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 why are you voting no?

Options
1…1011131516…90

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    adtaustin wrote: »
    I couldn't agree more!

    And if you vote No guess what? Children will STILL have their biological parents (they won't vanish) and homosexual couples will STILL be eligible to apply to adopt a child. Now that we've cleared that up what is the No side really about?


  • Options
    #363
    billythefish99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 92 ✭✭billythefish99


    Godge wrote: »
    He sets out his view in this article. While I don't agree with him, his views are measured and thought-out and therefore deserve respect.

    They dont deserve respect. Gay people can already adopt, the referendum wont change anything in that regard. He is also saying that gay people are less able parents than straight people - which is straight up homophobia. Also he neglects to mention anywhere in the article that he is a staunch catholic and a religion teacher. Totally disingenuous.

    Bigots dont deserve respect and they are not going to get it either.


  • Options
    #364
    j80ezgvc3p92xu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 392 ✭✭j80ezgvc3p92xu


    I have posted the reasons why I would vote no on two separate threads. These were elaborate posts, from what I can remember backed up with quotes of studies, logical reasoning and (considering that on paper most Irish people claim to be Christians) relevant quotes from the Bible, both Old and New Testament.

    The first of those post was moved without warning to a different thread by one of the mods. He claimed it was not relevant, even though the thread was on the very topic of SSM. I thought to myself that is kind of odd, my post was very much on topic, did not use foul language ect. I was then involved in another discussion on a different thread. I described the reasons why I think people should vote no. Again, no obscenities, bullet point arguments. Overnight, a mod had deleted the post. I seriously considered just deleting my boards account there and then.

    This is why I no longer bother. Who knows, maybe this time my post would be left untempered but I'm just fed up. The Gaystapo on boards is strong and well organized. Enjoy your channelled and controlled debate, I'm sure the "need for equality" and "Ireland is full of bigots" points need to be rehashed and mulled over a few more times.


  • Options
    #365
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    Can you not see the absolute ridiculousness of his last line though, does he think if Yes wins all of a sudden children won't have a mother and a father and is he not aware of single parents in this country (don't give me this nonsense of 'special circumstances'). Does he not know that if No wins homosexual couples can still adopt a child and that all the children's right groups in this country are supporting a Yes vote, which in fairness makes his whole argument redundant, also he can claim what he likes, but he can't claim to be in favour of equality when he only really believes in equality 'to an extent'.

    I'm not necessarily calling him homophobic but he is more likely an example of someone who Stephen Weinberg was talking about when he said = “in the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you’ll need religion”.

    "absolute ridiculousness" is a very strong comment. I wouldn't put it in those terms.

    There is a large group of people out there who feel that their beliefs about marriage and parentage have been ignored by successive governments. They are against adoption by single-sex couples, they are against surrogacy, however they were never given the chance to vote on those issues. So when something tangential comes up for a vote, which infringes the same principles, they are going to vote no, even though it will not change such things and event though they know that too. You may think it as illogical, they will see it as the only thing they can do to make their views known.

    I do not agree with your closing paragraph either. Ger Brennan is not homophobic. Homophobia is not the same as opposing same-sex marriage.

    And again, I am voting Yes, but I have been flabbergasted by the lack of respect shown by the Yes campaign to other views. Only today I saw more defacing of No posters on my travels.


  • Options
    #366
    secman
    Registered Users Posts: 6,263 ✭✭✭secman


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Yet again you are comparing apples and oranges. A straight couple who marry and discover they cannot conceive children even though they both have the necessary reproductive organs but due to some medical issue or possibly no issue is present it is just their age and on that basis, cannot conceive, this is NOT THE SAME THING as sticking together two people of the same sex and pretending that they can have a family. These are two very fundamentally different things, maybe to you they are not but to me they are most definitely not the same thing, so please start respecting that on thread.

    I STRONGLY object to your " pretending to be a family" insinuation... really hurtful remark. .my daughter and her partner who happens to be female and their son are most definitely a family and a very happy one at that...absolutely No Pretending.... All they want is the same constitutional rights as me and my wife...nothing more and nothing less.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    sunshine and showers
    Registered Users Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭sunshine and showers


    joe912 wrote: »
    This is the condescending nature I spoke of. I was originally not going to vote knowing that the yes is guaranteed to win, coupled with the fact that I had no strong opinion on the subject. Thanks to the yes sides conduct I will now make the effort and vote no.

