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
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Really, same sex marraige affects my Atheist belifes ?

    Makes it even more of an extreme obsession so


  • Options
    #63
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    You ignorance of history knows no bounds, the '22 constitution was replaced by a popular vote.

    Where did I say it wasn't? DeVelara wrote almost the entire thing. Not the founding fathers as you claim. Him, that bastard.


  • Options
    #64
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


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

    Ok. So why are you so obsessed?

    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
    #65
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Ok, so as far as I can see he/she

    1) Has no point to make with regards to the interpretation of the constitution other then it can be interpreted.
    2) Has no interest in the interpretation regardless of what it might be.

    So anyway, Sinead's hand, great campaign add, hope it gets onto TV.


  • Options
    #66
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    The irish people have a say by electing the government.
    Indeed they do, did I say they didn't ?
    MYOB wrote: »
    The writers didn't even imply marriage was man-woman
    *Ahem* RAI "Ahem*


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Boston wrote: »
    Where did I say it wasn't? DeVelara wrote almost the entire thing. Not the founding fathers as you claim. Him, that bastard.
    DeValera may have wrote it but who voted for it ?


  • Options
    #68
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    That wasn't the point being discussed. At no stage did anyone question the legitimacy of the Constitution.


  • Options
    #69
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Boston wrote: »
    That wasn't the point being discussed. At no stage did anyone question the legitimacy of the Constitution.
    You called DeValera a bastard for implementing a constitution that was not favourable for gay marraige, I'm just pointing out that the Irish people voted for this "bastards" constitution.
    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


  • Options
    #70
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    You called DeValera a bastard for implementing a constitution that was not favourable for gay marraige, I'm just pointing out that the Irish people voted for this "bastards" constitution.

    I never said it was for implementing a constitution. They also voted for Charles J Haughey, Bertie and Dana.


  • Options
    #71
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    He needs the irony spelled out clearer Boston

    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
    #72
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Boston wrote: »
    I never said it was for implementing a constitution. They also voted for Charles J Haughey, Bertie and Dana.
    But the people who voted for DeValera where different to the people who voted for Bertie.
    I assume the reason you hate DeValera was for his neo-socialist catholic propaganda that brainwashed this country for an entire generation ?
    Believe me I'm right there with you but that doesn't change the fact that the constitution was written with the intent of only allowing opposite sex marriage.
    A constitution passed that was passed by the Irish people and will require the premission of the Irish people to change.


  • Options
    #73
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Johnnymcg wrote: »
    He needs the irony spelled out clearer Boston
    Yes, it seems I do.


  • Options
    #74
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Yes, it seems I do.

    The marriage of deValeras parents has been reserached by many historians and biographers but cannot be proven

    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
    #75
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    But the people who voted for DeValera where different to the people who voted for Bertie.
    I assume the reason you hate DeValera was for his neo-socialist catholic propaganda that brainwashed this country for an entire generation ?
    Believe me I'm right there with you but that doesn't change the fact that the constitution was written with the intent of only allowing opposite sex marriage.
    A constitution passed that was passed by the Irish people and will require the premission of the Irish people to change.

    How could they have intended to only allow opposite sex marriage when the concept of same sex marriage didn't exist? You are basically saying they wanted to ban something that didn't exist!

    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
    #76
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Johnnymcg wrote: »
    The marriage of deValeras parents has been reserached by many historians and biographers but cannot be proven
    What relevence has that ?
    Johnnymcg wrote: »
    How could they have intended to only allow opposite sex marriage when the concept of same sex marriage didn't exist? You are basically saying they wanted to ban something that didn't exist!
    The Catholic church has always tought against sodomy and gay relations as it is condemned in the Bible.
    Are you honestly trying to tell me that Gay Relations didn't exist in 1937 ?


  • Options
    #77
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Indeed they do, did I say they didn't ?

    Basically you did, yes. You blathered on about the Irish people getting a say when they get a say by electing the government. Once again you're talking about both sides of your mouth.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    *Ahem* RAI "Ahem*

    There is nothing in the text to suggest they intended it to ban same sex marriage. Nothing at all. All they go against is things which attack marriage, which same sex marriage does not.

    You want there to be things which do, but face it - there aren't.


  • Options
    #78
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    What relevence has that ?

    You cried foul about Boston calling DeV a bastard, when there is much proof that under US law of the time (he was born in the US), he was a bastard. There is no marriage cert for his parents, indeed there is actually no proof Juan Vivion De Valero existed at all.


  • Options
    #79
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    Basically you did, yes. You blathered on about the Irish people getting a say when they get a say by electing the government. Once again you're talking about both sides of your mouth.
    It's not quite as simple as you seem to think it is, the current Government cannot affect the constitution. Would you like FF to ratify the Lisbon treaty now ? After all the people had a say by electing a pro-lisbon party.
    MYOB wrote: »
    There is nothing in the text to suggest they intended it to ban same sex marriage. Nothing at all. All they go against is things which attack marriage, which same sex marriage does not.
    emmmm, nothing to suggest ? Are you serious ?
    The writers of the constitution were fierce Catholics, the Catholic church is against Homosexuality in every form.
    Is that a big enough clue for you ?


