nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Kermit.de.frog

I think it is in May.

I won't because it does not affect me. If they get it passed fair play but I doubt i'm in a minority when I say I have little interest in it.

I think this apathy might be the biggest risk to the referendum and also the appeal of giving the government a harmless (in my view) kicking.

Anyone feel the same way about it? I just could not be bothered. I think it will be like the children's referendum. Very low turnout.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

efb

1123heavy wrote: »

Some crap there my friend, firstly I know exactly what I'm talking about thank you very much, it doesn't look like the same can be said for you though.

Taking the UK as an example, when putting the child up for adoption the biological parents have no say whatsoever in where/ to whom their child goes, there was recently a case where a girl was sent to a SSC and despite the parents actions and protest, they couldn't stop it. Over here, that is not the case, I know of many cases where the biological parents got to have some say in who eventually took the child, ensuring it wasn't a SSC was one of them !

People can't voluntarily give their child up for adoption- its usually after cases of extreme neglect, but they should still control the child they abused;s life???

Ireland only recently changed the law, so I am not aware of any child with living parents being adopted

Tar.Aldarion

Yeah of course, it's a no brainer for me and the one vote that actually got me to change my voting address to my new county after years.

It's got nothing to do with if it affects me or anybody i ever know, it's about basic human compassion.

kylith

golfball37 wrote: »

Me personally- I will be voting no as I just don't believe its natural. Civil partnership, inheritence rights and equal rights all fine by me but marriage is a step too far as adoption will inevitably be the next item on the agenda.

So, if you're all for gay people being able to have civil partnerships, and inherit from each other, and presumably get tax breaks because of their civil partnership what's the big whoop about just letting them have a marriage which, afaics, isn't all that different?

How will gay people being able to get married and call it getting married detract from anyone's hetrosexual marriage? I really can't understand it. Is it a case of "My marriage is only special because other people aren't allowed have one"? A need to exclude people from ones 'club'?

endacl

1123heavy wrote: »

Some crap there my friend, firstly I know exactly what I'm talking about thank you very much, it doesn't look like the same can be said for you though.

Taking the UK as an example, when putting the child up for adoption the biological parents have no say whatsoever in where/ to whom their child goes, there was recently a case where a girl was sent to a SSC and despite the parents actions and protest, they couldn't stop it. Over here, that is not the case, I know of many cases where the biological parents got to have some say in who eventually took the child, ensuring it wasn't a SSC was one of them !

1. No you don't. This is evidenced by your posts.
2. That sounds like an eminently sensible approach by the uk.
3. You'll need to provide a link for some of these unsuccessful protests.
4. You don't actually know of a single case, do you?

TL;DR I don't believe you. You made that up.

Timberrrrrrrr

1123heavy wrote: »

Some crap there my friend, firstly I know exactly what I'm talking about thank you very much, it doesn't look like the same can be said for you though.

Taking the UK as an example, when putting the child up for adoption the biological parents have no say whatsoever in where/ to whom their child goes, there was recently a case where a girl was sent to a SSC and despite the parents actions and protest, they couldn't stop it. Over here, that is not the case, I know of many cases where the biological parents got to have some say in who eventually took the child, ensuring it wasn't a SSC was one of them !

And i'm sure you have plenty of evidence to back this up?

1123heavy

So we have gotten to the stage at which people think it is perfectly normal and reasonable to have 2 mothers or 2 fathers !?!?!?!?!?!? I despair !

Due to a child's very nature, they need both a father AND a mother to carry out the upbringing, they each bring two different thigs to the child's development that no other combination of SSC could bring. I can go on all day about how the mother and father's roll differs and how they are both equally important. What you people who support all this carry on want is to change nature, well we are humans and our needs for a proper upbringing won't change whether you like it or not !

I have nothing personal against gay people, my manager at work is gay and i know of other gays in and around college. I do not support homosexuality, however I do put up with it for the sake of society.

You can have all the wonderful modern ideas in the world, but we are humans and need a mother and a father.

I despair to think of what'll be next, people wanting laws passed to marry sheep ? cars ? ... TV's ? I certainly wouldn't put it past you people.

Seriously?

Unless there's some negative consequence for me to vote yes I will most likely vote that way.

Daith

1123heavy wrote: »

I despair to think of what'll be next, people wanting laws passed to marry sheep ? cars ? ... TV's ? I certainly wouldn't put it past you people.

Why is it that only people opposed to same sex marriage are the ones who think about marrying sheep.

Timberrrrrrrr

1123heavy wrote: »

So we have gotten to the stage at which people think it is perfectly normal and reasonable to have 2 mothers or 2 fathers !?!?!?!?!?!? I despair !

Due to a child's very nature, they need both a father AND a mother to carry out the upbringing, they each bring two different thigs to the child's development that no other combination of SSC could bring. I can go on all day about how the mother and father's roll differs and how they are both equally important. What you people who support all this carry on want is to change nature, well we are humans and our needs for a proper upbringing won't change whether you like it or not !

I have nothing personal against gay people, my manager at work is gay and i know of other gays in and around college. I do not support homosexuality, however I do put up with it for the sake of society.

You can have all the wonderful modern ideas in the world, but we are humans and need a mother and a father.

I despair to think of what'll be next, people wanting laws passed to marry sheep ? cars ? ... TV's ? I certainly wouldn't put it past you people.

So single parents?

1123heavy

Also on the adoption in the UK, it was Tony blair's wonderful adoption act that brought it in, in case you were wondering.

eviltwin

1123heavy wrote: »

So we have gotten to the stage at which people think it is perfectly normal and reasonable to have 2 mothers or 2 fathers !?!?!?!?!?!? I despair !

Due to a child's very nature, they need both a father AND a mother to carry out the upbringing, they each bring two different thigs to the child's development that no other combination of SSC could bring. I can go on all day about how the mother and father's roll differs and how they are both equally important. What you people who support all this carry on want is to change nature, well we are humans and our needs for a proper upbringing won't change whether you like it or not !

I have nothing personal against gay people, my manager at work is gay and i know of other gays in and around college. I do not support homosexuality, however I do put up with it for the sake of society.

You can have all the wonderful modern ideas in the world, but we are humans and need a mother and a father.

I despair to think of what'll be next, people wanting laws passed to marry sheep ? cars ? ... TV's ? I certainly wouldn't put it past you people.

What about all the gay couples who have no interest at all in having a family? Would you support their right to marry?

Witcher

1123heavy wrote: »

I can go on all day about how the mother and father's roll differs .

Butter on one mayo on the other?

1123heavy

Timber a single parent (while not ideal) is a million times better than a SSC. At least the poor child isn't confused as much.

floggg

wexandproud wrote: »

have always voted and will be this time. Was on the fence with this one at the moment but this sort of attitude from one side of the debate really pi..e. me off and would help me make my mind up very quickly

So you would vote to deny me equality out of spite?

Some people characterise the yes side as "bullies" for saying there is no valid reason to vote no.

The thing is, there is no valid reason to vote no. Seriously, any reason put forward to date can quickly be deconstructed as being based in either religion or prejudice (religion is not relevant to civil marriage - it won't effect the position or stance of any church).

And that's not just the yes side saying that - there have been a spate of court cases in the US in the last two years where the judges have concluded exactly that after hearing the arguments (many of whom were republican appointees in republican states and circuits).

So it's not bullying, it's actually a statement of fact.

Please don't vote no just to spite people though - there are plenty of real life people who will be affected negatively by your spite vote.

floggg

1123heavy wrote: »

I shall be voting NO. They can do whatever they like but 'marriage' itself was made to be a sign of a bonding between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or two women. I'm also not liking the bully boy tactics and people putting pressure on everyone else to vote their way by name calling. I have a right to vote whatever way I want and I should not and will not accept abuse from anybody for it.

