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

VOTE NO

Options
13567…11

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    tayto lover wrote: »
    As I have said in other threads, I believe that in general a child born to a mother and father in a loving relationship would bond better than a child adopted by two gay men.
    It's my belief. However a child adopted by two gay men would do much better than a child born into a dysfunctional family. The vast majority of single mothers/fathers raise great kids too as someone already said but there are many exceptions.
    Just my opinion. I don't think there is scientific evidence to prove the matter either way though.

    The only problem with all of that is that its completely irrelevant to the referendum. Its not an either or. Same sex couples aren't taking kids away from their homes (married mother and father homes or any other). The kids either wouldn't exists otherwise or would be in foster homes.

    and in the same way your post is irrelevant, so is my paragraph above, because all the referendum is about is allowing 2 men or 2 women to marry each other. They may already have kids, they may plan to have kids, they may never want kids. It doesnt matter. They can do all the having kids/not having kids stuff already , all that changes is they can marry each other. Same as me and my girlfriend who have been together 15 years and may, at some point in the future decide to get married, the gay couple down the road should have the same choice.


  • Options
    #63
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    RiseToMe wrote: »
    So in your opinion, a lesbian couple who opt for IUI or IVF are just as good as parents as a heterosexual couple as they carry the child? It's just gay men that aren't as "suitable"?

    I was discussing the bonding issue.


  • Options
    #64
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    The only problem with all of that is that its completely irrelevant to the referendum. Its not an either or. Same sex couples aren't taking kids away from their homes (married mother and father homes or any other). The kids either wouldn't exists otherwise or would be in foster homes.

    and in the same way your post is irrelevant, so is my paragraph above, because all the referendum is about is allowing 2 men or 2 women to marry each other. They may already have kids, they may plan to have kids, they may never want kids. It doesnt matter. They can do all the having kids/not having kids stuff already , all that changes is they can marry each other. Same as me and my girlfriend who have been together 15 years and may, at some point in the future decide to get married, the gay couple down the road should have the same choice.

    That's why i'm voting Yes.


  • Options
    #65
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ha ha ha!

    Someone catch this fellow and pull him out of the barrel, evidently he is near the bottom of it.

    Is it the worst point made yet? All opposition to stuff and things is the same?

    Well that's the point concisely debated.

    Funny that you wont actually answer it. Maybe those "the blacks" are conspring to steal your kids too?


  • Options
    #66
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    tayto lover wrote: »
    That's why i'm voting Yes.

    But even debating children (about them, not with them :-) ) is giving legitimacy to the horse****.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    But even debating children (about them, not with them :-) ) is giving legitimacy to the horse****.

    I am interested in the bonding issue. Maybe it deserves a thread of its own?


  • Options
    #68
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    tayto lover wrote: »
    I am interested in the bonding issue. Maybe it deserves a thread of its own?

    It's valid here as the constitutional changes to the family due to a yes vote effect this.


  • Options
    #69
    Skatedude
    Registered Users Posts: 2,674 ✭✭✭Skatedude


    I wasn't going to vote, but the no campaign and the op have convinced me to vote yes.


  • Options
    #70
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Never said that.

    No but you were talking about how its best for a child to stay with their biological parents which tends to be the case. If anyone else gets a child from another source than conceiving themselves then the biological parents weren't going to happen so it's a bit irrelevant. We're already dealing with a situation where the parents raising them wont be their biological parents


  • Options
    #71
    B_Wayne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    gravehold wrote: »
    Wow homophobic much

    While I disagree with the user's view, I'm pretty confident they're not homophobic tbh. So far nobody has called him homophobic...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    tayto lover wrote: »
    I am interested in the bonding issue. Maybe it deserves a thread of its own?

    Possibly, but I'd say theres a much better forum than politics (or and threads about SSM referendum)


  • Options
    #73
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    gravehold wrote: »
    It's valid here as the constitutional changes to the family due to a yes vote effect this.

    No its not. Whats the difference between a same sex couple with a child now, or one on May 23rd if SSM is legal?


  • Options
    #74
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Possibly, but I'd say theres a much better forum than politics (or and threads about SSM referendum)

    Why the referendum effects the family in our constitution and the discussion is about the family


  • Options
    #75
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    No its not. Whats the difference between a same sex couple with a child now, or one on May 23rd if SSM is legal?

    Constitutional protection, without that the next government can decide you know what we don't wan't gays adopting or having CP


  • Options
    #76
    macker33
    Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭macker33


    Wang King wrote: »
    Don't think you could be trusted

    No, I know some people fvck it up but i've actually figured out that whole appropriate holes thing,


  • Options
    #77
    ibstar
    Registered Users Posts: 373 ✭✭ibstar


    I'm voting No, but not for religious reasons since I'm an atheist.
    But it saddens me that my vote will be associated with people like OP :/
    People voting Yes ether don't have children and don't know what it's like to raise them or they simply doing it out of guilt because they have a friend/relative who's gay.
    I have colleagues who are gay with whom I get along fine and maintain professional relationship and can rely on in work, but that doesn't give me enough reasons to trust homosexual couples raising children they were never meant to have naturally.

    Yes they can already adopt which is wrong imo, but ones the legislation passes (which unfortunately it will from what I'm observing), this will relax the rules towards adoption even more.

    This country has enough problems with it's pedophile priests, now we're going to hear even more cases of domestic abuse, ether sexual or physical, because these so called same sex "parents", I repeat SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ADOPT KIDS BECAUSE IT'S NOT NATURAL. I'm an atheist so no religious bias here. Just simple nature and biology.

    I'm not against gay relationships, I'm just firmly and strongly against them having children.


  • Options
    #78
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Well that's the point concisely debated.

    Funny that you wont actually answer it. Maybe those "the blacks" are conspring to steal your kids too?

    Ha ha!

    Sure of course they are. And of course people who have mild concerns about changing the concept of marriage are all racist. Sure 'twas a great point altogether!!


  • Options
    #79
    macker33
    Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭macker33


    RiseToMe wrote: »
    Ironically the majority of gay parents spend literally thousands to conceive, etc etc.

    Buttsh1t


  • Options
    #80
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    That a same sex couple may decide to bring children in to their marriage is irrelevant to them being married.

    Forget that they are gay and just look at it as 2 people who are getting married. Theres no reason to exclude them because they happen to be the same gender. The rest is irrelevant.

    They can adopt as a couple now so married or not they are a family and are both parents to the child. It's a separate issue thats allowing the no side to scaremonger and should be left separate.


  • Options
    #81
    macker33
    Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭macker33


    bee06 wrote: »
    Yeah I agree. The so called debate on both sides has been nothing but mud slinging without any real discussion. Can't wait for the whole thing to be over.

    The yes side have had a 15 year head start


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    ibstar wrote: »
    I'm voting No, but not for religious reasons since I'm an atheist.
    But it saddens me that my vote will be associated with people like OP :/
    People voting Yes ether don't have children and don't know what it's like to raise them or they simply doing it out of guilt because they have a friend/relative who's gay.
    I have colleagues who are gay with whom I get along fine and maintain professional relationship and can rely on in work, but that doesn't give me enough reasons to trust homosexual couples raising children they were never meant to have naturally.

    Yes they can already adopt which is wrong imo, but ones the legislation passes (which unfortunately it will from what I'm observing), this will relax the rules towards adoption even more.

    This country has enough problems with it's pedophile priests, now we're going to hear even more cases of domestic abuse, ether sexual or physical, because these so called same sex "parents", I repeat SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ADOPT KIDS BECAUSE IT'S NOT NATURAL. I'm an atheist so no religious bias here. Just simple nature and biology.

    I'm not against gay relationships, I'm just firmly and strongly against them having children.

    Yet another poster assuming gay people will abuse their children. Jesus h Christ, do some research into abuse will you?

    As for why you're voting no - adoption is being legislated for with or without the ssm referendum passing. So it's gonna happen whether you like it or not.

    The ssm referendum has zero influence on gay couples adopting.


  • Options
    #83
    macker33
    Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭macker33


    Lu Tze wrote: »
    What beliefs will be forced on you? If this passes, will you be forced to marry somebody of the same gender?

    Its not that simple, a yes vote criminalises certain christian teachings, its slow erosion


  • Options
    #84
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,884 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    macker33 wrote: »
    Its not that simple, a yes vote criminalises certain christian teachings, its slow erosion

    I can't say that's a bad thing, judging by your posts.


  • Options
    #85
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,158 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    macker33 wrote: »
    Paedophile priests are what happens when gays become priests, correct me if i'm wrong but most of the abuse was male on male.
    Yeah, gays didnt mess things up there at all.
    And now you want gays to be able to adopt, i'm not being funny but would you trust your kids with a gay, i certainly wouldnt.

    Look macker, I don't expect you to understand this but homosexuality is different to paedophilia. One is an attraction to adults the other is an attraction to children.

    Paedophilia is a messed up sexual preference and causes real harm. Homosexuality doesn't cause harm to anyone.

    The Catholic's mistake was covering up abuse when they found out about it rather than reporting it like a decent organisation would.

    As a matter of interest, do you consider yourself to be homophobic?


  • Options
    #86
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ha ha!

    Sure of course they are. And of course people who have mild concerns about changing the concept of marriage are all racist. Sure 'twas a great point altogether!!

    Still no answer to the issue. Just joking waffling around the issue. Many of the same arguments were brought up by racist groups to tell people how interracial relationships are wrong and ungodly etc and shouldn't be allowed. The world would end and other crap.


  • Options
    #87
    macker33
    Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭macker33


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Very good post and well done.
    I believe, however, that a child raised in a happy home with a father and mother is the ideal family. A child raised by two gays would still be much better off than a child raised by dysfunctional parents. I'll be voting "Yes".

    Since when are gays not dysfunctional, I would say they are the very definition of dysfunctional


  • Options
    #88
    RiseToMe
    Registered Users Posts: 1,272 ✭✭✭RiseToMe


    macker33 wrote: »
    Buttsh1t

    Brilliant, there's free IVF clinics? Do pass along the details, I know many couples that can save a lot of money!


  • Options
    #89
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    That a same sex couple may decide to bring children in to their marriage is irrelevant to them being married.

    Forget that they are gay and just look at it as 2 people who are getting married. Theres no reason to exclude them because they happen to be the same gender. The rest is irrelevant.

    They can adopt as a couple now so married or not they are a family and are both parents to the child. It's a separate issue thats allowing the no side to scaremonger and should be left separate.

    Why not give CP the same rights as marraige but not change the constitution, that way if the next government want to stop gays adopting they can


  • Options
    #90
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    macker33 wrote: »
    Its not that simple, a yes vote criminalises certain christian teachings, its slow erosion

    Christian teachings say 'judge not, lest ye be judged.'

    So if you're gonna vote no, fine. But stop your disgusting comments about gay people. You're going against your religion by judging them


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    macker33 wrote: »
    At least i could be trusted not to try and hump it anyway.

    But if your kids are girls there's no issue is there? And I'm sure you wouldn't let a female baby sitter mind your boys either as using your twisted logic she'd just try hump them too?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement