Marriage Equality Referendum (3 Viewers)

[7 - No tomorrow]

Mormon, the problem with the debate may be arising because the No side's arguments are generally all reverse-engineered
"I'm against this thing on principle as a traditionalist and my gut tells me it's wrong, but I need actual arguable points. Sodomy won't fly. Fuck. How about kids? Everyone likes those. Kids? Kids!!!!"

I dislike (and distrust) "don't worry it's no big deal" type of arguments on any subject.

Letting people marry who they love is all it's really about. It's about as big a deal as being gay is.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Letting people marry who they love is all it's really about. It's about as big a deal as being gay is.

Well no, it is about a lot more in fairness. As the Lawyers for yes document says:

This Referendum will affect children. It will affect gay and lesbian children coming to terms with their sexuality. It will assure them that they are valued equally in Ireland and that the State will place no limit on their aspirations for their personal and family lives...

Some children being raised by same-sex couples, if those same-sex couples
choose to marry, will become part of a constitutionally protected family. The passage of the Referendum would send them a positive message of inclusion and respect.

This kind of thinking looks pretty radical compared to when any of us were in school.

The no side have every right to be afraid as this does undermine what the church says a family should be. It's bloody fantastic.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Gay people were marrying when @jonah was still in seco. The thinking doesn't seem all that radical when it's been part of the conversation for so long.

I have to think that this will pass and it will be such not a big deal to anyone after a very short while.

It's been great for outing bigots though. So there is some ancillary upside.

 

[pete]

This kind of thinking looks pretty radical compared to when any of us were in school.

we've come a long way from stuff like a teacher telling us that if The Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Act, 1985 was passed you wouldn't be able to walk down the street without being hit in the face by used condoms being thrown from bedroom windows

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

We were shown video of an abortion.

Mental gear.

 

[pete]

there's a rainbow flag flying at the gates of my daughter's primary school

 

[therealjohnny]

Indoctrination into the ways of the sodomite!!

Sorry..I've just been listening to a clip from radio Ulster

LAD | Facebook

 

[Scientician 0.8]

Those husband-wanting Sodomites make me sick.

 

[IFF]

Mormon, the problem with the debate may be arising because the No side's arguments are generally all reverse-engineered
"I'm against this thing on principle as a traditionalist and my gut tells me it's wrong, but I need actual arguable points. Sodomy won't fly. Fuck. How about kids? Everyone likes those. Kids? Kids!!!!"

while a person at work was telling us that this will lead people to marrying trees and dogs, ignoring the fact that neither dogs or trees can consent to legal agreements.

 

[Scientician 0.8]

Another zinger I saw was

"Do you think brothers should be allowed marry each other?"

 

[jonah]

Another zinger I saw was

"Do you think brothers should be allowed marry each other?"

classic jeremy irons.

Could a Father Not Marry His Son? - Jeremy Irons on Gay Marriage

 

[rettucs]

I'd like to hear a yes person who isn't terrified of the phrase "redefining marriage" say "yes, it is being redefined and I think that is good because.." and argue from there.

I heard some lad on the radio the other day (possibly the same guy mentioned earlier in this thread) say that he was in a relationship with a woman, came out, and is now in a relationship with a man.

Hes on the No side and argues that, from his experience, relationships between a 'man and a man' and a 'man and a woman' are inherently different.

Anyone that has ever gone out with more than one person will tell you that relationships between man1 and woman1 and man 1 and woman2 and man2 and woman1 and man2 and woman2 will all be inherently different.

Talking about '(re)defining marriage' is to buy into a argument that the catholic church want people to have. The referendum, obviously, is about redefining marriage legally, but the 'redefining marriage' the No side are pedalling is the one being pushed by the priests.

Trying to define something that is so completely unique between any 2 people, be they same-sex or otherwise, is a nonsense.

 

[nooleen]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

classic jeremy irons.

Could a Father Not Marry His Son? - Jeremy Irons on Gay Marriage

He was awfully confused

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

I heard some lad on the radio the other day (possibly the same guy mentioned earlier in this thread) say that he was in a relationship with a woman, came out, and is now in a relationship with a man.

Hes on the No side and argues that, from his experience, relationships between a 'man and a man' and a 'man and a woman' are inherently different.

Anyone that has ever gone out with more than one person will tell you that relationships between man1 and woman1 and man 1 and woman2 and man2 and woman1 and man2 and woman2 will all be inherently different.

Talking about '(re)defining marriage' is to buy into a argument that the catholic church want people to have. The referendum, obviously, is about redefining marriage legally, but the 'redefining marriage' the No side are pedalling is the one being pushed by the priests.

Trying to define something that is so completely unique between any 2 people, be they same-sex or otherwise, is a nonsense.

A lot of people seem to think that marriage is some kind of "natural" law that was defined and set in stone by something/someone other than ourselves.

Natural Law: The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed. Natural law is often contrasted with positive law, which consists of the written rulesand regulations enacted by government. The termnaturallawis derived from the Roman term jus naturale. Adherents to natural law philosophy are known as naturalists.

It seems that lawyers and law students actually study this shit. There is a whole body of legal and philosophical theory built up over the centuries which has been used to back up this traditional marriage nonsense. This deeply depressing article affords a glimpse into the minds of the enemy.

https://www.princeton.edu/~anscombe/articles/finnisorientation.pdf

Most of it is a bit over my head. Are any of you lot in the legal business? Is this kinda thing really taken seriously? Is there good reason to take it seriously?

 

[pete]

i actually laughed. more than once.

Brendan O’Carroll and Mrs Brown call for Yes vote

 

[Unicron]

Here's some science on why we should vote no

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

A lot of people seem to think that marriage is some kind of "natural" law that was defined and set in stone by something/someone other than ourselves.



It seems that lawyers and law students actually study this shit. There is a whole body of legal and philosophical theory built up over the centuries which has been used to back up this traditional marriage nonsense. This deeply depressing article affords a glimpse into the minds of the enemy.

https://www.princeton.edu/~anscombe/articles/finnisorientation.pdf

Most of it is a bit over my head. Are any of you lot in the legal business? Is this kinda thing really taken seriously? Is there good reason to take it seriously?

Every time I try to open that link I get a warning so I can't comment on his argument.
More broadly, Natural law is important as it recognises some things as inherently good or bad, no matter where they happen and it has been used as the inspiration for human rights legislation. It is understood as being superior* to positive law when the two conflict so at Nuremburg it was used to counter/quash the "Just following orders" defence. Elements of it also features in our constitution, so yeah, it is pretty important.
(I hope that's relevant to what you were asking and not just a pile of meaningless shite).

*This part is disputed by some.

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

Every time I try to open that link I get a warning so I can't comment on his argument.
More broadly, Natural law is important as it recognises some things as inherently good or bad, no matter where they happen and it has been used as the inspiration for human rights legislation. It is understood as being superior* to positive law when the two conflict so at Nuremburg it was used to counter/quash the "Just following orders" defence. Elements of it also features in our constitution, so yeah, it is pretty important.
(I hope that's relevant to what you were asking and not just a pile of meaningless shite).

*This part is disputed by some.

The whole concept seems to boil down to "Me and my friends like it this way so shove it" except it's tarted up in legal jargon and smugness. I read that article about 5 years ago though and have read nothing else about law so I don't really have a clue what I'm taking about.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Just because loonies are invoking it doesn't make it de facto a bad thing.
Devils quoting scripture and all that.