Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread Part 2

VinLieger

thee glitz wrote: »

I always believed SSM is an oxymoron.
While for SS partners being able to make the same legal commitments to each other as straight couples, it's not reeeally marriage.

Good for you, your wrong, but good for you

kunst nugget

thee glitz wrote: »

I always believed SSM is an oxymoron.
While for SS partners being able to make the same legal commitments to each other as straight couples, it's not reeeally marriage.

In August/September it really will be marriage, no matter whether you think it's an oxymoron or not.

Go Ireland!

Not a NSA agent

thee glitz wrote: »

I always believed SSM is an oxymoron.
While for SS partners being able to make the same legal commitments to each other as straight couples, it's not reeeally marriage.

It is in Ireland now.

Ash.J.Williams

this impending meteor heading for ireland in sept making anyone else regret voting yes?

Kev W

thee glitz wrote: »

I always believed SSM is an oxymoron.
While for SS partners being able to make the same legal commitments to each other as straight couples, it's not reeeally marriage.

Yes it is.

You are entitled to your own opinions.

you are not, however, entitled to your own facts.

jank

floggg wrote: »

Let's not pretend that a campaign that was almost entirely based on the fear of two men raising a child, and some unspecified harm which would result, wasn't trying to tap into exactly those types of beliefs.

So you agree that all no voters are bigots. Glad to see some progress.

Ave Sodalis

jank wrote: »

So you agree that all no voters are bigots. Glad to see some progress.

How did you even get that from that post?

VinLieger

jank wrote: »

So you agree that all no voters are bigots. Glad to see some progress.

Nice straw man.

Most no campaigners imo were bigots, however many no voters were quite simply ignorant and this ignorance mixed with the fear mongering of bigoted no campaigners was what made them vote no

Daith

jank wrote: »

So you agree that all no voters are bigots. Glad to see some progress.

Jesus what a leap to what he actually said.

Yes some people on the No side tried to tap into "two men having sex is icky and would you want them raising children"

Boyle, a lawyer and a mother of four, said her side is counting on a backlash to a new era in which homosexuality has become “normalized.” When even Catholic schools plan lessons around LGBT Awareness Week, she said, she needs to be on guard against attempts to indoctrinate her own children. “The idea of having two dads, they just go, ‘Eww, that’s not right,’ ” she said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/after-decades-in-the-shadows-gays-in-ireland-ready-for-coming-out-party/2015/05/16/9e2bb6e4-f8ca-11e4-a47c-e56f4db884ed_story.html

marmurr1916

Aard wrote: »

Do you know which country was? Surely, given every news report mentioned it, we're the first country to have *approved* it by popular vote?

The first entire country but it's been put to the popular vote in the states of Washington, Maryland and Maine in the US.

All three had referendums in November 2012 and all three referendums were successful.

Apart from the European countries mentioned earlier in the thread, California has had a referendum to define marriage in its state constitution as between a man and a woman which passed.

Subsequent court rulings have, pending final determination from the US Supreme Court, nullified that referendum result.

However, it remains to be seen if the US Supreme Court will rule that same-sex marriage is a right granted by the US Constitution or whether it's up to individual states to decide for themselves.

The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled twice (in 2010 and 2012) that same-sex marriage is not covered by the right to marry provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights but instead is a matter that can be left to the discretion of the 47 member countries of the Council of Europe, which includes all 28 EU members, plus 21 other countries including Turkey and Russia.

marmurr1916

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Not a full country, but Maryland approved it by referendum, not sure how many other US states have done so.

Maine and Washington State also approved of SSM by public referendum.

marmurr1916

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You have so spectacularly missed the point that I can't be bothered explaining it again.

If you want a fight go fight with a feather.

I'm not looking for a fight. I'm just pointing out some realities. If you can't handle them without retreating into aggression so be it.

Baggy Trousers

There is a couple up the road from me, deeply religious and always gossiping. Anyway I heard last week that they had been going around telling people that same sex marriage is wrong for various reasons. Not exactly canvassing but telling anyone who would listen. They were even saying it to young kids (7yo+). I met them earlier today and I couldn't resist - I said "Isn't it great about the referendum, we are really maturing as a nation". They weren't happy and just said "Voting is a private matter". Hypocrites. I am in trouble now (again - they dislike atheists) but fcuk the begrudgers! :D:D

Bannasidhe

marmurr1916 wrote: »

I'm not looking for a fight. I'm just pointing out some realities. If you can't handle them without retreating into aggression so be it.

