VOTE NO

macker33

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Macker, I presume you'll never have children?

looking for hostages?

macker33

Thepoet85 wrote: »

What the bible tells you and real life are two different things

what gays experience and real life are two different things

ElChe32

macker33 wrote: »

Right, blame the whole catholic church because of a few gay priests.

Things become my business as soon as they are forced across my line of sight,
You think i way gay values promoted into my front room by shows like emmerdale farm and coronation street?
Children are sitting in front of the telly and two guys start kissing and they are told by the show that its perfectly ok, Do parents get a say at all?

All this so called abuse gays supposidly get, how would somebody know if they were gay unless they were broadcasting it.
Gays look for it so they can feed off the sympathy.

You watch Coronation Street and Emmerdale? That's so gay.

Guy:Incognito

macker33 wrote: »

what gays experience and real life are two different things

Where are they having the experiences? In a book?

macker33

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Females get abused as well.

The more somebody does something the easier it becomes to do.
I actually put the reason for it being mostly male on male down to the fact of convenience, Males would be in the care of males and most of the abusers were male.

222233

macker33 wrote: »

The more somebody does something the easier it becomes to do.
I actually put the reason for it being mostly male on male down to the fact of convenience, Males would be in the care of males and most of the abusers were male.

you literally blamed it on a few gay priests a while ago make up your mind

freelancerTax

macker33 wrote: »

The more somebody does something the easier it becomes to do.
I actually put the reason for it being mostly male on male down to the fact of convenience, Males would be in the care of males and most of the abusers were male.

priests from your beloved church were also some of these abusers
open your eyes

macker33

222233 wrote: »

macker33

maybe you would like to revisit the time when the church would take "illegitimate" children from their biological mothers how can you say that these children were passed on to safe homes?
.

The church didnt turn up, either the cruelty man turned up or the kids were handed in.

macker33

Wang King wrote: »

So that's a no then, grand, glad we got that sorted at least!

The Father called it an abomination, either saint peter or paul did likewise.
Copyleft isnt going to be much of a defence and it certainly isnt justification.

So i guess its no win for you.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

macker33

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

There hasnt been a decent argument put forward yet that doesnt boil down to much more than "because they're gay"

By all means though, on you go. The floor is yours...............

You do realise being against something because its gay is justification in itself.

You can be against something evil because its evil, no need to justify why you think its evil.

nc19

stefanovich wrote:

His main point, so terribly expressed, is that Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.

I can fix that for you.........All religion is made up nonsense designed to keep the weak of mind in check. Do away with all religion and the world will be a better place

macker33

cursai wrote: »

Isnt a fink a strikebreaker or something? Like in Strumpet City.

A fink is a sexual freak

macker33

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Ah, selective sinning.

So whats your plan to get rid of the gays, seeing as they have no purpose?

One way ticket to a tropical island paradise

Guy:Incognito

macker33 wrote: »

You do realise being against something because its gay is justification in itself.

You can be against something evil because its evil, no need to justify why you think its evil.

Is being against someone becuase theyre black ok?

Ive decided black people are evil, so it's good, yeah?

trackerman

If were involving the church I'd recommend reading "The transformation of Ireland" by Diarmaid Ferriter.
It will give some idea of how power corrupts... the church stepped into the void to promote their own ideals, the state were more than happy to comply.

Royal Legend

Reading the posts in here, beginning to think it should be moved to AH. (There is definitely at least one troll in the thread, not hard to see who)

There is IMO a bigger issue at hand, Political Correctness.

Its the one point that I would agree with the OP, people are afraid to speak out and debate and say they are voting No or are not sure, because then, as can be seen in some of the posts in here, are then tagged as homophobes or major league die hard Catholics. The media is definitely pushing the Yes vote, the amount of air time given to a silly debate on a stock photo used by the No campaign was IMO petty and has no bearing whatsoever on the referendum.

Those of us of a certain age, (between 40-50) would have been brought up to believe that Marriage was between a man and a woman, that men and women were put on this earth solely for the purpose to procreate. People older than us would for the most part strictly believe in this.

People of my age have seen huge change and for the most part we have accepted and embraced this change. When we were young and girls were victimised for having kids outside of marriage, we stood up for them, backed them etc. I had a friend that died in a field giving birth to a child, it was her second one, and the scandal and shame that this would have caused her and her family, forced her to try to hide the fact, causing her death.

Back in our day, Priests and Bishops were untouchable, we were the ones that stopped kowtowing to them and took them off their pedestal.

Teachers, yet another institution that was put on a pedestal years ago, now we confront, question, how teachers operate and how they teach our children, years ago, you could not do that.

There were no Gay people in our day, they were there but hid it for fear of retribution and shame. I knew people who were Gay 20 years ago, they were friends, colleagues etc. Again, our generation was probably the first to accept that people could be who they wanted to be.

My 16 year old daughter has a friend who is Gay, she tells me that I have to vote yes. The young lad is in our house nearly every day, he is like a second son to us, what his sexual leanings are do not even enter our head.
My Mother in Law believes that there is a danger that Gays that adopt children could possibly abuse them. I have explained to her that she is wrong as there are plenty of heterosexual couples who have abused children.
A work colleague and I had a debate last week on if a a Gay couple adopting a child could then turn that child Gay? By the way, we both agreed that you are born Gay not made and that the parents gender had no effect on how a child would be brought up and that as TL stated earlier that there are plenty of dysfunctional families.

Anyway, long winded I know, but my point is this.

I am still on the fence as regards voting Yes/No. Not because I am a homophobe, but because, even though don't even go to church any more I still believe to an extent that marriage is between a man and a woman, also I am still trying to evaluate if this referendum does effect children or not as been pointed out by the No campaign.

Also, Enda Kenny sees this as a legacy issue for him, the man who brought in Gay Marriage. yet the cretin will not even debate it. Usually politicians use diversionary tactics to take interest away from other more major issues

There are a lot of people like me out there, who are afraid to speak up because we are then seen as homophobic or dinosaurs, because its not politically correct.

The poster that was trying to label Tayto Lover as a homophobe is a great example of this, the threat of litigation against the same poster by someone else is another example of political correctness gone wrong.

I will make my own mind up before the referendum, in the meantime if that makes me a homophobe in some peoples eyes then so be it, get over yourself, everyone is entitled to their opinion, that's why we supposedly liven in a democracy.

macker33

Lu Tze wrote: »

So they haven't said anything of the sort?

Whats to stop a man from having six wives?

macker33

cursai wrote: »

I think the plan was to let them slowly breed/not breed themselves out of existence but this whole adoption thing throws that idea out the window. Sexual preferences are breed by the parents don't you know.

Not one bit, there is no gay gene, and you know for a fact that gays have looked very hard for it.

macker33

freelancerTax wrote: »

isn't kiddy fiddling a sin also?? most likley illegal also?
what about moving know kiddy fiddlers around to different parishes instead of handing them over to authorities?

super bad, personally i would have given them the needle to the nuts and locked them up for life, the church fvcked up

Guy:Incognito

macker33 wrote: »

Whats to stop a man from having six wives?

self preservation.

macker33

cursai wrote: »

No no no. The bible says it is a man and womans duty to procreate. We can still have 'normal' children just have to isolate them from lefty artsy influences. Tv convinces kids to be gay seemingly.

You truely are a product of the times

freelancerTax

macker33 wrote: »

Not one bit, there is no gay gene, and you know for a fact that gays have looked very hard for it.

there is also no "like chocolate ice cream" gene

you cannot choose what you like... of course you will try convince everyone else otherwise......

macker33

B_Wayne wrote: »

Justifying the laundries now, I'm really not surprised unfortunately.

I just have the ability to see good in most things.

1hnr79jr65

macker33 wrote: »

One way ticket to a tropical island paradise

Funny there was a guy 60 odd years or so in our past who had a similar idea for a 1 way ticket destination for anyone Jewish because he didnt agree with their right to exist.

Amazing similarity to your quote there.

sunshine and showers

Royal Legend wrote: »

I will make my own mind up before the referendum, in the meantime if that makes me a homophobe in some peoples eyes then so be it, get over yourself, everyone is entitled to their opinion, that's why we supposedly liven in a democracy.

I'm curious about how your view of marriage has evolved as you've grown up and realised that children are not an integral part of marriage. I mean, are a childless married couple "less" married that a married couple with three kids?

Are you aware that adoption by same sex couples has been legalised recently? That makes it something of a non-issue with regards the vote on the 22nd.

I'm not trying to attack you, nor am I calling you homophobic, by the way.

macker33

cursai wrote: »

I predict a shorter timeframe as they'll just get bored of acting the eejit. Sure its only a fad.

Gay marriage could actually be the worse thing ever to happen gays.

All the gay fly by night gay bears will be at home watching emmerdale instead of hanging around public toilets looking for new recruits.

Loafers in cork has just closed down, could be a sign of things to come.

macker33

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Liberals, homosexuality and leprechauns. :rolleyes:

no change so

gravehold

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

Funny there was a guy 60 odd years or so in our past who had a similar idea for a 1 way ticket destination for anyone Jewish because he didnt agree with their right to exist.

Amazing similarity to your quote there.

Funnily enough the jews went to isreal by themselves in the end and prospered.

Guy:Incognito

Royal Legend wrote: »

Reading the posts in here, beginning to think it should be moved to AH. (There is definitely at least one troll in the thread, not hard to see who)

There is IMO a bigger issue at hand, Political Correctness.

Its the one point that I would agree with the OP, people are afraid to speak out and debate and say they are voting No or are not sure, because then, as can be seen in some of the posts in here, are then tagged as homophobes or major league die hard Catholics. The media is definitely pushing the Yes vote, the amount of air time given to a silly debate on a stock photo used by the No campaign was IMO petty and has no bearing whatsoever on the referendum.

Those of us of a certain age, (between 40-50) would have been brought up to believe that Marriage was between a man and a woman, that men and women were put on this earth solely for the purpose to procreate. People older than us would for the most part strictly believe in this.

People of my age have seen huge change and for the most part we have accepted and embraced this change. When we were young and girls were victimised for having kids outside of marriage, we stood up for them, backed them etc. I had a friend that died in a field giving birth to a child, it was her second one, and the scandal and shame that this would have caused her and her family, forced her to try to hide the fact, causing her death.

Back in our day, Priests and Bishops were untouchable, we were the ones that stopped kowtowing to them and took them off their pedestal.

Teachers, yet another institution that was put on a pedestal years ago, now we confront, question, how teachers operate and how they teach our children, years ago, you could not do that.

There were no Gay people in our day, they were there but hid it for fear of retribution and shame. I knew people who were Gay 20 years ago, they were friends, colleagues etc. Again, our generation was probably the first to accept that people could be who they wanted to be.

My 16 year old daughter has a friend who is Gay, she tells me that I have to vote yes. The young lad is in our house nearly every day, he is like a second son to us, what his sexual leanings are do not even enter our head.
My Mother in Law believes that there is a danger that Gays that adopt children could possibly abuse them. I have explained to her that she is wrong as there are plenty of heterosexual couples who have abused children.
A work colleague and I had a debate last week on if a a Gay couple adopting a child could then turn that child Gay? By the way, we both agreed that you are born Gay not made and that the parents gender had no effect on how a child would be brought up and that as TL stated earlier that there are plenty of dysfunctional families.

Anyway, long winded I know, but my point is this.

I am still on the fence as regards voting Yes/No. Not because I am a homophobe, but because, even though don't even go to church any more I still believe to an extent that marriage is between a man and a woman, also I am still trying to evaluate if this referendum does effect children or not as been pointed out by the No campaign.

Also, Enda Kenny sees this as a legacy issue for him, the man who brought in Gay Marriage. yet the cretin will not even debate it. Usually politicians use diversionary tactics to take interest away from other more major issues

There are a lot of people like me out there, who are afraid to speak up because we are then seen as homophobic or dinosaurs, because its not politically correct.

The poster that was trying to label Tayto Lover as a homophobe is a great example of this, the threat of litigation against the same poster by someone else is another example of political correctness gone wrong.

I will make my own mind up before the referendum, in the meantime if that makes me a homophobe in some peoples eyes then so be it, get over yourself, everyone is entitled to their opinion, that's why we supposedly liven in a democracy.

What bits about the children are your concerns?


Using Enda Kenny is a huge cop out btw. Not that I agree with your opinion but its entirely irrelevant. Something is either right or wrong. Should a member of the Gardai thats in it to climb the ladder and who really doesnt care about vistims arrests for murder or rape be dismissed?