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

endacl

kylith wrote: »

Why you're bringing up the water charges I have no idea. Is someone trying to get a licence to marry their meter?

Only if we let the quares get married. And it'll be quare water meters after that.

Slippery feckin' slope...

AnonoBoy

elefant wrote: »

I used to think like this in my early teenage years. For shame.

I'm sure the same argument was one of those used to oppose mix-raced marriages in the past too.

fran17

I will be voting and it will be a no.I'm sick and tired of the Catholic Church bashing and this is just more of the same.Homosexuals already have a union thats recognised legally,marriage is a religious ceremony.They have an extreme intolerance for religion,which is very clearly visible here by the postings of the pro gay union people,but want a religious ceremony!Make up your minds.

Penny Tration

c_man wrote: »

Oh for gods sake. It's exactly this type of attitude that pisses me, and lots of others, off and I'm on the same side as you! Name calling and dismissing any argument against yours, yeah democracy is great...

Did you miss the part where a no vote campaigner called same sex parents child abusers?

FutureGuy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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.

One of the reasons I despise much of modern Ireland. This exact attitude.

Doesn't affect me personally so I won't bother about it. But take a few quid out my pocket for water charges - streets are full of protesters. "No way, we won't pay!"

But when it comes to giving an unfairly treated group in society the same rights as others, some people can't be arsed.

If I told you that you couldn't have your commitment to your partner recognised by the law because your boards user name starts with "K", you'd hope to fcuk that others would see how utterly moronic the decision was and that they would vote to abolish it.

I was in Barcelona on holidays when we noted a protest. 60000 people marching because the government were mulling over something like a 10% cut in funding to trainee nurses in a particular hospital. I wonder how many were actually affected by the decision - a miniscule fraction I would think, but they were not protesting because of some selfish reason, they were protesting because it was a just cause.

It's hilarious that people will happily turn out to vote in a bunch of hapless morons to run a government because they are unhappy about the current bunch of hapless morons, but when its a vote to ensure people have the same rights as others, people aren't bothered.

I'm not going to even comment on the whole "lets teach the government a lesson by not caring about it". Shur it's only affecting the happiness of 10% of the country.

Personally speaking, I will be out at the ****ing crack of dawn to vote yes.

Timberrrrrrrr

Manach wrote: »

I'll be voting No.

Both in defence of the traditional norms of marriage and to show there are some cultural legacies that cannot be changed, especially if this spikes this government moves to appease the PC brigade.

It's the cultural legacy in Afghanistan for women to be stoned to death, do you think this cultural legacy should be done away with?

Pherekydes

kylith wrote: »

Why you're bringing up the water charges I have no idea. Is someone trying to get a licence to marry their meter?

It's the brilliant and very sane logic of "If we let gay people marry, they'll start marrying anything. Maybe they'll want to marry their favourite bush (presumably flaming) in their garden."

kunst nugget

c_man wrote: »

If I'm in Ireland at the time, I'll vote in favour of it. But tbh, I don't think it's that big of an issue. Plenty more pressing things to be sorted imo but fair play to the community for getting this into the mainstream after years of campaigning, and one thing at a time I suppose.

Tbf, it might not be a big issue for you but it is to those it affects. If the vote goes against marriage equality it could be years, even decades before there may be a vote on it again. I'll be voting yes and encouraging everyone I know to do the same. I've tried to be pragmatic and see the opposing point of view on this and the merit in it but I can't see anything valid to the opposing arguments to same sex marriage and to allow people to lose the chance of equality over having an indifferent attitude to voting in this referendum is deeply unfair imo.

Manach

I'll be voting No.

Both in defence of the traditional norms of marriage and to show there are some cultural legacies that cannot be changed, especially if this spikes this government moves to appease the PC brigade.

floggg

c_man wrote: »

Oh for gods sake. It's exactly this type of attitude that pisses me, and lots of others, off and I'm on the same side as you! Name calling and dismissing any argument against yours, yeah democracy is great...

If I'm in Ireland at the time, I'll vote in favour of it. But tbh, I don't think it's that big of an issue. Plenty more pressing things to be sorted imo but fair play to the community for getting this into the mainstream after years of campaigning, and one thing at a time I suppose.

I agree you catch more honey with flies so we should all try to be more patient and persausive when discussing the issue.

However, I also believe in calling a spade a spade. Nobody has been able to come up with one argument against marriage equality that isn't rooted in religion, prejudice or stupidity.

While its obviously in our interests to sweet talk undecided voters, it gets annoying when we have to pretend that the other sides argument is in any way credible or deserving of respect - particularly when it's often grounded in hate or the idea that either myself or my relationship aren't worthy of respect.

elefant

Zemuppet wrote: »

The main 'issue' some have over gay couples adopting or having kids is that they would be bullied because of it. Tbh kids get bullied for a lot less i.e weight, glasses, intelligence, etc and this is before you could include race, religion or ethnic status. I don't think anyone can give a proper reason as to why SSCs couples can't marry.

I used to think like this in my early teenage years. For shame.

I matured and realised that for people to just accept that bullying happens and not try to change that instead of affording basic civil rights to a large part of the population is some twisted mental gymnastics.

AnonoBoy

1123heavy wrote: »

Anonoboy- Thank you for your concern. I am perfectly capable of quoting, I have this high tech device called a laptop that enables me to move a mouse and click on all sorts of things, however I use it as I will and do not always use all functions available. I wasn't aware I had to answer to you about such small issues.

No worries mate. You don't have to answer to me but since you were making such terrible points I thought I'd help you out and at least by quoting people would see that you were responding to them.

Good luck with your silly little table on O'Connell St.

kylith

Flem31 wrote: »

So if I vote no that would make me a bad person.......not a great fan of water charges so have the unreasonable label also.

I wonder how many negative labels I could accumulate by the end of December.

Re Yes or No.......it is an individual's choice and labelling one side or the other doesn't help matters

If you vote to deny people equal rights because of their sexuality then yes; in my opinion you are a bad person in that respect.

Why you're bringing up the water charges I have no idea. Is someone trying to get a licence to marry their meter?

c_man

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Voting Yes, of course. Only imbeciles aren't voting, or voting no.

there is actually not a single valid reason for voting no on this issue, or not voting at all.

"It doesn't affect me" is not a valid reason.

Oh for gods sake. It's exactly this type of attitude that pisses me, and lots of others, off and I'm on the same side as you! Name calling and dismissing any argument against yours, yeah democracy is great...

If I'm in Ireland at the time, I'll vote in favour of it. But tbh, I don't think it's that big of an issue. Plenty more pressing things to be sorted imo but fair play to the community for getting this into the mainstream after years of campaigning, and one thing at a time I suppose.

Shiraz 4.99

Unfortunately the polls are so skewed towards the Yes side the No campaign will have to go for shock, awe & bollox to have a hope of swinging this one.

Expect to see abortion brought into the debate for absolutely no real reason bar stirring.
Expect the bishops to reference some outline white paper first draft which discusses refusing communion to those who vote Yes. This will then be hastily denied.
Expect stupid See No Evil / Hear No Evil type posters.
Expect public spats with the referendum commission over equal time being afforded then a legal challenge being threatened after the result.

Luckily the Yes campaign need do nothing bar let the anti-brigade have all the air time.
One radio show listening to the Iona Institute or Mothers United Against something or other will have my Yes vote locked in.

eviltwin

golfball37 wrote: »

I personally don't believe the sexual act between SSC's is natural. Nothing to do with God. Man and woman were created so they could procreate by sharing themselves. Its at odds with nature for same sex couples to make love imo.

Call me what you want but thats my opinion.

What about all the straight people who enjoy anal sex? What about threesomes, bdsm etc? Are they equally unnatural?

People really need to stop obsessing about what other people do in the bedroom!! Its none of your business.

1123heavy

Anonoboy- Thank you for your concern. I am perfectly capable of quoting, I have this high tech device called a laptop that enables me to move a mouse and click on all sorts of things, however I use it as I will and do not always use all functions available. I wasn't aware I had to answer to you about such small issues.

kylith

golfball37 wrote: »

I personally don't believe the sexual act between SSC's is natural. Nothing to do with God. Man and woman were created so they could procreate by sharing themselves. Its at odds with nature for same sex couples to make love imo.

Call me what you want but thats my opinion.

If it's nothing to do with gods then where's the 'created' coming from? If it's unnatural then why were so many homosexual humans, cattle, sheep, dolphins etc. created?

I mean, either sexuality evolved over millennia and there are evolutionary benefits to having homosexuals in your social group, or there's at least one god who either a) made gay people specifically to mistreat them or b) is really crappy at what they do and keep accidentally making gay people.

floggg

golfball37 wrote: »

I personally don't believe the sexual act between SSC's is natural. Nothing to do with God. Man and woman were created so they could procreate by sharing themselves. Its at odds with nature for same sex couples to make love imo.

Call me what you want but thats my opinion.

If two men weren't meant to ****, why did God put the prostate up there?

Also, if gay sex is unnatural, so too is oral sex. Are you telling me you don't like to receive oral sex, or think it should be banned or discouraged?

AnonoBoy

Nomis21 wrote: »

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

No it shouldn't because it's not anti-religion.

endacl

1123heavy wrote: »

Endacl if you're trying to suggest i'm someone who goes and screams off the top of my voice in public you are sorrily mistaken, rather you reminded me of the type that do so i suggested it as a viable option for you.

And .......

Ignore.

There. That's better. Time for a cuppa.

Pherekydes

AH answer: I'll vote because it affects me. If marriage equality comes in I can marry my pet dog (bitch) and adopt straight kids and turn them gay.

Serious answer: I'll vote to extend a right that most people already have to everyone.

My kids are voting yes, too, the pinko-commie-liberal studenty types.

RobertKK

Nomis21 wrote: »

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

So you are saying the Yes side would get higher yes vote based on something not related to the issue we will be voting on.

People who are bringing religion into this are shooting themselves in the foot, that doesn't mean different areas of society cannot give their opinion whether for or against it.

AnonoBoy

1123heavy wrote: »

Endacl if you're trying to suggest i'm someone who goes and screams off the top of my voice in public you are sorrily mistaken, rather you reminded me of the type that do so i suggested it as a viable option for you.

You should learn how to quote lad.

1123heavy

Endacl if you're trying to suggest i'm someone who goes and screams off the top of my voice in public you are sorrily mistaken, rather you reminded me of the type that do so i suggested it as a viable option for you.

Duggy747

golfball37 wrote: »

Its at odds with nature for same sex couples to make love imo.

Call me what you want but thats my opinion.

It's your opinion but it's an utter shíte one because it shows a brutal lack of knowledge on nature to come out with that statement.

floggg

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.

Anything which proves this apparent need?

And which contradicts the ever increasing body of research saying children raised by same sex parents do just as well as those raised by opposite sex parents.

There has been same sex adoption for years now in many jurisdictions. If it was proving harmful tobyhe child, we would have pretty firm evidence of that by now.

We don't.

endacl

1123heavy wrote: »

Endacl - if you think i'm talking **** then you go stand on O'connel street, set up a little table and talk to the public about it. You will soon find out you're talking absolute crap as you try justifying two mothers to a happy normal family.

Annoy the public on O'Connell Street? Oh. You're one of those...

kunst nugget

lazygal wrote: »

Irish mammie are great. Imagine how amazing TWO Irish mammies would be. You'd have a non stop supply of flat seven up and toast when you're sick.

Society would fall apart as a generation becomes incapable of doing anything for themselves because of having double the Irish mammy effect forced on them by the gay agenda. 'Tis too horrible…

Flem31

kylith wrote: »

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

So if I vote no that would make me a bad person.......not a great fan of water charges so have the unreasonable label also.

I wonder how many negative labels I could accumulate by the end of December.

Re Yes or No.......it is an individual's choice and labelling one side or the other doesn't help matters