SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Annasopra · 02-07-2014 06:56PM

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

Oh here we go....
Men marrying each other is a big paedo conspiracy

denhaagenite · 02-07-2014 06:56PM

Nodin wrote: »

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

It's not just gay people he's targeting in fairness, he doesn't recognise any civil marriage.

Annasopra · 02-07-2014 06:57PM

denhaagenite wrote: »

It's not just gay people he's targeting in fairness, he doesn't recognise any civil marriage.

In fairness my bleedin hole - why the fcuk isnt he campaigning to end civil marriage then!

Nodin · 02-07-2014 07:02PM

denhaagenite wrote: »

It's not just gay people he's targeting in fairness, he doesn't recognise any civil marriage.

Because nobody pointed the be-feathered bone at them and shouted "gowan ye good thing"?

PopePalpatine · 02-07-2014 07:17PM

RobertKK wrote: »

There will be no embarrassment if it is not passed.

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

Or maybe they actually have some empathy. Something which the anti- side seem to lack towards LGBT people.

Zed Bank · 02-07-2014 07:22PM

I have yet to hear a secular argument against same-sex marriage.

SimonTemplar · 02-07-2014 07:24PM

What really annoys me about those on the No side, even more than the equality issue, is that they feel they have the right to dictate if people can marry despite the fact they have never met them, will never meet them, and the couple will never impact their lives in the slightest way.

And the old argument that same sex marriage will weaken the "institute of marriage" is a load of crap. I guarantee we'll hear that argument during media debates. It is impossible for a No campaigner to adequately describe how two people who love each other and who want to spend their lives together "weakens" the "institute of marriage".

If a person's idea of marriage is dependent on not allowing a certain group of people to marry, surely that is a very warped, cold and callous view to take. Marriage should be about love and security. It's not an exclusive country club with people of a certain demographic being turned away at the door.

Bloody hell, how can people be so self-centered and close minded about this topic in this day and age in a developed country

02-07-2014 07:27PM

hoodwinked wrote: »

it's not so long ago civil marriage was unheard of and done by very little, pre 2005 (wasn't it?) you simply had a choice of church or registry office room, and as alternatives are slowly becoming more popular but they are still constrained by the rules set down by the religious marriage, (recent no marriages outdoors for example)

My aunt had a civil wedding in the 70's. She used a registry office, but civil marriages were certainly available.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 02-07-2014 07:29PM

SimonTemplar wrote: »

And the old argument that same sex marriage will weaken the "institute of marriage" is a load of crap. I guarantee we'll hear that argument during media debates. It is impossible for a No campaigner to adequately describe how two people who love each other and who want to spend their lives together "weakens" the "institute of marriage".

Exactly! If allowing committed, monogamous couples to marry, enjoy the financial and legal protections of marriage, and raise children together really destabilises the institution of marriage then it's a pretty shít institution.

There's a fierce whiff of childishness off the No side a lot of the time, like a spoilt child who suddenly doesn't think their toy is as good when they realise other kids have the same one.

NuMarvel · 02-07-2014 07:30PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Equally, I hope they don't block churches or religious bodies who want to perform same-sex marriages from doing so. That was originally proposed as part of the SSM legislation in the UK as a sop to the Church of England. Since we don't have an established church in this country there should be less of an issue.

I don't think it will be an issue. The rites of marriage are usually a prominent part of a religious organisation's faith, and the Constitution protects the freedom of a religious body to practice their faith. Any kind of block or barrier would be contrary to the Constitution, so it wouldn't stand up in court. Similarly, the likes of the RCC can't be forced to marry gay couples, in the same way they can't be forced to marry divorced people.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 07:32PM

Zed Bank wrote: »

You can't get away with sexism or racism, so why should homophobia be any different?

So one is homophobic if they don't support same sex marriage and should be banned?

SimonTemplar · 02-07-2014 07:32PM

If the referendum passes, will the marriages of the No campaigners be in any way diluted? No, of course they won't. And any couple who feels their own marriage will be affected by same sex marriages need to seriously think about why they got married in the first place.

Delirium · 02-07-2014 07:34PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I have done nothing wrong, but if it is upsetting you that I don't share your opinion I will stop posting in this topic.
I have not looked for anyone to be banned who did break the rule of attacking the poster and not the post.

It doesn't bode well for future debates that one side wants the other side silenced through a banning.

You only just recently suggested that same-sex couples will marry to adopt and molest children. Look to the standard of your own contributions before criticizing others.

Zed Bank · 02-07-2014 07:34PM

RobertKK wrote: »

So one is homophobic if they don't support same sex marriage and should be banned?

You're going around in circles here. It's been established that denying rights to a minority group is discrimination I.e homophobia

Bubbaclaus · 02-07-2014 07:35PM

RobertKK, how would a Yes vote in the Referendum affect your life? The fact that you feel the urge to vote No obviously means you think this will affect you somehow. I'd be interested to hear what affect it will have on you personally.

Look forward to your answer.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 07:36PM

SW wrote: »

You only just recently suggested that same-sex couples will marry to adopt and molest children. Look to the standard of your own contributions before criticizing others.

I said heterosexual men who are paedophiles could.
Is this impossible?

SimonTemplar · 02-07-2014 07:36PM

Camron Stale Witch wrote: »

Exactly! If allowing committed, monogamous couples to marry, enjoy the financial and legal protections of marriage, and raise children together really destabilises the institution of marriage then it's a pretty shít institution.

There's a fierce whiff of childishness off the No side a lot of the time, like a spoilt child who suddenly doesn't think their toy is as good when they realise other kids have the same one.

