Robyn writes:
Received this vote no leaflet through the letter box yesterday. Found the small print quite entertaining.
Everything. As It Happens.
Robyn writes:
Received this vote no leaflet through the letter box yesterday. Found the small print quite entertaining.
Oh, I see, the models are not ‘content’ with their depiction in the poster, only pretending to be.
I’ll get me coat.
great stuff, so your a cheap date
The 9th marriage ref post today and its only 3:30. Must be all hands on deck today.
Will someone please go and knick a bike.
Ha!
A lost cat would be great too.
A video of a cat and dog team stealing a bike would really make my day
Bring back abortion.
A video of a cat and dog team stealing a bike to go to the UK to get an abortion? Really, anything with a cat in it will do.
If it involves some sort of typo or misspelling then all the better
If the abortion is shaped like Ireland do we all win a prize??!
A video of a cat and dog team stealing a bike to go to Ireland marked as part of the UK to get an abortion. The dog has a spot on the side which looks nothing like Ireland, they leave from Dun Laoghaire that’s reported as being part of the UK. On the boat they make a video of some song by the Cure with all the music removed and draw a Cyanide and Happiness cartoon.
And then they both get a SSM – same species marriage. The end.
Lovely!
Don’t forget that they get grossly overcharged for a pint and a bag of crisps on the boat!
I can’t wait for all this to happen !
.
.
.
.
Mick Flavin… get scribblin’ !!
I saw [redacted] cycle through a red light.
When does ‘De moratorium’ start? Best said in Joe Duffy voice.
The day before I believe.
This is like a “contents may be hot” warning on a cup of coffee. For all the mensa candidates who couldn’t understand how modelling/advertising/stock photography worked.
Any chance one day that you might actually answer people’s replies to your comments on SSM? Or should we take it as an admission you don’t have any argument?
Yes. I have no argument with SSM. As I’ve previously said, I’m voting Yes.
Of course you are…
I am. But I have time for the opposing viewpoint. Some very good points being made on all sides. John A. Murphy (the historian I believe) has an excellent letter in today’s Irish Times, for example:
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/marriage-referendum-1.2209712
Frankly, that article is ridiculous. For a historian he sure has a poor grip on how society changes.
“Article 41 of the Constitution, as of now, clearly deals with the man-woman based family” N, it doesnt, its vague.
And gays can’t consummate their marriage so can’t get married? So any heterosexual marriage not consummated is not a real marriage?
For someone supposedly voting yes, you sure do concern yourself with reasons for voting no.
He’s a historian so is aware that the bulk of Irish legal opinion is that SSM would not stand up to a constitutional challenge without the amendment because – the people who wrote the constitution could ONLY have meant male-female marriage when they wrote it.
I must admit, I don’t know the current legal situation regarding the requirement to consummate the marriage. I think it was (and may still be technically) a serious issue – as opposed to something we just giggle at.
Of course I concern myself with reasons to vote no. Why would I just surround myself with information that confirmed by opinion? That would be lazy and I’d never learn anything.
He is clearly not aware of the wording of the constitution. It doesn’t matter what people meant when they wrote it, its about interpretation of the law.
Concerning yourself is one thing, defending it is another
I’m defending the NEED for a referendum. The Government obviously agree with me on the need.
If it’s all about interpretation then the only sane interpretation of the 1930s constitution is that the writers never intended that SSM would be one of the basic building block of the state.
Ha ok..
one of the most stupid letters I ever read in my life
words are construed in court as having their ordinary meaning
thus the whole gibberish about redefining the word marriage is absolute nonsense – a bit like saying my aunt can’t be my uncle just because you know she had a sexchange and grew a cock.
in ordinary meaning a marriage today can be a gay marriage, a same sex marriage, a heterosexual marriage or any of the above. there’s no precedent historical or otherwise for marriage being exclusive to heterosexual couples to start a family because if there was heterosexual people who are sterilised and/or have passed the menopause clearly could not get married either.
you newsjustin are one of the most predictable, moronic, boring trolls ever on here and the bar is already quite low.
good 2 know j, just in case your gaff gets wrongly powder bombed 2nite
This is a bit circular…