  • Options
    #80
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It's not quite as simple as you seem to think it is, the current Government cannot affect the constitution. Would you like FF to ratify the Lisbon treaty now ? After all the people had a say by electing a pro-lisbon party.

    Any matter which effects Irish sovereignty has to go to a referendum.
    emmmm, nothing to suggest ? Are you serious ?
    The writers of the constitution were fierce Catholics, the Catholic church is against Homosexuality in every form.
    Is that a big enough clue for you ?

    It doesn't work that way.


  • Options
    #81
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Boston wrote: »
    Any matter which effects Irish sovereignty has to go to a referendum.
    Of course, because it's stated in the constitution.
    Boston wrote: »
    It doesn't work that way.
    Yes it does, that's what Read as Intended means.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It's not quite as simple as you seem to think it is, the current Government cannot affect the constitution. Would you like FF to ratify the Lisbon treaty now ? After all the people had a say by electing a pro-lisbon party.

    Lisbon cannot be passed without a referendum. There is no legal proof that gay marriage needs a referendum - there is no Supreme Court judgement in that area.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    emmmm, nothing to suggest ? Are you serious ?
    The writers of the constitution were fierce Catholics, the Catholic church is against Homosexuality in every form.
    Is that a big enough clue for you ?

    You can't read things that aren't written at all in to the constitution, only intents of what was written.


  • Options
    #83
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    As MYOB said. It's not a case of "What could DeV have done". The concept of Gay marriage didn't exist back then so obviously there was no intention to ban it. Would the founders of the state have been against it? Probably however there is nothing in the consitution which may be interpreted that way.


  • Options
    #84
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    Lisbon cannot be passed without a referendum. There is no legal proof that gay marriage needs a referendum - there is no Supreme Court judgement in that area.
    Of course there isn't, if there where we wouldn't be discussing it.
    MYOB wrote: »
    You can't read things that aren't written at all in to the constitution, only intents of what was written.
    emmm, yes you can that's what read as intended means.
    MYOB wrote: »
    As MYOB said. It's not a case of "What could DeV have done". The concept of Gay marriage didn't exist back then so obviously there was no intention to ban it. Would the founders of the state have been against it? Probably however there is nothing in the consitution which may be interpreted that way.
    Gay marraige may not have existed in 1937 but the idea certainly did.
    DeValera and his cronies would have knew this and being the fierce Catholics that they were would have been against any form of Gay marraige.
    It isn't that hard to apply logic.


  • Options
    #85
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    emmm, yes you can that's what read as intended means.

    No, its not. Read as intended lets you put slight interpretations on the text - it does not let you add whole paragraphs. Have you actually read what is written in the constitution on marriage? Clearly you haven't.


  • Options
    #86
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    This is going around in circles. You're wrong son every level.


  • Options
    #87
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    No, its not. Read as intended lets you put slight interpretations on the text - it does not let you add whole paragraphs. Have you actually read what is written in the constitution on marriage? Clearly you haven't.
    Yes I have, I have a copy at home.
    But for the sake of an easy life here is the piece Mobius42 pasted a few pages back:
    3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
    It is pretty clear, especially from the part about family that DeValera intended marraige for opposite sex couples only.


  • Options
    #88
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Boston wrote: »
    This is going around in circles. You're wrong son every level.
    On the contrary, I think you are so blinded by your own movement that you can't see what's right under your own nose.


  • Options
    #89
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Yes I have, I have a copy at home.
    But for the sake of an easy life here is the piece Mobius42 pasted a few pages back:

    It is pretty clear, especially from the part about family that DeValera intended marraige for opposite sex couples only.

    No, its not. Its "clear" to you as you desperately, obsessively want it to mean that.

    All that is required is a Supreme Court judgement stating that same sex marriage does not attack the institution of marriage. Thats not that far fetched, seeing as allowing people to get married does not attack marriage.


  • Options
    #90
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    No, its not. Its "clear" to you as you desperately, obsessively want it to mean that.
    lol, I'm not desperate, just getting you to see the light.
    MYOB wrote: »
    All that is required is a Supreme Court judgement stating that same sex marriage does not attack the institution of marriage. Thats not that far fetched, seeing as allowing people to get married does not attack marriage.
    And would you agree that it is right to force gay marraige despite not having any evidence to back up public support ?
    We saw what happened when the Gay movement tried that in California.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    lol, I'm not desperate, just getting you to see the light.

    "see the light" :confused:

    All you're getting us to see so far is that you have an unnatural obsession with gay marriage, something which is of zero impact to your life, and that you won't stop wittering on about it.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    And would you agree that it is right to force gay marraige despite not having any evidence to back up public support ?
    We saw what happened when the Gay movement tried that in California.

    Governments force things which have no public support frequently - thats what they do. And what happened in California can't happen here due to us having an entirely different legislative system so I don't see why you think its in any way relevant.


Advertisement