Should I be passive aggressive instead.

Oh - you beat me to it.

Grayson

mickstupp wrote: »

I got it pretty much constantly from about 88 to 93. And I'm not even gay. People only stopped when I punched a guy in the face in the middle of class one day. Of course that started a whole new torment with people questioning my sanity for the next three years. Because people are ****ing dickheads.

I think Gay started in the late 90's. I certainly remember Homo and f@ggot being used as insults back then

We've come a long way.

jimdublin15

thee glitz wrote: »

I always believed SSM is an oxymoron.
While for SS partners being able to make the same legal commitments to each other as straight couples, it's not reeeally marriage.

I get your point it's like i always believed straight people aren't reeeally straight just shy. But I've been told that's not a fact.

thee glitz

kunst nugget wrote: »

In August/September it really will be marriage, no matter whether you think it's an oxymoron or not.

Go Ireland!

It will be called marriage.

MrWalsh

thee glitz wrote: »

It will be called marriage.

Because it is marriage.

obplayer

thee glitz wrote: »

It will be called marriage.

You mean that you personally will not consider it marriage. Fine, but neither the law nor the great majority of people will care what you think or pay the least bit of attention to you.

endacl

Feck's sake. No sooner have Paddy Manning and the chubby one who looks like a hammered potato disappeared from YouTube, than we're stuck with a campaign from 33:1 pro lifers.

Please. I just want to watch a few aul' videos. Feck off with yer silly little ads. Save it for mass.

:mad:

WoolyJumper

marmurr1916 wrote: »

The first entire country but it's been put to the popular vote in the states of Washington, Maryland and Maine in the US.

All three had referendums in November 2012 and all three referendums were successful.

I actually didn't know about these. What surprised me is the small margin all three passed by. All between 52 - 53%. I would have thought Maine, Maryland and Washington to be the US's more liberal states.

endacl

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I actually didn't know about these. What surprised me Tis the small margin all three passed by. All between 52 - 53%. I would have thought Maine, Maryland and Washington to be the US's more liberal states.

They are. But you need to think of the American 'centre' as being quite a way over ➡️➡️➡️➡️

Zhane

endacl wrote: »

Feck's sake. No sooner have Paddy Manning and the chubby one who looks like a hammered potato disappeared from YouTube, than we're stuck with a campaign from 33:1 pro lifers.

Please. I just want to watch a few aul' videos. Feck off with yer silly little ads. Save it for mass.

:mad:

Adblock!

marienbad

endacl wrote: »

Feck's sake. No sooner have Paddy Manning and the chubby one who looks like a hammered potato disappeared from YouTube, than we're stuck with a campaign from 33:1 pro lifers.

Please. I just want to watch a few aul' videos. Feck off with yer silly little ads. Save it for mass.

:mad:

Can you block those ads , I was sitting down to my nightly dose of divine Schubert as I browsed Boards and my serenity was disturbed beyond recovery by this screaming 33 to I , I thought I had wandered in to Paddy Power . It took this to restore it https://youtu.be/zU5KXFpAzcc

jank

Daith wrote: »

Jesus what a leap to what he actually said.

Yes some people on the No side tried to tap into "two men having sex is icky and would you want them raising children"

"Some people on the no side" is not that same as "pretend(ing) that a campaign that was almost entirely based on the fear of two men raising a child"

Again, this is a fallacy of composition. Some is not all or nearly all, yet many people put forward this argument its the 'reality'.

I asked someone else for a simple example of a high profile no campaigner comparing homosexuals to pedophiles in this referendum after they made that accusation. No example was forth coming even asking twice. I am genuinely interested to see if this did happen, I have not heard it but would welcome clarification.

Ave Sodalis

jank wrote: »

I asked someone else for a simple example of a high profile no campaigner comparing homosexuals to pedophiles in this referendum after they made that accusation. No example was forth coming even asking twice. I am genuinely interested to see if this did happen, I have not heard it but would welcome clarification.

