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 Referendum Spring 2015

1…1920222425…69

Comments

  • #632
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    I've addressed points of yours plenty of times in the past but the truth about you is you're hateful and bigoted. People are free to assess their opinion on you,based on what you say.


    There will be tonnes of embarrassment if does not pass. This country voting against a person's rights is shameful. However I believe it will pass.

    Realistically those who would be mortified by a yes vote are dicks.


    Civil marriage predates your god, it's been a thing for millenia, you don't have ownership over it and you're going to have deal with the fact it is also a legal contract. You are free to participate in it as a sacrament. The state is not going to force the church to do anything so it doesn't affect you. You really need to grow up.


    You are the one that is hateful if you believe I am because I don't hate anyone. I think hate is the worse trait for any human, it just adds a weight one has to carry around, it may not directly affect the person one might hate, it affects the person who holds the hate.
    I hope you can stop hating me, as the feeling is not mutual.

    It is perceived embarrassment, it is not a reason to vote yes or no. Anyone moritified by any outcome has little to worry about in life. I wish that is all I had to to concern me.


    I never said I had ownership over anything, but as a citizen of this state I have a right to cast my vote on civil marriage, I will not vote for more of something I oppose.
    I have also stated in the past about marriage without God for those who don't believe in a God. But that will be ignored.


  • #633
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Links234 wrote: »
    RobertKK's arguments are more circular than a circle >_< It's mindnumbing to read

    That is not arguing any point.


  • #634
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    RobertKK wrote: »
    You are the one that is hateful if you believe I am because I don't hate anyone. I think hate is the worse trait for any human, it just adds a weight one has to carry around, it may not directly affect the person one might hate, it affects the person who holds the hate.
    I hope you can stop hating me, as the feeling is not mutual.

    It is perceived embarrassment, it is not a reason to vote yes or no. Anyone moritified by any outcome has little to worry about in life. I wish that is all I had to to concern me.


    I never said I had ownership over anything, but as a citizen of this state I have a right to cast my vote on civil marriage, I will not vote for more of something I oppose.
    I have also stated in the past about marriage without God for those who don't believe in a God. But that will be ignored.
    You said panti should have taken her own advice in relation to the fact she has HIV. You're adamant on limiting the rights of gay people. You believe their standing should be less legal than the rest of society. You have previously related child abuse and same sex parenting. Yep, you're pretty damn hateful even if you can't see this.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    That is not arguing any point.

    Now I guess you know how we feel.


  • #635
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    RobertKK wrote: »
    That is not arguing any point.

    Neither are you or a few others on this thread, it's non-sequitor after dodge after duck after going back again to the same refuted arguments. You seem to be posting an awful lot, but saying very little.


  • #636
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    So has anyone managed to come up with a reason for any non Christian gay person to get married that doesn't apply to heterosexuals as well?


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I never said I had ownership over anything, but as a citizen of this state I have a right to cast my vote on civil marriage, I will not vote for more of something I oppose.

    Just so we are clear on the point, in your opinion the arguments against civil marriage outweigh LGBT peoples right to equal treatment?

    And as a follow up, does it bother you at that continued discrimination against LGBT would be the only consequence of your no vote. A no vote won't do anything to civil marriage as a whole - just exclude one minority from something the rest of the country can freely do.

    Do you feel bad at all for us? Any guilt about the collateral damage?


  • #638
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    So has anyone managed to come up with a reason for any non Christian gay person to get married that doesn't apply to heterosexuals as well?

    To spite the gays.


  • #639
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    You said panti should have taken her own advice in relation to the fact she has HIV. You're adamant on limiting the rights of gay people. You believe their standing should be less legal than the rest of society. You have previously related child abuse and same sex parenting. Yep, you're pretty damn hateful even if you can't see this.



    Now I guess you know how we feel.


    Can you please get the quote where I mentioned Panti and HIV? I didn't know who Panti was until he slandered people on TV. Didn't know he had HIV until I heard him on the radio recently.
    I am invested in a company that researches, develops and produces HIV treatments, if I hated gay people like Panti I wouldn't do such a thing.

    I have said same sex couples will get marriage and decades later we will see how they (same sex couples) will have been used like the priesthood was.


  • #640
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Can you please get the quote where I mentioned Panti and HIV? I didn't know who Panti was until he slandered people on TV. Didn't know he had HIV until I heard him on the radio recently.
    I am invested in a company that researches, develops and produces HIV treatments, if I hated gay people like Panti I wouldn't do such a thing.

    I have said same sex couples will get marriage and decades later we will see how they (same sex couples) will have been used like the priesthood was.

    What would they be used for? Tax reasons?


  • #641
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    You are the one that is hateful if you believe I am because I don't hate anyone.........

    You just want to force your beliefs on others, which is so, so much better and morally sound.


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Can you please get the quote where I mentioned Panti and HIV? I didn't know who Panti was until he slandered people on TV. .........

    He was convicted of slander?

    When did that happen?


  • #643
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    So has anyone managed to come up with a reason for any non Christian gay person to get married that doesn't apply to heterosexuals as well?

    eh................no


  • #644
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Can you please get the quote where I mentioned Panti and HIV? I didn't know who Panti was until he slandered people on TV. Didn't know he had HIV until I heard him on the radio recently.
    I am invested in a company that researches, develops and produces HIV treatments, if I hated gay people like Panti I wouldn't do such a thing.

    I have said same sex couples will get marriage and decades later we will see how they (same sex couples) will have been used like the priesthood was.


    People would have to be feeling very self conscience if they cared what others thought, Croatia voted against it, no big deal.[/QUOTE]

    Correction that was the moral guardian that is Paddy. The rest is perfectly correct though. Would you classify Appenzell Innerrhoden in Switzerland as voting in a sexist manner? They consistently voted against women's right to vote up until 1989 where they were effectively forced to allow women to vote. In relation to paedophilia,you bull****ted about it for the few years but still can't really prove any related escalation,you're that obsessed to limiting rights of gay people that you'll use any excuse.


  • #645
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    floggg wrote: »
    Just so we are clear on the point, in your opinion the arguments against civil marriage outweigh LGBT peoples right to equal treatment?

    And as a follow up, does it bother you at that continued discrimination against LGBT would be the only consequence of your no vote. A no vote won't do anything to civil marriage as a whole - just exclude one minority from something the rest of the country can freely do.

    Do you feel bad at all for us? Any guilt about the collateral damage?

    I am allowed my opinion, as are you. I have one vote so it outweighs no one else.

    I don't feel bad about anything. Nothing will change with a no vote for there to be collateral damage.


  • #646
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I am invested in a company that researches, develops and produces HIV treatments, if I hated gay people like Panti I wouldn't do such a thing.

    Sure, you invested to help the gays - not in the hope of a return on the investment.

    Though if acting altruistically why didn't you just donate the money instead?


  • #647
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Nodin wrote: »
    He was convicted of slander?

    When did that happen?

    This what RTE feared and so payed money.


  • #648
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I am allowed my opinion, as are you. I have one vote so it outweighs no one else.

    I don't feel bad about anything. Nothing will change with a no vote for there to be collateral damage.

    I never said anything about one vote outweighing another. I would suggest reading my post but it's not something you appear to enjoy.


  • #649
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    This what RTE feared .........


    But not what you said.


  • #650
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    floggg wrote: »
    Sure, you invested to help the gays - not in the hope of a return on the investment.

    Though if acting altruistically didn't you just donate the money instead?

    It helps homosexual people, it helps heterosexual people, it ultimately saves money for the health system and gives the person a better quality of life.
    Yes one wants a return but one will only get a return if the drug is doing good for the people the drug is targeted at.
    I have invested in companies that are looking for treatments/cures for alzheimers and cancer and have lost thousands too, because I know people who were affected by these diseases and I want treatments and cures, whoever it helps.
    The good news is great advancements are being made.


  • #651
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Nodin wrote: »
    But not what you said.

    I am not a lawyer, didn't have the phrasing parsed for wrongful posts. But that is what I meant: the latter.


  • Advertisement
  • #652
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    fran17 wrote: »
    Well this fellow panty is hiv positive so i am at a loss to understand why the media wouldn't publicise what is obviously a topic that he feels strongly about.do you have an opinion why?

    Really??

    Google it

    You get Irish Times, TV3, Newstalk, Sunday World, RTE, Today FM, Irish Independent, The Journal, Hot Press, The Sun, Irish Examiner, Mayo News

    So I dunno what fcuk you are on about!

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #653
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Correction that was the moral guardian that is Paddy. The rest is perfectly correct though. Would you classify Appenzell Innerrhoden in Switzerland as voting in a sexist manner? They consistently voted against women's right to vote up until 1989 where they were effectively forced to allow women to vote. In relation to paedophilia,you bull****ted about it for the few years but still can't really prove any related escalation,you're that obsessed to limiting rights of gay people that you'll use any excuse.[/QUOTE]

    How long did it take for the paedophile scandal in the church to surface?
    How long did it take for Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and others to be exposed?

    I will answer it took decades, the church ended up having to put child protection people with a priest to make sure the child is protected and the priest is protected. The church was targeted by these people, I simply believe with this loophole closed, there is another glaring obvious loophole for these type of people to target.
    It can be dismissed and I hope I am wrong but we won't know for a long time yet.


  • #654
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I am not a lawyer, didn't have the phrasing parsed for wrongful posts. But that is what I meant: the latter.


    The fears of RTE are hardly the stuff of which one might blacken a mans character. I suggest you find better material to hurl at the bould Panti.


  • #655
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    It'll be brought to Europe if it doesn't. There's just no way it can be allowed not to pass. This is the interracial marriage debate of the 21st century and like that, there's absolutely fúck all logical reason to oppose it.

    The ilk of the no side are doing a predictably awful job of justifying their irrational prejudice.
    Im not quite sure if Europe could do anything though.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #656
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Nodin wrote: »
    The fears of RTE are hardly the stuff of which one might blacken a mans character. I suggest you find better material to hurl at the bould Panti.

    I think it is a dangerous business for anyone to call anyone a name on the public media.


  • #657
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,248 ✭✭✭Daith


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I think it is a dangerous business for anyone to call anyone a name on the public media.

    Well the RTE presenter shouldn't have asked Panti to name names then.

    Especially when three members of Iona who weren't named also sued because they are so well known.


  • #658
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I think it is a dangerous business for anyone to call anyone a name on the public media.

    ...which again does nothing to justify your earlier statement re slander.

    Back more on topic - What gives you the sense of self righteousness to try and deny gay people the right to marry?


  • #659
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,035 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    RobertKK wrote: »
    How long did it take for the paedophile scandal in the church to surface?
    How long did it take for Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and others to be exposed?

    I will answer it took decades, the church ended up having to put child protection people with a priest to make sure the child is protected and the priest is protected. The church was targeted by these people, I simply believe with this loophole closed, there is another glaring obvious loophole for these type of people to target.
    It can be dismissed and I hope I am wrong but we won't know for a long time yet.

    So you reckon child molesters will get married so they can adopt child to abuse? Do you actually think before posting that sort of anti-homosexual scaremongering?

    It's incredibly insulting to every same-sex couple considering marriage as well as same-sex couples currently raising children.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #660
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I think it is a dangerous business for anyone to call anyone a name on the public media.

    Only dangerous for the medium, and only if the medium is a craven little scaredy cat.


  • Advertisement
  • #661
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...which again does nothing to justify your earlier statement re slander.

    Back more on topic - What gives you the sense of self righteousness to try and deny gay people the right to marry?

    Nature!


    Children!

    Accept my views!

    *rinse and repeat*


Advertisement