    Condescension is being made beg for your equal right to marry and being told you're already equal, just in a "separate" way and you should be grateful for what you've already got. It's being told you are not good enough to be a parent, or if you're already one that you're clearly terrible at it.

    What I said to you is not condescension. It's me telling you that if you vote no on things to "stick it to the man" then you need to reevaluate your life choices.


  • Options
    #368
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    eviltwin wrote: »
    To the No voters, is there any changes or clauses that could be made that would make you support SSM?

    I would have no problem with SSM if it did not change the meaning of a family in the constitution. That cannot be done because those arguing for a yes vote will not tolerate any other accommodation other than access to full marriage as any other accommodation means that they are on the back of the bus or are in the middle of the bus or are someone on the bus that is secondary to where the straight people are allowed to sit.

    I accept that gay people are already allowed to adopt, I disagree with this, and I disagree with how the concerns of family and marriage have been separated out as has been done in this campaign. It became clear months ago that the yes side had been working with a left leaning Labour government to have the substantive issues such as the right to adopt, etc, taken completely out of the debate on SSM and they had all this shunted into the Family & Relationships act, thereby trying to make this referendum about nothing to do with family or children, which we are not allowed even mention now in relation to what we get to vote on this 22nd May!

    Anyone with a brain can add all this up and see the huge fundamental wrong in what has happened here.

    Because of how this has all being done, the deeply underhand way in which the subjects of "family" and "children" and "marriage", have all been separated out into separate concerns and we have a hostile yes side now who think that the own the constitution and if you are not on their side then you are a bigot or a homophobe, there isn't a hope in hell I would vote with people who approach a campaign in that manner.


  • Options
    #369
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Nevaeh Millions Bassinet wrote: »
    I have posted the reasons why I would vote no on two separate threads. These were elaborate posts, from what I can remember backed up with quotes of studies, logical reasoning and (considering that on paper most Irish people claim to be Christians) relevant quotes from the Bible, both Old and New Testament.
    What relevance do these quotes have to civil marriage?
    The first of those post was moved without warning to a different thread by one of the mods. He claimed it was not relevant, even though the thread was on the very topic of SSM. I thought to myself that is kind of odd, my post was very much on topic, did not use foul language ect. I was then involved in another discussion on a different thread. I described the reasons why I think people should vote no. Again, no obscenities, bullet point arguments. Overnight, a mod had deleted the post. I seriously considered just deleting my boards account there and then.
    I haven't seen the posts but I would imagine if a mod took issue with them the chances are much higher than you went off topic than some gay agenda is oppressing your point of view.
    This is why I no longer bother. Who knows, maybe this time my post would be left untempered but I'm just fed up. The Gaystapo on boards is strong and well organized. Enjoy your channelled and controlled debate, I'm sure the "need for equality" and "Ireland is full of bigots" points need to be rehashed and mulled over a few more times.

    If this is similar to the content of the earlier posts you mentioned, I'm not sure why you're surprised.


  • Options
    #370
    billythefish99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 92 ✭✭billythefish99


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Because of how this has all being done, the deeply underhand way in which the subjects of "family" and "children" and "marriage", have all been separated out into separate concerns and we have a hostile yes side now who think that the own the constitution and if you are not on their side then you are a bigot or a homophobe, there isn't a hope in hell I would vote with people who approach a campaign in that manner.
    Your views are bigoted and homophobic though, youve repeatedly claimed that gay couples are less capable of raising children than straight couples.

    It must be dizzying the sort of mental leaps you have to do to convince yourself that advocating discrimination based on sexuality is not bigotry.


  • Options
    #371
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    secman wrote: »
    I STRONGLY object to your " pretending to be a family" insinuation... really hurtful remark. .my daughter and her partner who happens to be female and their son are most definitely a family and a very happy one at that...absolutely No Pretending.... All they want is the same constitutional rights as me and my wife...nothing more and nothing less.....

    Right so, show me one single example of a same sex couple who have conceived a child within their relationship. How did your daughter and her female partner manage to conceive a son? If you are telling me that your daughter and her female partner conceived a child together then you are not living on the same planet that I'm living on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    CaveCanem wrote: »
    Sure, that's a valid point of view. Posters for a yes vote should then read 'we want to change what marriage and family means' and yes campaigners should make clear to the public that they want marriage in Ireland to mean something different than marriage as it is understood across most of the rest of the world. Maybe even a name change would be appropriate so this can be understood and not confused with what marriage has always meant before. That would be an honest campaign.

