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

Sinead's Hand

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    the one where you speculate wildly about something that hasn't happened? There has been no judgement, until there is please stop pretending there is
    I never said there has been a judgement.
    I think you will find more in common with the hamster in my sig.


  • Options
    #33
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    once again, your post doesn't make any sense in English.


  • Options
    #34
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I feel like I'm ramming my head against a brick wall with you people so I point you back to my "I beg to differ post".


    Odd, I often feel like you should ram your head against a brink wall. If you've no interest in dealing respectfully with people perhaps you should go elsewhere rather then hassling us.


  • Options
    #35
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Boston wrote: »
    Odd, I often feel like you should ram your head against a brink wall. If you've no interest in dealing respectfully with people perhaps you should go elsewhere rather then hassling us.
    In what way am I hassling you ?
    You just can't seem to accept any viewpoint that is different to your own.


  • Options
    #36
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    You're the one being aggressive, you're the one comparing people to hamsters.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Boston wrote: »
    You're the one being aggressive, you're the one comparing people to hamsters.
    ok, maybe that was a little harsh, I apologize MYOB.
    Though it is pretty clear that a referendum will be needed to to introduce Gay marraige.


  • Options
    #38
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    thats just speculation on your part though, and as far as i know, you are not a constitutional lawyer. Neither is the boards legal forum.


  • Options
    #39
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    thats just speculation on your part though, and as far as i know, you are not a constitutional lawyer. Neither is the boards legal forum.
    And if you where a judge in the supreme court how would you judge it ?

    Would you read it as intended (RAI) by the Catholic coocoo's that wrote our constitution and rule against Gay marraige pending a referendum ?

    Or would you read it as it was written (RAW) and legalise gay marraige against the wishes of the founders of this country ?

    So which would it be ?


  • Options
    #40
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Actually the current constitution wasn't written by the countries founders but rather largely written by that bastard De Valera. Go here to see what was included in the original. No special church and state relationship, free speech and assembly ect ect


  • Options
    #41
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    And if you where a judge in the supreme court how would you judge it ?

    Would you read it as intended (RAI) by the Catholic coocoo's that wrote our constitution and rule against Gay marraige pending a referendum ?

    Or would you read it as it was written (RAW) and legalise gay marraige against the wishes of the founders of this country ?

    So which would it be ?

    The Constitution has of course been interpreted in both ways - whats your point?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Though it is pretty clear that a referendum will be needed to to introduce Gay marraige.

    It's an arguable legal point that is not definitively clear

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #43
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Johnnymcg wrote: »
    The Constitution has of course been interpreted in both ways - whats your point?
    I don't have a point atm, I'm just waiting to see how homosexual people would like our constitution to be interpreted.


  • Options
    #44
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Boston wrote: »
    Actually the current constitution wasn't written by the countries founders but rather largely written by that bastard De Valera. Go here to see what was included in the original. No special church and state relationship, free speech and assembly ect ect
    The free state was a different country to the modern Irish Republic.
    It's head of state was the British monarch for gods sake. You're not getting out of it that easily.

    And alot of people could take offense at you for calling DeValera a bastard, just saying.


  • Options
    #45
    mobius42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭mobius42


    Obviously, I would read it as written. That seems a much more sensible basis as you can argue over what someone's intentions were, but you cannot argue over what is written in black and white. Trying to interpret the law by deciding how the original writers intended it to be read seems very subjective.

    What annoys me about the government's stance on this issue is that they are saying that a referendum would definitely be required, when this is not the case, and the fact that they are refusing to hold a referendum when there is an excellent opportunity to do so alongside Lisbon 2.


  • Options
    #46
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The free state was a different country to the modern Irish Republic.
    It's head of state was the British monarch for gods sake. You're not getting out of it that easily.

    You have no point and now you're spouting nonsense. We became an independent coutnry in 1922 and a republic in 1937. Read up on Irish history before posting again. Or better yet, don't.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    And alot of people could take offense at you for calling DeValera a bastard, just saying.

    Bastard and a Coward.


  • Options
    #47
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The free state was a different country to the modern Irish Republic.
    It's head of state was the British monarch for gods sake. You're not getting out of it that easily.

    And alot of people could take offense at you for calling DeValera a bastard, just saying.

    The legal, internationally accepted head of state at the time of DeV's constitution was the British Monarch. The Free State is a direct ancestor of the current state. DeVs constitution was 11 years old before we became the Republic that we are today.


  • Options
    #48
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Boston wrote: »
    You have no point and now you're spouting nonsense. We became an independent coutnry in 1922 and a republic in 1937. Read up on Irish history before posting again. Or better yet, don't.
    I think I know Irish history, we are told enough about it in Leaving cert History. And at the risk of dragging this even more off topic we may have become indepentent in 1922 but the nation of '37 was not the free state.
    Boston wrote: »
    Bastard and a Coward.
    You ignorance of history knows no bounds, the '22 constitution was replaced by a popular vote.


  • Options
    #49
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    The legal, internationally accepted head of state at the time of DeV's constitution was the British Monarch. The Free State is a direct ancestor of the current state. DeVs constitution was 11 years old before we became the Republic that we are today.
    Of course I am not ignoring the fact that the Irish free state was offical at it's time but it was replaced by the Republic in '37.
    Now to be frank I don't think we should bring this thread off-topic any more.


  • Options
    #50
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Of course I am not ignoring the fact that the Irish free state was offical at it's time but it was replaced by the Republic in '37.
    Now to be frank I don't think we should bring this thread off-topic any more.

    It was replaced by the Republic in 1948/9, actually.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1948/en/act/pub/0022/print.html

    Once again, twenty seconds of research saves a lot of posting.


  • Options
    #51
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    You ignorance of history knows no bounds

    And the award for the most ironic comment of the thread goes to...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    It was replaced by the Republic in 1948/9, actually.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1948/en/act/pub/0022/print.html

    Once again, twenty seconds of research saves a lot of posting.
    Sigh I was talking about the constitution.


  • Options
    #53
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Sigh I was talking about the constitution.

    No, you weren't actually. Stop changing your story to try and not look wrong when you quite clearly were.

    You stated the Free State was replaced by the Republic in 1937. It was not. You were wrong. Accept it, stop twisting and changing.


  • Options
    #54
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    What is your problem with same sex marriage Iwasfrozen - seems to me you're slightly obsessed with opposing it - why?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #55
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    No, you weren't actually. Stop changing your story to try and not look wrong when you quite clearly were.

    You stated the Free State was replaced by the Republic in 1937. It was not. You were wrong. Accept it, stop twisting and changing.
    I never twisted anything. We where of course talking about the constitution, I didn't think I needed to spell everything out all of the time.

    Now can we really stop talking about this and get back on topic, I don't believe you have answered my question yet.


  • Options
    #56
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Johnnymcg wrote: »
    What is your problem with same sex marriage Iwasfrozen - seems to me you're slightly obsessed with opposing it - why?
    I'm no more obessed with opposing it as you lot are for impossing it.


  • Options
    #57
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I never twisted anything. We where of course talking about the constitution, I didn't think I needed to spell everything out all of the time.

    Now can we really stop talking about this and get back on topic, I don't believe you have answered my question yet.

    Your question being? The judge one? I'd read the text as written and as intended and state that same sex marriage was not an attack on the institution of marriage, as marriage would still exist - but would be available to more people than before.

    Back to the original point - you're still pretending you meant something you didn't write.


  • Options
    #58
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I'm no more obessed with opposing it as you lot are for impossing it.

    We're "obsessed" with imposing it because it directly affects us. It has absolutely zero effect on you, except to your religious believes. Hence an obsession.


  • Options
    #59
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    Your question being? The judge one? I'd read the text as written and as intended and state that same sex marriage was not an attack on the institution of marriage, as marriage would still exist - but would be available to more people than before.
    But isn't that against the view of the writers ?
    No doubt they were very Catholic and were opposed to same sex marraige. And wouldn't the Irish people be a bit peeved when it turns out they didn't have a say ? We only have to look at what happened in California when the courts tried to push through same sex marraige.


  • Options
    #60
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    We're "obsessed" with imposing it because it directly affects us. It has absolutely zero effect on you, except to your religious believes. Hence an obsession.
    Really, same sex marraige affects my Atheist belifes ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    But isn't that against the view of the writers ?
    No doubt they were very Catholic and were opposed to same sex marraige. And wouldn't the Irish people be a bit peeved when it turns out they didn't have a say ? We only have to look at what happened in California when the courts tried to push through same sex marraige.

    The irish people have a say by electing the government. The writers didn't even imply marriage was man-woman - all you have to go on is the 'attack' line which needs seriously warped interpretation to agree with you


Advertisement