Yeah I know, and I genuinely can't understand how people can think that marriage is an exclusive club. Marriage is a lot of things, many of them wonderful, but it certainly isn't exclusive.

Corkfeen · 02-07-2014 07:39PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I said heterosexual men who are paedophiles could.
Is this impossible?

Heterosexual men in heterosexual marriages could do the exact same thing. Pointed out to you so many times...... But you're not objecting to heterosexual marriage......

Delirium · 02-07-2014 07:40PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I said heterosexual men who are paedophiles could.
Is this impossible?

same-sex = two people of the same sex, this doesn't have to mean homosexual. I haven't said anything you didn't post. So the point still stands.

It's just anti-homosexual scaremongering. You're suggesting that two men/women would marry for the sole purpose of molesting children. Do you not see how insane an argument that is to not allow same-sex marriage?

Muise... · 02-07-2014 07:42PM

SW wrote: »

same-sex = two people of the same sex, this doesn't have to mean homosexual. I haven't said anything you didn't post. So the point still stands.

It's just anti-homosexual scaremongering. You're suggesting that two men/women would marry for the sole purpose of molesting children. Do you not see how insane an argument that is to not allow same-sex marriage?

It'd make the Libertas poster to end all Libertas posters though. :pac:

_Redzer_ · 02-07-2014 07:44PM

SW wrote: »

same-sex = two people of the same sex, this doesn't have to mean homosexual. I haven't said anything you didn't post. So the point still stands.

It's just anti-homosexual scaremongering. You're suggesting that two men/women would marry for the sole purpose of molesting children. Do you not see how insane an argument that is to not allow same-sex marriage?

That's clearly the length they need to go to to make a "valid" point against SSM

jill_valentine · 02-07-2014 07:44PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I said heterosexual men who are paedophiles could.
Is this impossible?

Statistical incidence of child abuse in lesbian households is actually 0%, so I take it we can carry on ahead ourselves, yeah?

Links234 · 02-07-2014 07:45PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I said heterosexual men who are paedophiles could.
Is this impossible?

We shouldn't build wheelchair ramps in case people on motorbikes ride into shops and wreck up the place.
Is this impossible?

Foxhound38 · 02-07-2014 07:46PM

RobertKK wrote: »

That is a poor argument. Look to reproduction, and apply your argument.
Nature denies biological children to two people of the same sex. Producing biological children naturally is confined to opposite sexes.
So nature denies equality in humans. Nature has the relationship between man and woman differently than to that of the same sex.
Using the arguments some use, nature is bigoted and homophobic for denying same sex couples the "right" to produce biological children together.

In real life same sex marriage will not give equality, that is why the government has to fiddle around with adoption rights to give a perception it is equal, due to nature denying same sex couples a biological child.
Nature has children with a mother and father. If nature wanted same sex adoption and equality as some argue they are fighting for it would have allowed biological children for same sex couples.

The fact is same sex marriage will never be truly equal as people of child bearing age in a marriage will only have the possibility of a biological child in an opposite sex marriage.

We can vote yes for perception reasons.

Why do you care about what sort of marraige other people who aren't you and have nothing to do with you have?

_Redzer_ · 02-07-2014 07:46PM

Links234 wrote: »

We shouldn't build wheelchair ramps in case people on motorbikes ride into shops and wreck up the place.
Is this impossible?

Personally, I'd love to see that! :pac:

shruikan2553 · 02-07-2014 07:48PM

You dont need to apply for adoption as a couple. Hence the unusual situation where a gay person can adopt on their own but not as a couple which is being solved separately to same sex marriage.

Why aren't people adopting to abuse children now?

Bubbaclaus · 02-07-2014 07:50PM

The sheer joy some posters seem to be getting from declaring they will be voting to deny a minority group equal rights is truly terrifying.

Why would someone openly say they will be voting to deny a minority equal rights?

I thought we were in Ireland 2014, not 1930/40s Germany.

denhaagenite · 02-07-2014 07:55PM

Look folks, while I don't agree with RobertKK's views, he is voting no and is entitled to exercise his civil liberties in doing so- he is not campaigning for the "No" side. He doesn't agree with any civil marriage as he outlined a few pages back so I don't see how anyone can act incredulous at his opposition to SSM, which would be civil marriage. Fair enough, his comment re: hetero paedos adopting was a tangent of epic proportions but I think if you keep pushing someone who has a strong belief to provide more and more reasons as to why they disagree, that's probably what's going to happen.

He has his opinions, you have yours. Nobody needs to ram anything down anyone's throat. I think he has a prejudice (he is RC so he has to have) but I wouldn't go so far as to say he is homophobic.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 07:55PM

SW wrote: »

same-sex = two people of the same sex, this doesn't have to mean homosexual. I haven't said anything you didn't post. So the point still stands.

It's just anti-homosexual scaremongering. You're suggesting that two men/women would marry for the sole purpose of molesting children. Do you not see how insane an argument that is to not allow same-sex marriage?

Wrong.

Your argument is wrong if you think it is anti-homosexual. Decades ago one might have said someone like me was anti-clergy if I said peadophiles were entering the priesthood for easy access to children due to the trust and respect a priest has.
How insane it would be that someone would use that argument about the clergy who are holy people.

Lets all be blind here like we were in the past...

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 07:57PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

You dont need to apply for adoption as a couple. Hence the unusual situation where a gay person can adopt on their own but not as a couple which is being solved separately to same sex marriage.

Why aren't people adopting to abuse children now?

It is happening.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments