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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

I have two gay friends voting no

2»

Comments

  • #52
    NewCorkLad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 958 ✭✭✭NewCorkLad


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Its not about the right to have children.
    Is about that many or most married people have children so to ignore them is ridiculous and is doing your cause no favours.

    And how will they be affected by this?


  • #53
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,402 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Its not about the right to have children.
    Is about that many or most married people have children so to ignore them is ridiculous and is doing your cause no favours.

    What will happen to these children if the referendum passes exactly that you're so worried about?


  • #54
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,588 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Its not about the right to have children.
    Is about that many or most married people have children so to ignore them is ridiculous and is doing your cause no favours.

    What is their relevance to the debate?

    No rights, responsibilities, expectations or legal protections relating to children are being changed.

    Dragging irrelevant but emotive things in to a debate doesn't help your argument at all.


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Its not about the right to have children.
    Is about that many or most married people have children so to ignore them is ridiculous and is doing your cause no favours.

    And many same sex couples are able to have children through adoption or surrogacy as was put to the people in the Children's Referendum in 2012. If the yes vote passes on Friday it will allow these couples to be recognised as a family. A No Vote will allow same sex couples to adopt and have children but they will not have constitutional protection. Explain to me how that is in any way beneficial to the child.


  • #56
    SILVAMAN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 730 ✭✭✭SILVAMAN


    Has it occurred to anyone the actual planning that gay couples have to do to actually have a child? Compared to the number of heterosexual couples who's kid is conceived after a drunken tryst, without any thought for the future.
    ANd then there's the sisue of a gay kid being raised by its heterosexual parents...where's the role model?


  • #57
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Its not about the right to have children.
    Is about that many or most married people have children so to ignore them is ridiculous and is doing your cause no favours.

    The core of the No argument is presumptive that all gay couples want kids. I would wager that significantly less of them do. In the case they do - and in the case where the No argument speaks about children; couples can and will be able to continue to parent kids regardless of a Yes or No vote, because this is something covered by a different bill. This is asking if people are allowed to share the legal and social institution of civil marriage, why is this such a struggle to ask for? At least 3 gay/lesbian couples I can think of off the top of my head don't want kids, but they do want to be married, and they've been together 10-15 years+ wanting this. I find it incredulous that Ronan Mullen, a man who is so keen to mention the rights of children, was silent during child abuse scandals that he likely knew about, for the sake of his church. Absolutely fed up of hearing 'a mothers and fathers love is irreplacable', it's nothing but ignorance and deliberate fear-mongering.


  • #58
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    A part of me wonders if part of the psychology is that one's ego and identity has become so wrapped up in the idea of the 'marginalised other' that the idea of inclusion and others in his peer group 'moving on' to another mainstream way of living - to, gasp, marriage - kind of threatens him, and any idea he might have had that at least we were somehow all bound together in this 'otherness' forever.

    It is a very selfish viewpoint, but I think it's one that could be explained from an emotional level.


  • #59
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Its not about the right to have children.
    Is about that many or most married people have children so to ignore them is ridiculous and is doing your cause no favours.

    It's not ignoring people who have children. It's simply saying that not having children, or not being able to have children, is not a bar on heterosexual couples marrying, therefore using it as a barrier for gay people is unfair.


  • #60
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    Celly Smunt wrote: »
    As a person who has a lot of gay friends though is a bit community shy im just wondering whether anybody here has come accross this sort of leaning among the gay community?

    Above is the question posed in the OP, please stick to the topic. There are plenty of debate threads elsewhere if you want to get into it, and numerous other threads on various facets of the referendum here.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Its not about the right to have children.
    Is about that many or most married people have children so to ignore them is ridiculous and is doing your cause no favours.

    I'm one of those straight people who is married with children. You don't speak for me. I had my kid before marriage and faced awful comments from people who are the very ones talking about the "natural family"..they make me sick, they were the very ones who rained abuse on me for having a baby outside wedlock, they have some nerve trying to turn that around now.


  • #62
    LegacyUser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 166,026 ✭✭✭✭LegacyUser


    I'm someone who doesn't believe in marriage but I don't believe in it for me and will be voting Yes on friday as just because it's not something I will ever take part in doesn't mean I should stop anyone else from having access to it.

    It's like the attitude that existed when the divorcee referendum was happening and people were acting like bringing it in would force perfectly happy married people to get divorced. Sounds daft when you say it but that's what some people thought.


  • #63
    nathang20
    Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭nathang20




  • #64
    tomato1234
    Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭tomato1234


    Celly Smunt wrote: »
    As the title says i suppose is the crux of it.

    We were out having a few drinks on friday, and as always the referendum came up in topic. Months ago i was a little taken aback that a few of my gay friends were undecided as i thought it would have been a dead set yes from them. Anyway as the topic drew on i was down right puzzled at the start as to why they would vote no and from what i can gather the following reasons were put forward.

    The first was the gay community identity. He argued that freedom within the community of being forever single though free to love whoever he wanted was what he felt gay marraige threatened. He didnt like the idea of two gay people tying themselves down. I looked at this from a straight perspective and thought of all the men and women who were in the same boat with careers or general promiscuity, whatever floats your boat type of thing.

    The next reason was that he didnt need a wedding ring and a certificate from the state to express his love for another person. Again i suppose this is understanable, but again from a straight perspective that mindset exists also.

    He argued that if the marraige referendum was to fail and that as a reaction the civil partnership bill should enstate more beneficial entitlements in terms of tax cuts and next of kin etc.

    I have probably forgotten other reasons he gave though it just leave me a little bit deflated i suppose that i'm going out there to vote for rights that they both are voting against. As a person who has a lot of gay friends though is a bit community shy im just wondering whether anybody here has come accross this sort of leaning among the gay community?

    My intentions are to still vote yes obviously, and allow them to have the choice if they want it or not, though I dont know how to feel about this attitude from a person the bill will directly affect.

    Well, We are making history here and they are not part of it.


  • #65
    barretsimpson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 122 ✭✭barretsimpson


    Celly Smunt wrote: »

    As a person who has a lot of gay friends though is a bit community shy im just wondering whether anybody here has come accross this sort of leaning among the gay community?

    They are known in the community as self hating gays and homophobes.
    They still have that small little voice in the back of their heads that says something's not right here. As Panti says, we are all homophobic.


Advertisement