Actually, originally it was a property transaction between a man and the father(s) of the one or more labourers/sex slaves purchased by the man.

Penny Tration

1123heavy wrote: »

Timber a single parent (while not ideal) is a million times better than a SSC. At least the poor child isn't confused as much.

Why would a child be confused? Pretty simple - 'mummy likes ladies, so you get to have two mummies instead of just one. Some people have a mummy and a daddy, some have two daddies, some have only one mummy or one daddy and that's all, but they're all families who love each other.'

Pretty simple to explain it to a child.

endacl

1123heavy wrote: »

Timber a single parent (while not ideal) is a million times better than a SSC. At least the poor child isn't confused as much.

Do you talk this kinda bollocks in real life, or is it just an online thing?

Timberrrrrrrr

1123heavy wrote: »

Timber a single parent (while not ideal) is a million times better than a SSC. At least the poor child isn't confused as much.

Do you think a child cares about it's parents sexuality as long as it's loved? You are the one claiming a child NEEDS a Mother AND a Father but in reality that's not true is it? A child can grow up just as well with one Mother or one Father or two of each, The fact is that you think it's wrong.

Going Strong

1123heavy wrote: »

I do not support homosexuality, however I do put up with it for the sake of society.

I hear you! I tolerate people talking sh*te on the internet all the time just for the greater good of humanity. And I don't even ask for a Nobel Prize or anything. Although, a gift token might be nice.

Nomis21

conditioned games wrote: »

I'll be voting no. Way off the chart to be considered normal behaviour.

Yes, let's all be "Normal". What a great World that would be to live in.

mrsbyrne

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Luckily most Catholics nowadays are the mindless sheep people would like them to be.

Another example of how the yes campaigners shoot themselves in the foot. One poster says "imbeciles", this poster says " mindless sheep". The idiotic assumption that all Catholics will vote no.
This is what gets fence sitters backs up. Stupid nasty name calling and insults.
Do you really think you are going to encourage people out to vote by threatening and insulting them? Really?

kunst nugget

eviltwin wrote: »

What about all the gay couples who have no interest at all in having a family? Would you support their right to marry?

They'll just change their mind after they get married. They're fair schneaky like that.

kylith

Daith wrote: »

I'm not, however the Catholic Church as an organisation has made it's stance. It will have no problem saying "If you're a good Catholic vote no"

Good Catholics may vote no, but good people will vote yes.

RobertKK wrote: »

The church would argue that God judges, and the word of God in the bible on homosexuality is against same sex relationships, whether that is in Levicticus, Sodom and Gomorrah or in one of the letters of St Peter.

You have a right to accept or reject based on what you believe.

The bible is also very heavily against seafood, pork, clothes made of mixed materials, not wearing tassels, having anything to do with a woman who has had a period in the last week, mildew, and shaving. You going to be campaigning for those to be banned or is it only things that don't effect you you agree with banning?

1123heavy wrote: »

Due to a child's very nature, they need both a father AND a mother to carry out the upbringing, they each bring two different thigs to the child's development that no other combination of SSC could bring. I can go on all day about how the mother and father's roll differs and how they are both equally important. What you people who support all this carry on want is to change nature, well we are humans and our needs for a proper upbringing won't change whether you like it or not !

So single parents? Should they have their children taken away or should they be forced into marriages?

1123heavy wrote: »

I despair to think of what'll be next, people wanting laws passed to marry sheep ? cars ? ... TV's ? I certainly wouldn't put it past you people.

Yes, of course. A sheep or a car is totally capable of making an informed decision and signing a marriage licence :rolleyes:

FairytaleGirl

Several points:

I can't vote as I'm from NI (at least I think I can't? ) but I will be encouraging all my family and partners family to do so.

I want to be able to marry my partner of almost 5 years. It's a kick in the gut attending weddings of our straight friends - knowing that in the eyes of the country - we're seen as 'not good enough' and not worthy of being allowed the same choice. Despite the fact that numerous straight people - both of my parents included - have been divorced and remarried. It's ridiculous.

Secondly- I am *gasp* CATHOLIC AND GAY. I pray every day, and let me tell you I have seen many signs of my prayers being answered- if God had an issue with my relationship I'm sure it would have became apparent.
Also - read the bible - Ruth and Naomi and Jonathon and David ...

Thirdly, when all so 'perfect' straight people stop abandoning their children then maybe a decent argument could be put forward for not allowing SS Adoption. But until then - all children deserve a loving family- the logistics of how that family is made up is IRRELEVANT. A child from a gay family will have male input from uncles/granda's. Unless it's your child dont concern yourself with those worries.

Penny Tration

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Another example of how the yes campaigners shoot themselves in the foot. One poster says "imbeciles", this poster says " mindless sheep". The idiotic assumption that all Catholics will vote no.
This is what gets fence sitters backs up. Stupid nasty name calling and insults.
Do you really think you are going to encourage people out to vote by threatening and insulting them? Really?

SOME yes campaigners speak like that, just like SOME no campaigners say that having same sex parents is child abuse. There's examples of bad behaviour from both sides here on this thread.

For what it's worth, I don't give a monkeys what someone's religion is.

My mum is a practising Catholic, as are my sisters, and they're all voting yes.

[Deleted User]

1123heavy wrote: »

I don't know about you, but I would NOT have liked to have had 2 dads, 2 mums etc. Child abuse !!!

OMG!!!!

Seriously though, is there any evidence of these relationships harming a child? I think not.

I know a few same sex couples who are married and have adopted children, those kids seem perfectly fine and happy.

Nomis21

RobertKK wrote: »

The biggest threat to this referendum being passed comes from people on the yes side.
You see it on this thread, name calling and those who see a yes vote as being an anti religion or anti Catholic church vote.

People can vote how they want, no one has been appointed to judge anyone who votes either yes or no.

If it would be promoted as "Anti-Religion" I think there would be an even larger "Yes" vote

AnonoBoy

1123heavy wrote: »

Timber a single parent (while not ideal) is a million times better than a SSC. At least the poor child isn't confused as much.

Children aren't confused because they haven't been socially conditioned to believe marriage can only be between a man and a woman. They'll be just fine ducky.

conorhal

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Another example of how the yes campaigners shoot themselves in the foot. One poster says "imbeciles", this poster says " mindless sheep". The idiotic assumption that all Catholics will vote no.
This is what gets fence sitters backs up. Stupid nasty name calling and insults.
Do you really think you are going to encourage people out to vote by threatening and insulting them? Really?

I intend to vote yes, but after a careful consideration of all the broader societal and cultural issues.

Bacause this referendum creates a fundemental change for all of society it is worthy of consideration and proper debate and even though I'll be voting yes I've not been impressed by the lack of any substantive debate about the issue and even less impressed by the barking down of any dissent by my own side. We live in a democracy, there should be debate but some don't seem to think so. My only fear is that the referendum could be lost by a failure to campaign on the positives rather then campaigning on atacking and belittling the opposition.

eviltwin

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Another example of how the yes campaigners shoot themselves in the foot. One poster says "imbeciles", this poster says " mindless sheep". The idiotic assumption that all Catholics will vote no.
This is what gets fence sitters backs up. Stupid nasty name calling and insults.
Do you really think you are going to encourage people out to vote by threatening and insulting them? Really?

The Church will have a campaign urging people to vote No. They did it with divorce, they did it with abortion. I was at a wedding in the lead up to the last election where the priest used his position to remind everyone that if they voted for a pro-choice candidate it was a sin. There are plenty of "good Catholics" who support SSM but equally there are people on the fence who will be hearing all sorts of rubbish in mass that could influence their vote.