That is because you completely failed to realised the ridiculousness of your restrictive request. Or, you know rightly. Either way, I don't know if you've noticed, but after these last three threads, people's tolerance for ridiculous statements is just about zero.

Edit: No, actually, in light of your posts in the fee's thread, your posts here are decidedly not worth wasting time replying to.

jank

sup_dude wrote: »

That is because you completely failed to realised the ridiculousness of your restrictive request. Or, you know rightly. Either way, I don't know if you've noticed, but after these last three threads, people's tolerance for ridiculous statements is just about zero.

Edit: No, actually, in light of your posts in the fee's thread, your posts here are decidedly not worth wasting time replying to.

It was you who mentioned that no campaigners called homosexuals pedophiles in this post.... post.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95637353&postcount=1402

When I asked for one example of a high profile incident during the campaign that made the press, none was forth coming. With lack of evidence then one assumes that you were wrong to make such a statement.

Its OK, you were wrong. It happens. Next you will know not to make things up unless you can substantiate it. That is all.

porsche959

jank wrote: »

"Some people on the no side" is not that same as "pretend(ing) that a campaign that was almost entirely based on the fear of two men raising a child"

Again, this is a fallacy of composition. Some is not all or nearly all, yet many people put forward this argument its the 'reality'.

I asked someone else for a simple example of a high profile no campaigner comparing homosexuals to pedophiles in this referendum after they made that accusation. No example was forth coming even asking twice. I am genuinely interested to see if this did happen, I have not heard it but would welcome clarification.

My take on it is that some on the No side were using coded language to dredge up fears, without actually saying anything they could be hauled up on as openly homophobic. So, no, you are not likely to find any prominent No side supporter on record saying anything like 'sure we all know most of dem gays are a bunch of paedos'. It's a very difficult thing to prove, granted, so if you don't see it, you don't see it.

I will also state that some of the Yes tactics were a disgrace, to the extent that a fair number of middle-of-the-road voters such as myself would have checked the box for "Yes, with reservations" if there was such an option. But, well, that's not how referendums work.

jank

porsche959 wrote: »

My take on it is that some on the No side were using coded language to dredge up fears, without actually saying anything they could be hauled up on as openly homophobic. So, no, you are not likely to find any prominent No side supporter on record saying anything like 'sure we all know most of dem gays are a bunch of paedos'. It's a very difficult thing to prove, granted, so if you don't see it, you don't see it.

Well, of course its a difficult thing to prove if it didn't happen, so accusations of it happening in the open are evidently baseless and wrong. The coded language thing, well I kinda see the point but if we are going down that road then we are therefore engaged in thought-crimes, as we are accusing people not on what they say but on what we think they mean in some code, which is basically a free run on anyone to accuse anyone of anything. This works both ways.

porsche959 wrote: »

I will also state that some of the Yes tactics were a disgrace, to the extent that a fair number of middle-of-the-road voters such as myself would have checked the box for "Yes, with reservations" if there was such an option. But, well, that's not how referendums work.

Entirely correct. Was listening to George Hook the other day and he made some good points regarding some reservations he had about the yes campaign including foreign money being used by the Yes campaign (I am sure the No campaign had foreign funds too). It was illuminating that no one in the mainstream press really investigated this fully. If one runs for the Dail then it would be illegal to receive foreign money but for a referendum there are no rules prohibiting it and we are likely to see this much more in the future especially if the 8th amendment is up for discussion. I do not want large lobby groups in the US on both sides dictating terms in the Irish constitution.

Remember George Hook came out 2 years ago in favor of Gay Marriage on the late late and gave his personal reasons for it. Yet even when the referendum was over, you still had people texting him calling him an old out -dated fart (aka bigot) cause he had some reservations about the yes side.

This binary all in or 'your the enemy' can be very damaging and polarising where the vocal minority scream loudest and dictate terms. Personally, I am not even sure a referendum was needed and that the Dail could have legislated for this separately. I think it may have been an example of the Dail shifting responsibility to the people in case they misjudged and angered the electorate and their core vote.

Ave Sodalis

jank wrote: »

It was you who mentioned that no campaigners called homosexuals pedophiles in this post.... post.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95637353&postcount=1402

When I asked for one example of a high profile incident during the campaign that made the press, none was forth coming. With lack of evidence then one assumes that you were wrong to make such a statement.

Its OK, you were wrong. It happens. Next you will know not to make things up unless you can substantiate it. That is all.

Did I say high profile campaigners? No I did not. It was you who put that request in. You want that gay people have been called paedophiles during this referendum? Go look at the first thread of this. There had to be a mod warning put in place because it was happening so often. And the complete irony of you saying I'm making stuff up is mind boggling.

jank

sup_dude wrote: »

Did I say high profile campaigners? No I did not. It was you who put that request in. You want that gay people have been called paedophiles during this referendum? Go look at the first thread of this. There had to be a mod warning put in place because it was happening so often. And the complete irony of you saying I'm making stuff up is mind boggling.

You made the accusation but you cannot substantiate it at all. Not really much more I can say other then that. As I said, its OK to be wrong sometimes.

Ave Sodalis

jank wrote: »

You made the accusation but you cannot substantiate it at all. Not really much more I can say other then that. As I said, its OK to be wrong sometimes.

Please read my posts properly.

Annasopra

VinLieger wrote: »

The way our constitution is worded means any legislation is far more open to legal challenge than it is in other countries, the supreme court had previously struck down cases taken to recognise a gay marriage that had happened in Canada

No. No it didnt. The High Court did.

Kev W

jank wrote: »

You made the accusation but you cannot substantiate it at all. Not really much more I can say other then that. As I said, its OK to be wrong sometimes.

Said while quoting directions to the substantiation.

Shrap

jank wrote: »

Was listening to George Hook the other day and he made some good points regarding some reservations he had about the yes campaign including foreign money being used by the Yes campaign (I am sure the No campaign had foreign funds too). It was illuminating that no one in the mainstream press really investigated this fully.

On this note, how exactly are you so sure that the No campaign had foreign funds? I mean, it is patently obvious that they had no such popular crowd-funding campaign as the Yes side, but still managed to afford postering every tiny village in the country and have long-playing youtube ads for a solid 2 weeks before the referendum on what MFM claimed was a 150,000 budget. However, UNLIKE the Yes campaign, they have not revealed their funding and only registered with SIPO at the last minute, so when you say you're sure.....I'm thinking that the reason you and the rest of us don't know for sure is because we haven't been given the honest truth on the subject.

On the other hand, the Yes campaign has a fully audited (down to the last penny, I'm told) campaign and was open and honest about Chuck Feeney's funding - when they got it (years ago), how they spent it, and how the publicity for the Yes campaign was entirely funded from the crowd-funding drive (hence the delay in getting posters out relative to the No campaign).

I do not want large lobby groups in the US on both sides dictating terms in the Irish constitution.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I can't, however, think of a good way to get Iona on board with this, can you?

floggg

jank wrote: »

So you agree that all no voters are bigots. Glad to see some progress.

Where did I say that?

Feel free to quote.

floggg

jank wrote: »

Well, of course its a difficult thing to prove if it didn't happen, so accusations of it happening in the open are evidently baseless and wrong. The coded language thing, well I kinda see the point but if we are going down that road then we are therefore engaged in thought-crimes, as we are accusing people not on what they say but on what we think they mean in some code, which is basically a free run on anyone to accuse anyone of anything. This works both ways.



Entirely correct. Was listening to George Hook the other day and he made some good points regarding some reservations he had about the yes campaign including foreign money being used by the Yes campaign (I am sure the No campaign had foreign funds too). It was illuminating that no one in the mainstream press really investigated this fully. If one runs for the Dail then it would be illegal to receive foreign money but for a referendum there are no rules prohibiting it and we are likely to see this much more in the future especially if the 8th amendment is up for discussion. I do not want large lobby groups in the US on both sides dictating terms in the Irish constitution.

Remember George Hook came out 2 years ago in favor of Gay Marriage on the late late and gave his personal reasons for it. Yet even when the referendum was over, you still had people texting him calling him an old out -dated fart (aka bigot) cause he had some reservations about the yes side.

This binary all in or 'your the enemy' can be very damaging and polarising where the vocal minority scream loudest and dictate terms. Personally, I am not even sure a referendum was needed and that the Dail could have legislated for this separately. I think it may have been an example of the Dail shifting responsibility to the people in case they misjudged and angered the electorate and their core vote.

No. It's very easy to identify their use of coded language. It was pathetically transparent.

Particularly when they continue to stick to the same points after they have been debunked and confirmed as utterly irrelevant by the Ref Com.

Even more so when one of their prominent members comes right out and says what they are really trying to do (comments regarding pushback against normalisation of gay people).

And do you want to know the reason no journalist investigated the Atlantic Philantropy money?

Because everybody involved publicly declared that money years ago.

The question is why haven't the no side declared their funding sources? There's your story.

Vivisectus

Well, of course its a difficult thing to prove if it didn't happen, so accusations of it happening in the open are evidently baseless and wrong. The coded language thing, well I kinda see the point but if we are going down that road then we are therefore engaged in thought-crimes, as we are accusing people not on what they say but on what we think they mean in some code, which is basically a free run on anyone to accuse anyone of anything. This works both ways.

Dog-whistle bigotry is designed specifically to avoid charges of bigotry and creating a facade of respectability, though. The problem with ignoring it is that it allows people to use bigoted arguments in a debate without challenge.

Look at the way children's rights got dragged into this campaign. It had nothing whatever to do with gay marriage: the only possible angle was that gay marriage might make it harder to discriminate against gay people later on.

This is not thought-crime. It is just a roundabout way of advocating discrimination. And if we are not allowed to say that, the dog-whistle argument has done it's job: it has allowed people to sneak a bigoted argument into a discussion without being called on it.

Daith

jank wrote: »

I asked someone else for a simple example of a high profile no campaigner comparing homosexuals to pedophiles

So you just skipped the part where Evanna Boyle from the No campaign was hoping for a backlash against the normalization of homosexuality? And a child having two daddies was an "ewww" moment.

Wasn't a thought crime. It was what she actually said.

Given the fact that people were being called pedophiles on door steps I don't care if it's a high profile No campaigner. Lets face it they're pretty irrelevant now.

Baggy Trousers

Enjoy

jank

Daith wrote: »

So you just skipped the part where Evanna Boyle from the No campaign was hoping for a backlash against the normalization of homosexuality? And a child having two daddies was an "ewww" moment.

Wasn't a thought crime. It was what she actually said.

So speaking out against the normalisation of homosexuality is akin to saying homosexuals are pedophiles. Em, sorry but that is not the same thing. That is just jumping straight into the fire and having an over-hyper sense of sensitivity.

Daith wrote: »

Given the fact that people were being called pedophiles on door steps I don't care if it's a high profile No campaigner. Lets face it they're pretty irrelevant now.

This could well be the case, I cannot comment on what happened on all the door steps. I am sure there are plenty of nut-jobs to go around calling all sorts of people all types of names. Just move on and let them have a rant. Believe me, I have been there, ironically raising money for Gay Lobby group a long time ago.

galljga1

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Enjoy

I still get emotional when I see a video like this.

Daith

jank wrote: »

So speaking out against the normalisation of homosexuality is akin to saying homosexuals are pedophiles. Em, sorry but that is not the same thing. That is just jumping straight into the fire and having an over-hyper sense of sensitivity.

It was more the two daddies comment and "ewww". I would say counting for a backlash against homosexuality is homophobia at it's best wouldn't you agree.

You seem to want issues to be very black and white.

jank wrote: »

This could well be the case, I cannot comment on what happened on all the door steps.

It was the case.

jank

Shrap wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I can't, however, think of a good way to get Iona on board with this, can you?

Well, we Irish like to over legislate for everything so why not legislate for this? Funding for any elections cannot be sourced from any foreign donations. I would include all sides and political parties in this (Sinn Fein for example are well dodgy on this given their US fund raising).

jank

Vivisectus wrote: »

Dog-whistle bigotry is designed specifically to avoid charges of bigotry and creating a facade of respectability, though. The problem with ignoring it is that it allows people to use bigoted arguments in a debate without challenge.

You may have a point but equally when you use terms like dog-whistling it in turn is used as a scatter gun, painting all sides of one argument as 'the same' which leads to a very polarised binary debate. E.g. taking your litteral view on it ALL arguments against a yes side is by default bigoted. It is very easy to cat call an opinion when one does not have the time, patience or intelligence to argue against it point by point. Instead we try to compress complex constitutional and social issues into 140 characters on twitter, because well its easy and people are generally time poor and lazy.

If someone is sneaky and introducing things into the debate that are outside its scope then it should be easy to argue against it.

You have to concede my first point that we should not (all sides included) engage in cat calling, dog whistling and disparaging whole groups of people as [insert derogatory word here]. The one thing I hope we can take from this is that the level of public discourse and online discourse can be improved. Won't hold my breath though.

jank

Daith wrote: »

It was more the two daddies comment and "ewww". I would say counting for a backlash against homosexuality is homophobia at it's best wouldn't you agree.

Well I cannot speak for Evanna Boyle and what she meant. Like, if I picture my 70 year old parents making out I would go 'Ewww' as well. Doesn't mean I hate old people or respect them as consenting adults. To be honest if that is the best example of a high profile campaigner equating homosexuals to pedophiles then its pretty tame tbh. However, in the effort to be conciliatory I would concede that one could interpret that specific comment as homophobic.

Kev W

jank wrote: »

Well I cannot speak for Evanna Boyle and what she meant. Like, if I picture my 70 year old parents making out I would go 'Ewww' as well. Doesn't mean I hate old people or respect them as consenting adults. To be honest if that is the best example of a high profile campaigner equating homosexuals to pedophiles then its pretty tame tbh. However, in the effort to be conciliatory I would concede that one could interpret that specific comment as homophobic.

Could it be interpreted as anything less than homophobic?

Vivisectus

jank wrote: »

You may have a point but equally when you use terms like dog-whistling it in turn is used as a scatter gun, painting all sides of one argument as 'the same' which leads to a very polarised binary debate. E.g. taking your litteral view on it ALL arguments against a yes side is by default bigoted. It is very easy to cat call an opinion when one does not have the time, patience or intelligence to argue against it point by point. Instead we try to compress complex constitutional and social issues into 140 characters on twitter, because well its easy and people are generally time poor and lazy.

If someone is sneaky and introducing things into the debate that are outside its scope then it should be easy to argue against it.

You have to concede my first point that we should not (all sides included) engage in cat calling, dog whistling and disparaging whole groups of people as [insert derogatory word here]. The one thing I hope we can take from this is that the level of public discourse and online discourse can be improved. Won't hold my breath though.

Nonsense - it is very easy to introduce these dog-whistle arguments, and while they do not hold water, it takes quite a bit of time to explain why. That is the whole point of these tactics: throw lots and lots of mud, even if it makes no sense, and bog down the other side in explaining irrelevancies while at the same time you help people rationalize a sort of low-level unease with gay people, especially where children are concerned. Then, when someone points out that being against one-gender families only where gay people are concerned is bigotry, claim persecution. rinse, lather, and repeat.

If anything, this debate has shown us that we need to start making our debates a bit more robust. Currently it is very easy to exploit the general aversion to being seen as disrespectful.

mach1982

Once some hardcore YES side found out someone was voting no the blinkers came on and they got tunnel vision , would not listen and let them explain why they were voting no, they are not all homophobic bigots.

I head of a taxi man who picked up two lesbians one night last week , and conversation got to the referendum , he said he was voting no , they ask him stop the car so they could get-out and were not going to pay. So he told them he would drop them off at the nearest Gaurda station , as it was his business. He did not discriminate against them he just saw them like any other fair.

All that doesn't matter , the YES vote own, there nothing that can be done , it will happen and we can argue till the cows come home only time will tell if any of what the no side said will come to pass .Lets all just agree to disagree.

Doctor Jimbob

mach1982 wrote: »

Once some hardcore YES side found out someone was voting no the blinkers came on and they got tunnel vision , would not listen and let them explain why they were voting no, they are not all homophobic bigots.

I head of a taxi man who picked up two lesbians one night last week , and conversation got to the referendum , he said he was voting no , they ask him stop the car so they could get-out and were not going to pay. So he told them he would drop them off at the nearest Gaurda station , as it was his business. He did not discriminate against them he just saw them like any other fair.

All that doesn't matter , the YES vote own, there nothing that can be done , it will happen and we can argue till the cows come home only time will tell if any of what the no side said will come to pass .Lets all just agree to disagree.

Those people, if they exist, were wrong to refuse to pay.

I'm not entirely sure how it's relevant to anything really though.