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

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Options
1…1011131516…69

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Google AIDS/HIV amongst gay men.

    And as a follow up......Why do so many gay men lack the self-respect to practice safe sex??


    Aaaand. Go!

    Google AIDS/HIV amongst heterosexuals.

    And as a follow up.....Why do so many heterosexuals lack the self-respect to practice safe sex??


    Aaaaand. Go!


  • Options
    #363
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Generally speaking....

    A freewheeling attitude to sexual promiscuity, a lot of gay men would have little or no concept of monogamy and the figures for HIV/ AIDS amongst gays are beyond shocking-they are a disgrace with the amount of info and precautions freely available.


    Obviously I accept there are exceptions, but unless attitudes to the above change drastically amongst gays, (can't see it happening myself any day soon) I will be voting no.

    HANG ON!!! WHAT!?!?

    You're willing to deny homosexuals the right to marry because SOME gay men have "little or no concept of monogamy" (and are therefore unlikely to want to get married if that is the case)? Jesus H Christ. What about those men and women who do have a concept of monogamy?

    My straight friend Graham has had over 30 sexual partners, surely I shouldn't be allowed marry my (hypothetical) girlfriend because clearly there are heterosexual men who suffer the same problem?

    Let's make analogies illegal
    Why?
    Because some people are just shít at them


  • Options
    #364
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    No it's not.

    Figures for AIDS/HIV amongst gays are easily googled.

    If you think the rest is misinformation, you know very little about the lifestyle of gays in general.

    As a gay man, I think I know more than you about the lifestyles of gays "in general".

    Yes, they figures are high but there are a lot of factors which cause that. If promiscuity alone was the cause than Copper Face Jacks would have the highest infection rate in Ireland.

    It doesn't though.


  • Options
    #365
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    Gotta love too how homophobes completely ignore the fact that queer female couples exist, because it doesn't fit their WAHHH PROMISCUOUS GAY MEN narrative...

    Yes, but "because they will have too many cats and spend their time knitting" isn't as compelling an argument.

    And time spent thinking about lesbians is time not spent on being obsessed with the sex lives of gay men!


  • Options
    #366
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,703 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Daith wrote: »
    And he shouldn't be able to marry right?
    He should have been able to marry, yes.
    Clearly he should not be married now.
    How many sexual partners should one have before they are denied the right to marry?
    As far as I know there is no set figure in law as it stands:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,933 ✭✭✭Daith


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    As far as I know there is no set figure in law as it stands:rolleyes:

    So why bring it up as an excuse as to why gay people shouldn't marry?

    How many sexual partners have you had?


  • Options
    #368
    comongethappy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Google AIDS/HIV amongst gay men.

    And as a follow up......Why do so many gay men lack the self-respect to practice safe sex??


    Aaaand. Go!

    Try it and find out?


  • Options
    #369
    DazMarz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,493 ✭✭✭DazMarz


    AIDS/HIV has absolutely nothing to do with SSM.

    Plenty of straight people are unbelievably promiscuous.

    The sky is blue and the sea is wet.

    Roses are red,
    Violets are blue,
    Vodka is cheaper,
    Than dinner for two.


  • Options
    #370
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Generally speaking....

    A freewheeling attitude to sexual promiscuity, a lot of gay men would have little or no concept of monogamy and the figures for HIV/ AIDS amongst gays are beyond shocking-they are a disgrace with the amount of info and precautions freely available.


    Obviously I accept there are exceptions, but unless attitudes to the above change drastically amongst gays, (can't see it happening myself any day soon) I will be voting no.

    Funny.

    I was talking to my mates before and the topic of sex and contraception came up. Out of 7 lads in our early 20s all of them have had unprotected sex, multiple times.

    I however have only have unprotected sex when I was in a monogamous relationship for over 6 months and when both of us were tested and given the all clear.

    Before that I had never ever had unprotected sex and every guy I have met has always pushed for a condom, which was always fine by me.

    3 of those lads admitted to having an STD. I never have.

    The actual fact is, gay men are far more conscious of practising safe-sex. It's drilled into us all the time, yet many, many young straight lads don't seem to care if it means getting their leg over.

    So do you see the error of your nonsensical, stereotypical bull**** now?


  • Options
    #371
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,703 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    floggg wrote: »
    As a gay man, I think I know more than you about the lifestyles of gays "in general" .
    Fair enough.
    Yes, they figures are high but there are a lot of factors which cause that.
    What are the factors?
    If promiscuity alone was the cause than Copper Face Jacks would have the highest
    infection rate in Ireland.

    It doesn't though.
    See post #344.

    And thank you for reinforcing my point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Still waiting to hear why HIV/AIDS has any connection to SSM. As a straight married woman my sexually history and medical status wasn't on the radar when I was getting married and still isn't. Why would it be any different for a gay couple.


  • Options
    #373
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    I'll also add that I get regular STD checks, regardless if I think I don't need them. I'm clean.

    Of the 3 lads I mentioned, they had only had checks done when they showed symptoms, the rest had never had one, even though they've been sexually active for years.

    I notice that's actually a common trend for many straight lads.

    Not as common for the gay lads I meet who are conscious of it because everyone is telling us we're diseased.

    Thing is, I still don't hold anything over my straight friends. I wouldn't go banning them from marriage or something equally as moronic and stupid.


  • Options
    #374
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Generally speaking....

    A freewheeling attitude to sexual promiscuity, a lot of gay men would have little or no concept of monogamy and the figures for HIV/ AIDS amongst gays are beyond shocking-they are a disgrace with the amount of info and precautions freely available.


    Obviously I accept there are exceptions, but unless attitudes to the above change drastically amongst gays, (can't see it happening myself any day soon) I will be voting no.

    How is barring same-sex couples from marrying going to promote the idea of monogamous relationships?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #375
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Re HIV/AIDS and STIs in general. I'd have thought that promiscuity would be a reasonable explanation for their spread and whatnot. Now could somebody please tell me how legalising marriage could possibly lead to an increase in promiscuity?


  • Options
    #376
    denhaagenite
    Registered Users Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭denhaagenite


    floggg wrote: »
    Yes, so it wasn't the words.

    Why should the way she was dressed affect how she is treated, or whether her words are treated with respect or taken seriously? The words carried more than enough weight by themselves.

    Drag is in some ways a political statement as much as it is a form of entertainment and drag queens have always been at the forefront of gay rights movement.

    And the noble call is something that was done after all performances of that play by a range of speakers. If she was offended by having to see somebody discuss civil rights she was probably at the wrong performance.

    And if either of you would be offended at having to listen to a powerful, raw, and honest account of what it's like to be a minority than you seriously lack any empathy or understanding for minority groups or people generally.

    I never said she was offended by it, why the hell would she have gone to see a drag show if that would offend her?? Panti had a captive audience that went to see a lighthearted, fun show and instead got dragged into a political movement.

    I am in a minority, and I have faced adversity and xenophobia. Don't presume to know anything about my level of empathy or understanding for other people. I just wouldn't fancy going to see Tommy Tiernan live and having him rant at me about being able to take turf out of his own bog or something about wells in the West of Ireland. Or water charges!!


  • Options
    #377
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Fair enough.

    What are the factors?

    See post #344.

    And thank you for reinforcing my point.

    Off the top of my head - lack of education (gay sex not addressed in schools); more concentrated population meaning infections spread quicker; higher risk profile due to nature of sex (likelihood of transmission higher for anal over other types of sex).

    There is also irresponsible behaviour too, though that equally exists in straight people.

    Of course none of that is relevant to marriage equality (as has been said, if your concern was legitimately about stds or promiscuity you'd want to encourage monogamous relationships). Not should the irresponsibility of some be grounds to deny the rights of others.

    But I'm sensing the specifics of the matter aren't all that important to you.


  • Options
    #378
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,703 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Daith wrote: »
    So why bring it up as an excuse as to why gay people shouldn't marry??
    It's what happens when the harsh reality of married life sets in that concerns me.
    A lot of gay men may find it difficult to switch off from their previous lifestyle.


    I feel they could marry because it's fashionable or trendy or because they want an attention-seeking party. Marriage and the commitment it brings is something that is totally alien to the gay community.
    How many sexual partners have you had?
    I honestly have no idea.

    Just one while I was married, wish I could say the same for the wife though!


  • Options
    #379
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    denhaagenite wrote: »
    I never said she was offended by it, why the hell would she have gone to see a drag show if that would offend her?? Panti had a captive audience that went to see a lighthearted, fun show and instead got dragged into a political movement.

    "The Risen People" is a lighthearted, fun show now? :confused:

    The whole idea of the "noble call" speeches after the curtain was to draw lines of social awareness and solidarity between 1913 and now.


  • Options
    #380
    Woodville56
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,643 ✭✭✭Woodville56


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Not wanting to get into the debate per se, as the OP says, but the above point is a good one.

    For better or worse, it's now deeply unfashionable to say that you would vote no in the same-sex marriage referendum, or even to say you don't know until you see the wording of the proposal. Anything other than a clear yes is a public no-no in some circles.

    This has the potential to back-fire. People will kick against this received wisdom - that the only way to vote is to vote yes. If enough people on the hard yes-side push the wrong buttons, the kick-back could be very hard and they may live to regret it.

    That's just my (uninformed) political take on things. Not an analysis of the merits of a yes or no.

    I agree on this point and like I said in previous postings in this thread, name calling and throwing abusive comments each way won't add to the debate. I have no problem with same sex marriage, none whatsoever but what I do have a problem with is the pro SSM lobby labelling as homophobic or intolerant anyone who, for whatever reason, votes no in the upcoming referendum. I believe in equality across the board, no exceptions, but those supporting gay marriage are way off the mark in chastising and name calling people who don't see things their way. If the debate gets hung up on homophobic name calling, I've no doubt that the anti gay marriage crowd will use that very term as a means to rustle up support to their cause. No amount of name calling and mudslinging will make someone vote yeah or nay in the privacy of the polling booth. In short it's not doing the SSM lobby any favours to be out there telling the electorate that if they don't vote in favour of this legislation they're being homophobic ! That's a cheap shot and won't convince anyone who is undecided or doubtful how to vote, and it will probably alienate more that it will gain in terms of public support. So maybe more emphasis on the reasons why gay marriage is desireable and meaningful for those who support it would be a better approach.


  • Options
    #381
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,933 ✭✭✭Daith


    padd b1975 wrote: »

    I honestly have no idea.

    So you can't remember how many sexual partners you had but you're judging gay people on theirs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    NewCorkLad
    Registered Users Posts: 957 ✭✭✭NewCorkLad


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    It's what happens when the harsh reality of married life sets in that concerns me.
    A lot of gay men may find it difficult to switch off from their previous lifestyle.


    I feel they could marry because it's fashionable or trendy or because they want an attention-seeking party. Marriage and the commitment it brings is something that is totally alien to the gay community.

    I honestly have no idea.

    Just one while I was married, wish I could say the same for the wife though!


    I dont see anything here that couldnt be said for a young hetrosexual couple


  • Options
    #383
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    It's what happens when the harsh reality of married life sets in that concerns me.
    A lot of gay men may find it difficult to switch off from their previous lifestyle.


    I feel they could marry because it's fashionable or trendy or because they want an attention-seeking party. Marriage and the commitment it brings is something that is totally alien to the gay community.

    I honestly have no idea.

    Just one while I was married, wish I could say the same for the wife though!

    yes, because every homosexual is the stereotype you perceive them to be :rolleyes:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #384
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Of course it's to do with their sexuality.

    The sexual behaviour and attitudes of a gay man differs enormously from that of a straight guy.

    You forgot to add:
    'And I find it icky'


  • Options
    #385
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    If gay men have higher than straight rates of STDs, but lesbians have far lower, can we extend our credit to them and still have SSM please?


  • Options
    #386
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    It's what happens when the harsh reality of married life sets in that concerns me.
    A lot of gay men may find it difficult to switch off from their previous lifestyle.
    You seem to be quite the gay expert. Wouldn't be surprised, you seem obsessed with anything to do with gay sex or anything gay related.

    Some definite red flags here and I've noticed them for years on here.


  • Options
    #387
    rainbow kirby
    Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 26,928 Mod ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    Woodville56 wrote: »
    I agree on this point and like I said in previous postings in this thread, name calling and throwing abusive comments each way won't add to the debate. I have no problem with same sex marriage, none whatsoever but what I do have a problem with is the pro SSM lobby labelling as homophobic or intolerant anyone who, for whatever reason, votes no in the upcoming referendum. I believe in equality across the board, no exceptions, but those supporting gay marriage are way off the mark in chastising and name calling people who don't see things their way. If the debate gets hung up on homophobic name calling, I've no doubt that the anti gay marriage crowd will use that very term as a means to rustle up support to their cause. No amount of name calling and mudslinging will make someone vote yeah or nay in the privacy of the polling booth. In short it's not doing the SSM lobby any favours to be out there telling the electorate that if they don't vote in favour of this legislation they're being homophobic ! That's a cheap shot and won't convince anyone who is undecided or doubtful how to vote, and it will probably alienate more that it will gain in terms of public support. So maybe more emphasis on the reasons why gay marriage is desireable and meaningful for those who support it would be a better approach.

    That's a lot of words to say "Play nice and we might give you what you want, if you're really lucky".


  • Options
    #388
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Woodville56 wrote: »
    I agree on this point and like I said in previous postings in this thread, name calling and throwing abusive comments each way won't add to the debate. I have no problem with same sex marriage, none whatsoever but what I do have a problem with is the pro SSM lobby labelling as homophobic or intolerant anyone who, for whatever reason, votes no in the upcoming referendum. I believe in equality across the board, no exceptions, but those supporting gay marriage are way off the mark in chastising and name calling people who don't see things their way. If the debate gets hung up on homophobic name calling, I've no doubt that the anti gay marriage crowd will use that very term as a means to rustle up support to their cause. No amount of name calling and mudslinging will make someone vote yeah or nay in the privacy of the polling booth. In short it's not doing the SSM lobby any favours to be out there telling the electorate that if they don't vote in favour of this legislation they're being homophobic ! That's a cheap shot and won't convince anyone who is undecided or doubtful how to vote, and it will probably alienate more that it will gain in terms of public support. So maybe more emphasis on the reasons why gay marriage is desireable and meaningful for those who support it would be a better approach.

    True, the best strategy for the Yes campaign to employ to convince the unconvinced is a mythbusting one while maintaining a calm demeanor at all times.

    Make no mistake there is going to be an awful lot of mud thrown by the No campaign in a bid to provoke a reaction from the yes campaign.

    You simply can't convince people by shouting at them at the end of the day.


  • Options
    #389
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Links234 wrote: »
    The heterosexual lifestyle is so much worse

    I saw a heterosexual shooting up heroin on a bus once, what a disgusting display of vile heterosexual behaviour! There were children who could see this. Go out at a weekend and dirty heterosexual males are getting pissed up to their eyeballs and beating the **** out of each other, clogging up A&E, wasting the valuable time of staff, heterosexuals are a drain on our health services. What is it with heterosexuals shoving their lifestyle in our faces all the time? They shouldn't be allowed to do that in public.

    See how you sound?

    Hitler was straight. Nuff sed


  • Options
    #390
    Agent Smith
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 21,502 Mod ✭✭✭✭Agent Smith


    The state shouldn't be in the marriage business full stop.

    This is time and energy that could be used plotting, planning and waging a war against a country that couldn't possibly defend itself :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Daith wrote: »
    So why bring it up as an excuse as to why gay people shouldn't marry?

    How many sexual partners have you had?

    If hes Christian/ catholic, and Im guessing he is, the answer should be 'only this one Im married to'.


Advertisement