    Instead we are told 'we don't want to change what marriage means, we just want to widen the criteria to include more people', people that marriage was not intended to protect ie. The interests and happiness of adults.
    Except that's all completely irrelevant of course. How other countries may or may not define marriage is irrelevant.

    In Ireland the "meaning" of marriage is not formally defined, and will not be formally defined after this referendum. Therefore putting up posters about the "meaning" of marriage is pointless. What marriage means to you and means to your neighbour are likely two different things.

    Instead, the honest argument is to represent this referendum as exactly what this is - constitutionally guaranteeing the right of same-sex couples to get married.
    That's not relevant to the "meaning" of marriage, since that's more of a philosophical discussion than a legal one.


  • Options
    #373
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Godge wrote: »

    I do not agree with your closing paragraph either. Ger Brennan is not homophobic. Homophobia is not the same as opposing same-sex marriage.

    And again, I am voting Yes, but I have been flabbergasted by the lack of respect shown by the Yes campaign to other views. Only today I saw more defacing of No posters on my travels.

    Is it not though? Replace 'homophobic' with 'racist' and 'same-sex marriage' with 'interracial marriage'. Do you still think that statement is valid? I'm honestly not trying to be difficult or a smart arse here. I would have thought similar in the past but having thought it through I just can't see how it isn't homophobic on some level.

    I agree with you that the defacing of posters is uncalled for.


  • Options
    #374
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    billythefish99 wrote: »
    They dont deserve respect..

    We will come back to this.
    billythefish99 wrote: »
    Gay people can already adopt, the referendum wont change anything in that regard. .

    Agreed, and he knows that too. However, there was no referendum on that issue and this is the only similar issue that he can get his voice heard.
    billythefish99 wrote: »
    He is also saying that gay people are less able parents than straight people - which is straight up homophobia. .

    Where exactly does he say that? He uses the analogy that children ideally need a father and a mother. That doesn't mean they are better parents.

    That is not straight-up homophobia.
    billythefish99 wrote: »
    Also he neglects to mention anywhere in the article that he is a staunch catholic and a religion teacher. Totally disingenuous..

    And you are what? Ger Brennan is a well-known public figure.
    billythefish99 wrote: »
    Bigots dont deserve respect and they are not going to get it either.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot_(disambiguation)

    From the first part of the definition

    "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own"

    Go back and look at the first sentence of your post and consider carefully what a bigot is.


  • Options
    #375
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    billythefish99 wrote: »
    Your views are bigoted and homophobic though, youve repeatedly claimed that gay couples are less capable of raising children than straight couples.

    It must be dizzying the sort of mental leaps you have to do to convince yourself that advocating discrimination based on sexuality is not bigotry.

    Yes I believe that a same sex family is not the proper framework for a child to be raised in and I make no apologies for saying that. Not one single person, including yourself, was conceived within a same sex relationship, it simply isn't possible and we need to stop pretending that it is possible because it isn't. Accepting the simple biological and inescapable reality that it is not possible does not make someone homophobic.


  • Options
    #376
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    Godge wrote: »
    "absolute ridiculousness" is a very strong comment. I wouldn't put it in those terms.

    There is a large group of people out there who feel that their beliefs about marriage and parentage have been ignored by successive governments. They are against adoption by single-sex couples, they are against surrogacy, however they were never given the chance to vote on those issues. So when something tangential comes up for a vote, which infringes the same principles, they are going to vote no, even though it will not change such things and event though they know that too. You may think it as illogical, they will see it as the only thing they can do to make their views known.

    I do not agree with your closing paragraph either. Ger Brennan is not homophobic. Homophobia is not the same as opposing same-sex marriage.

    And again, I am voting Yes, but I have been flabbergasted by the lack of respect shown by the Yes campaign to other views. Only today I saw more defacing of No posters on my travels.

    I'm flabbergasted by the lies of the No campaign and their insistance on sticking to them and I believe they have to be called on them.

    Ps I don't believe I called Ger Brennan homophobic, can you show me where I said it? I am certainly accusing his religious beliefs as the source of his believing homosexuals shouldn't be entirely equal to heterosexuals and I believe religion has no place in our constitution and therefore no place in this debate, that I'm very clear on.


  • Options
    #377
    secman
    Registered Users Posts: 6,263 ✭✭✭secman


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    I would have no problem with SSM if it did not change the meaning of a family in the constitution. That cannot be done because those arguing for a yes vote will not tolerate any other accommodation other than access to full marriage as any other accommodation means that they are on the back of the bus or are in the middle of the bus or are someone on the bus that is secondary to where the straight people are allowed to sit.

    I accept that gay people are already allowed to adopt, I disagree with this, and I disagree with how the concerns of family and marriage have been separated out as has been done in this campaign. It became clear months ago that the yes side had been working with a left leaning Labour government to have the substantive issues such as the right to adopt, etc, taken completely out of the debate on SSM and they had all this shunted into the Family & Relationships act, thereby trying to make this referendum about nothing to do with family or children, which we are not allowed even mention now in relation to what we get to vote on this 22nd May!

    Anyone with a brain can add all this up and see the huge fundamental wrong in what has happened here.

    Because of how this has all being done, the deeply underhand way in which the subjects of "family" and "children" and "marriage", have all been separated out into separate concerns and we have a hostile yes side now who think that the own the constitution and if you are not on their side then you are a bigot or a homophobe, there isn't a hope in hell I would vote with people who approach a campaign in that manner.

    Oddly enough the Constitution does not actually define a " family"


  • Options
    #378
    sunshine and showers
    Registered Users Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭sunshine and showers


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Yes I believe that a same sex family is not the proper framework for a child to be raised in and I make no apologies for saying that. Not one single person, including yourself, was conceived within a same sex relationship, it simply isn't possible and we need to stop pretending that it is possible because it isn't. Accepting the simple biological and inescapable reality that it is not possible does not make someone homophobic.

    So if every child needs a mpther and father, do you follow through on your thinking and disagree with single parenting by choice? Or are you a hypocrite?


  • Options
    #379
    secman
    Registered Users Posts: 6,263 ✭✭✭secman


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    I would have no problem with SSM if it did not change the meaning of a family in the constitution. That cannot be done because those arguing for a yes vote will not tolerate any other accommodation other than access to full marriage as any other accommodation means that they are on the back of the bus or are in the middle of the bus or are someone on the bus that is secondary to where the straight people are allowed to sit.

    I accept that gay people are already allowed to adopt, I disagree with this, and I disagree with how the concerns of family and marriage have been separated out as has been done in this campaign. It became clear months ago that the yes side had been working with a left leaning Labour government to have the substantive issues such as the right to adopt, etc, taken completely out of the debate on SSM and they had all this shunted into the Family & Relationships act, thereby trying to make this referendum about nothing to do with family or children, which we are not allowed even mention now in relation to what we get to vote on this 22nd May!

    Anyone with a brain can add all this up and see the huge fundamental wrong in what has happened here.

    Because of how this has all being done, the deeply underhand way in which the subjects of "family" and "children" and "marriage", have all been separated out into separate concerns and we have a hostile yes side now who think that the own the constitution and if you are not on their side then you are a bigot or a homophobe, there isn't a hope in hell I would vote with people who approach a campaign in that manner.

    Oddly enough the Constitution does not actually define a " family"


  • Options
    #380
    sunshine and showers
    Registered Users Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭sunshine and showers


    secman wrote: »
    Oddly enough the Constitution does not actually define a " family"

    Even more oddly, it doesn't define marriage. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #381
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Right so, show me one single example of a same sex couple who have conceived a child within their relationship. How did your daughter and her female partner manage to conceive a son? If you are telling me that your daughter and her female partner conceived a child together then you are not living on the same planet that I'm living on.

    My sister and her husband have a son. But *gasp* they didn't conceive him together.... are they still a family???

    Her husband has a son... he first met him when the boy was 17... drunken one night stand so he would be hard pressed to tell you the mother's name (until she sued him for maintenance 17 years later...) are they a family????

    Are parents where all their children are adopted really a family????


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    Answer me this... On the Clare Byrne Live debate on RTE One the night before last there was a debate on this SSM referendum.

    It became abundantly clear in that debate that a biological mother who is putting her child up for adoption, has the right to stipulate whether her child is given to straight couple, and she can stipulate as a matter of right and choice, that her child cannot be given to a same sex couple to be raised.

    How come nobody is giving out that the mother is clearly allowed to discriminate against a same sex couple in relation to who she decides she is giving her child up to adopt?


  • Options
    #383
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Answer me this... On the Clare Byrne Live debate on RTE One the night before last there was a debate on this SSM referendum.

    It became abundantly clear in that debate that a biological mother who is putting her child up for adoption, has the right to stipulate whether her child is given to straight couple, and she can stipulate as a matter of right and choice, that her child cannot be given to a same sex couple to be raised.

    How come nobody is giving out that the mother is clearly allowed to discriminate against a same sex couple in relation to who she decides she is giving her child up to adopt?

    Tbh I think giving your own child away is such a huge thing you should be able to say yay or nay to anyone.


  • Options
    #384
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    secman wrote: »
    Oddly enough the Constitution does not actually define a " family"

    It does if you take into account article 41.1.1 and if you look at what that says and if you take a fairly reasonable interpretation of what it can only mean when you take that article in totality.


  • Options
    #385
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Tbh I think giving your own child away is such a huge thing you should be able to say yay or nay to anyone.

    So straightforward discrimination against a same sex couple is tolerable you argue, once certain unique circumstances have fallen into place?


  • Options
    #386
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Is it not though? Replace 'homophobic' with 'racist' and 'same-sex marriage' with 'interracial marriage'. Do you still think that statement is valid? I'm honestly not trying to be difficult or a smart arse here. I would have thought similar in the past but having thought it through I just can't see how it isn't homophobic on some level.

    I agree with you that the defacing of posters is uncalled for.

    This is difficult to debate as I am essentially defending others views that I don't agree with.

    The difference between "same-sex marriage" and "interracial marriage" is that those who oppose the first base it on the differences involved in the act of conceiving children i.e. only a woman can bear a child, only a father can provide sperm. Such an argument (whether you agree with it or not) does not apply to "interracial marriage", so yes, there are differences.

    They also don't distinguish between opposition to male same-sex couples or female same-sex couples so they don't see their argument as sexist.


  • Options
    #387
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Yes I believe that a same sex family is not the proper framework for a child to be raised in and I make no apologies for saying that. Not one single person, including yourself, was conceived within a same sex relationship, it simply isn't possible and we need to stop pretending that it is possible because it isn't. Accepting the simple biological and inescapable reality that it is not possible does not make someone homophobic.

    Two small problems:

    1) You speak of biological reality, yet ignore the countless studies saying same sex parents do just as good of a job raising children. That's a reality too. Why is it ignored?

    2) Children have nothing to do with the referendum.


  • Options
    #388
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    So straightforward discrimination against a same sex couple is tolerable you argue, once certain unique circumstances have fallen into place?

    I don't support any form of discrimination however the emotional needs of the mother are paramount. She's doing something huge and doesn't need some lecture on her views at such a difficult time.


  • Options
    #389
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    sunshine and showers wrote: »
    So if every child needs a mpther and father, do you follow through on your thinking and disagree with single parenting by choice? Or are you a hypocrite?

    Ah now.

    I don't agree with LordNorbury, I think gay parents can parent just as well as anyone else... but single parents by choice? I definitely think that's not ideal!

    All the single parents I know are not there by choice. They were either widowed, or the relationship broke down. Those are all pretty tough going. But choosing to deliberately take a parent away from a child for no good reason? Why would anyone choose to do that?


  • Options
    #390
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Yes I believe that a same sex family is not the proper framework for a child to be raised in and I make no apologies for saying that. Not one single person, including yourself, was conceived within a same sex relationship, it simply isn't possible and we need to stop pretending that it is possible because it isn't. Accepting the simple biological and inescapable reality that it is not possible does not make someone homophobic.

    How is that different to an infertile couple using IVF or adopting a child?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    I'm flabbergasted by the lies of the No campaign and their insistance on sticking to them and I believe they have to be called on them.

    Ps I don't believe I called Ger Brennan homophobic, can you show me where I said it? I am certainly accusing his religious beliefs as the source of his believing homosexuals shouldn't be entirely equal to heterosexuals and I believe religion has no place in our constitution and therefore no place in this debate, that I'm very clear on.

    There are lies on both sides. The campaign has been run on both sides on completely false premises.

    I am in favour of marriage equality. If a man wants two wives and they agree, no problem. If two men and two women want a group marriage, no problem. If a man wants to marry his wife's brother's wife after the wife and her brother die, then no problem. However, the YES campaign don't mention that all of the above are excluded from their version of equality.

    I am only voting YES as it is a step towards marriage equality, not because it is marriage equality as so many on the YES side say.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement