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

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Options
1…324325327329330…335

Comments

  • Options
    #9782
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    gravehold wrote: »
    Excatly hence if you don't wan't gay adoption a no vote and voting for a government to change the legislation is your best chance

    Again, why are you against gay adoption?


  • Options
    #9783
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,661 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    gravehold wrote: »
    Excatly hence if you don't wan't gay adoption a no vote and voting for a government to change the legislation is your best chance

    So if you want to be a bigot, vote no?


  • Options
    #9784
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,661 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Yes, true, and how on earth does this extension in anyway improve the position of unmarried fathers? It means more people in the group to contend with. Not every mother is reasonable and can use the child as a weapon (same can be said about the fathers, some of whom go fighting for custody etc but haven't the remotest interest of really taking the parental duties seriously, just causing trouble for the mother)

    So, not only did society say, that in an ideal world, it's best if there is a mother and father, whether married or not, but preferably married; now we will be saying, ah, sure, even though there is still a mother and father, father take a hike, Mary is more "suitable" to take up responsibilities with the mother, Ann

    Oh of course, daddy will still have to play a role in paying the bills.

    Your issue has more to do with the spouse of a woman who has had a child with a man than it has to do whether that spouse is gay or not


  • Options
    #9785
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    gravehold wrote: »
    Yes wins constitunal protection very strong if a conservative government wins, marraige, adoption the family very strongly protected.

    NO wins atm you can still adopt, family is there but a conservative government comes they can easily rip it all away.

    Yes are not showing why being married is important for adoption and family they are scared and are saying no you can't talk about it won't effect it which is untrue. Be honest what effects being married will have on other aspects of irish life

    Being married isn't important for adoption, or the procedure of adoption at least. Please read the posts.
    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Gays more suitable than mother and fathers now? Right, cute .


    Looking forward to the class actions the gays will bring , if there seems a "disproportionate" amount of adoptions favouring married hetrosexual couples. I am sure the argument about "more suitable people" will be ignored then.

    That's not what I said. I said people will be skipped over for more suitable people. Gender and sexuality don't play a part in it.


  • Options
    #9786
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Again, why are you against gay adoption?

    I am not
    Hyzepher wrote: »
    So if you want to be a bigot, vote no?

    If they wan't no gay adoption then yes they should vote No but not everyone thatd oesn't want gay adoption is a bigot


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9787
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,661 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    gravehold wrote: »
    If they wan't no gay adoption then yes they should vote No but not everyone thatd oesn't want gay adoption is a bigot

    What other reason would there be. If the AAI deem a gay couple as being suitable to adopt an orphan then what would the issue be?


  • Options
    #9788
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Being married isn't important for adoption, or the procedure of adoption at least. Please read the posts.


    But it really is

    aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html


  • Options
    #9789
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Gays more suitable than mother and fathers now? Right, cute .

    You're displaying extreme prejudice and your posts are becoming more and more aggressive. You have no credibility!


  • Options
    #9790
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    The Round and Round the Garden is making thread dizzy.

    Yet - despite the whole blah blah gays can adopts and poor baby with no biological mammy and daddy not one poster who claims it's baaaad if gays adopt has cared to explain why... Since repeating ourselves is apparently the way to go:



    In plain English - what specific harm will children come to if they are raised by a same-sex couple that they could not also suffer if raised by a married heterosexual couple. ?

    What is it ye are all skirting around but don't have the guts to say?


  • Options
    #9791
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    gravehold wrote: »
    But it really is

    aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html

    Read the posts already on the thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9792
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    smash wrote: »
    Go lobby for the cause in a different place. This referendum is not about that.

    Article 41 is sought for amendment. Article 41 and Article 42 should always be read in full. Articles 41 and 42 solely concern Children and the Family. The Family is one defined and acknowledged (for over decades) as that based on marriage. You are seeking to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples; an institution that was once exclusively the remit of the hetrosexual couples


    Some of the issues may not affect childless couples, but do affect those that do have children, the majority.

    So, there are links, no matter how much you deny it.


  • Options
    #9793
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    gravehold wrote: »
    If they wan't no gay adoption then yes they should vote No but not everyone thatd oesn't want gay adoption is a bigot

    What other reason is there?

    You are being completely disingenuous btw, dont think people dont see through it. You should at least have the balls to come out and state your real intentions.


  • Options
    #9794
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    What other reason would there be. If the AAI deem a gay couple as being suitable to adopt an orphan then what would the issue be?

    Religious freedom?


  • Options
    #9795
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    gravehold wrote: »
    But it really is

    aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html

    OUT OF DATE.


  • Options
    #9796
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Some of the issues may not affect childless couples, but do affect those that do have children, the majority.

    Again, this is untrue.


  • Options
    #9797
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    gravehold wrote: »
    Religious freedom?

    You are really clutching at straws here, you think throwing out a soundbite is presenting a reason?


  • Options
    #9798
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    gravehold wrote: »
    Religious freedom?

    This should hold no bearing to the referendum. It does not affect religious freedom.


  • Options
    #9799
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    OUT OF DATE.

    New one is not in force yet that is current one and in the future the new one can be reverted.


  • Options
    #9800
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The Round and Round the Garden is making thread dizzy.

    Yet - despite the whole blah blah gays can adopts and poor baby with no biological mammy and daddy not one poster who claims it's baaaad if gays adopt has cared to explain why... Since repeating ourselves is apparently the way to go:



    In plain English - what specific harm will children come to if they are raised by a same-sex couple that they could not also suffer if raised by a married heterosexual couple. ?

    What is it ye are all skirting around but don't have the guts to say?


    Why is there an obsession with refusing to accept that Gays are different to hetrosexaul couples, and they both play different roles in society? Why can't ye just accept that ? There is no shame in it. How is engineering society going to make them feel more warm and fuzzy inside? Why do gays, clearly feel that hetrosexual couples are not more suitable to raising children? This notion of second class citizens and being inferior is self inflicted

    No one is stopping a gay person raising their own biological child..........


    Let us face it, the minute anyone says that they really think (even if it actually undermines their arguments), they get banned from these sites. Free Speech is only allowed so long as it suits certain people's agendas


    Face, it, even if they come out with an arguable case, which you won't agree with anyway, you are dying to shout; hater, homophobe etc and play the victim .


  • Options
    #9801
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Why is there an obsession with refusing to accept that Gays are different to hetrosexaul couples, and they both play different roles in society? Why can't ye just not accept that ? There is no shame in it. How is engineering society going to make them feel more warm and fuzzy inside? Why do gays, clearly feel that hetrosexual couples are not more suitable to raising children?

    No one is stopping a gay person raising their own biological child..........

    That did not answer the question asked.

    In fact - it didn't answer any question at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9802
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Gays more suitable than mother and fathers now? Right, cute .


    You do understand that gay and lesbian mothers and fathers already exist in Ireland, right?

    Looking forward to the class actions the gays will bring , if there seems a "disproportionate" amount of adoptions favouring married hetrosexual couples.


    There's no class action system in Ireland. Each case would be dealt with on an individual basis, and even then, I'm not sure how a civil suit would address any concerns about disproportionate amounts of adoptions favouring anyone? The criteria under which a couple, or even an individual are assessed for suitability for adoption are much broader and more in-depth than simply the person's gender, sex, or sexual orientation.
    I am sure the argument about "more suitable people" will be ignored then.

    The only people ignoring any criteria other than the person's gender, sex, or sexual orientation when discussing the issue of adoption. There are many more criteria on which a couple are assessed for their suitability to adopt children. As I have already pointed out previously, the 2010 legislation prohibited unmarried couples from applying as a couple regardless of their sex, gender or sexual orientation. They could always apply individually.


  • Options
    #9803
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    gravehold wrote: »
    New one is not in force yet that is current one and in the future the new one can be reverted.

    Irrelevant.

    It's been signed into law, so it will be in force shortly. No matter what, the new one can be altered in the future. I don't know why I'm bothering.

    (I also don't know why we're making things giant)


  • Options
    #9804
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    smash wrote: »
    Again, this is untrue.

    When you educate yourself with what Article 41 and 42 says, come back to us.

    Of perhaps spell out what is "untrue". Saying something without standing your ground doesn't really wash

    Children play a huge role in most Marriages. Children are indirectly an issue when we talk about marriage. There are rights that married couples have, regarding children, that unmarried couples, do not enjoy automatically


  • Options
    #9805
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    gravehold wrote: »
    New one is not in force yet that is current one and in the future the new one can be reverted.

    Oh for god sake, its been passed, it is going to be law.

    Yes and in the future my aunty can have a sex change and be my uncle, but if you vote based on if's and maybe's you are a moron.


  • Options
    #9806
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Why do gays, clearly feel that hetrosexual couples are not more suitable to raising children?

    They believe the evidence, which says heterosexual couples are not more suitable to raising children.


  • Options
    #9807
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    This notion of second class citizens and being inferior is self inflicted

    Same could be said about fathers and their rights. I mean, they're clearly not equal to women when raising children, right...?


  • Options
    #9808
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

    Face, it, even if they come out with an arguable case, which you won't agree with anyway, you are dying to shout; hater, homophobe etc and play the victim .

    Ironic comment is ironic.

    Since that was aimed at me either demonstrate where I have called someone 'hater, homophobe etc' or withdraw your insulting hyperbole.

    You might also answer the question.

    I'll even rephrase it to make it easier:

    What harm do you believe only gay parents (adoptive or biological) will do to children that renders them, en mass, unsuitable?


  • Options
    #9809
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Why is there an obsession with refusing to accept that Gays are different to hetrosexaul couples, and they both play different roles in society? Why can't ye just accept that ? There is no shame in it. How is engineering society going to make them feel more warm and fuzzy inside? Why do gays, clearly feel that hetrosexual couples are not more suitable to raising children? This notion of second class citizens and being inferior is self inflicted

    This paragraph does not make the remotest element of sense and contradicts itself. One the one hand you claim that the notion of second class citizen status/being inferior is self inflicted but in the preceding sentences you ask why can't gay people accept their different position in society and that heterosexual couples are superior in raising children (a completely unsubstantiated claim). You can't even make sense to yourself.

    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Let us face it, the minute anyone says that they really think (even if it actually undermines their arguments), they get banned from these sites. Free Speech is only allowed so long as it suits certain people's agendas


    Face, it, even if they come out with an arguable case, which you won't agree with anyway, you are dying to shout; hater, homophobe etc and play the victim .

    Says the individual who in the preceding paragraph claimed that they are being silenced by some conspiracy to prevent people from speaking. LoLgasm.


  • Options
    #9810
    TwoShedsJackson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    What harm do you believe only gay parents (adoptive or biological) will do to children that renders them, en mass, unsuitable?

    I don't think any of them are just going to come out with what's festering at the back of their minds: they think a gay couple are more likely to be paedophiles and/or will turn the child gay, as if that was even possible.

    Come on, surely one of you can just come out and say it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9811
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Saying something without standing your ground doesn't really wash

    Interesting phrasing there:
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I'm afraid, standing back from the issue with a nice soundbite doesn't wash.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement