic - and referendum is not about polygamy at all. It is about marriage as a contract between two people - and a changing to the wording of the constitution that essentially does not change that definition of marriage - but the definition of who is eligible to apply for that two person contract.
    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Can I start again with a clean slate? I'm not really a bigot, sorry for the stuff in the last thread.

    By all means. On After Hours you are only as good as your last post anyway :) We are a strident - vocal - but generally forgiving bunch around here :)


  • Options
    #28
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    Ok couldn't resist - I would argue the referendum is about redefining an institution that has been in place for millennia. Therefore I would make the case that we need to examine the fundamentals of how we define marriage in the first place.

    Is it base on love? Is it based sex? Is it based on procreation? Or child rearing? Why 1 man, 1 woman? Why 2 people?
    Well I guess this is the funny thing - we don't really define what marriage is, and we never really have.

    The argument about "redefinition" is somewhat toothless since marriage has never had a solid definition, and the nature and purpose of marriage changes and has changed countless times over the millenia. The reason I got married likely differs from the reason my neighbour got married, but nobody asked me why I got married, simply whether I wanted to.

    So in reality the only thing which should "define" marriage is the fact that those involved consent to it. And little else.

    It seems to me going back to basics and trying to fundamentally define marriage in the first instance is doomed to failure because the whys and the hows and the whats of marriage will change.

    Personally I would have preferred “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by persons without distinction as to their sex.” as that's beautifully generic and functionally futureproof.

    But it introduces ambiguity, whereas the proposed wording doesn't. And the proposed wording improves personal rights and freedoms without removing any, so it's the best option.


  • Options
    #29
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    RedPaddyX wrote: »
    Alright guys, Gotta for now but to those of you who engaged in some good discussion thanks.

    Regardless of how ye vote we are still all fellow countrymen so let's respect eachothers opinions and right to disagree with eachother.

    I don't respect your opinion, I do respect your right to have it.


  • Options
    #30
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    What thread would be complete without Fergus Ryan's excellent article?

    http://fergryan.blogspot.ie/2015/04/civil-partnership-v-marriage-some.html
    sup_dude wrote: »
    Polygamy is a seperate issue and not relevant.
    Well, it's a similar issue. We're just spontaneously deciding that it's alright to discriminate against Muslims.
    sup_dude wrote: »
    http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html
    I think I'm up to speed on all that, but I can't remember why this one is so important
    "Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 15 1, 3 (1) A "sexual act", unless rape, aggravated sexual assault, with a person under the age of 17 is an offence, except when the parties to the Act are married."
    As we know, no-one can get married under age 18 without a Court Exemption Order. Only 11 people aged under 17 got married in 2013, which most of us would say is 11 too many. But, apparently, it actually wasn't enough.

    I just can remember why, but I've every confidence that each of those 160 differences is a basic denial of human rights.

    With this new thread, I'm getting right on board with the popular people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    marienbad wrote: »
    Marriage as currently known and subject to change in this referendum has not been around for millennia . Even Christian Matrimony has not been around that long .

    Which is kind of a point, isn't it. People go on about 'redefining marriage' and totally forget that marriage as it currently is is a redefinition of what went before.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement