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

kunst nugget

1123heavy wrote: »

This happy happy gay world that everyone wants to force down us will lead to destruction.

Aye, the miserable bollix straight world is the only way to go.

EazyD

1123heavy wrote: »

No I did not. I said it would be child abuse to put children through such a horrific upbringing and mess with their minds in such a disturbing way as to give them 2 of the same parent (there is a difference). I honestly think some of you are having me on in claiming that it's perfectly acceptable for two "fathers" to raise a child while in a SSM.

Having you on? We live in the 21st century buddy so unfortunately for people like yourself things are changing and people are now able to make choices they probably never dreamed of having in their lifetime. Should have happened earlier but better now than never. You know because we live in a civilised society where everyone should get the same liberties as the next person.

S.R.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlSB8MPM-c

ZiabR

S.R. wrote: »

If you think I am here to change your mind then you are wrong.
I am not here to change minds of RWD cars fans.

But you are not explaining why you have the view you have?

dark crystal

I'll be voting yes, not out of spite for the CC, but because I believe in equality for all.

I don't understand why anyone would vote against equality in this day and age, tbh. It makes me sad to think not everyone feels this way about their fellow human beings.

1123heavy

Jingle_Balls wrote: »

You're saying that them having two parents of the same sex is child abuse. So the two parents are abusing the child, in your opinion. Don't back track now.

Rest assured I am not backtracking. I stand by everything I've said as it is true. You know it and so does everyone. This happy happy gay world that everyone wants to force down us will lead to destruction.

Penny Tration

S.R. wrote: »

Jingle Balls were you Jingle Bells before visiting Chernobyl?

Is that meant to be a joke? Seems to be missing the punch line.

shruikan2553

1123heavy wrote: »

No I did not. I said it would be child abuse to put children through such a horrific upbringing and mess with their minds in such a disturbing way as to give them 2 of the same parent (there is a difference). I honestly think some of you are having me on in claiming that it's perfectly acceptable for two "fathers" to raise a child while in a SSM.

Im assuming you have something to back this up with?

TwoShedsJackson

1123heavy wrote: »

No I did not. I said it would be child abuse to put children through such a horrific upbringing and mess with their minds in such a disturbing way as to give them 2 of the same parent (there is a difference). I honestly think some of you are having me on in claiming that it's perfectly acceptable for two "fathers" to raise a child while in a SSM.

Why isn't it acceptable and what proof can you offer that the upbringing would be horrific and mess with their minds?

Furthermore, what's your opinion on marriages between a man and a woman where the children are abused or have a hellish upbringing, or does that not happen?

S.R.

Jingle Balls were you Jingle Bells before visiting Chernobyl?

eyescreamcone

fran17 wrote: »

Between the sarcasm you actually make a couple of good points.Yes marriage is a religious ceremony,traditionally has been and after this silly little storm has blown over will continue to be.Also your right that the whole gay union argument is built of the changing and redefining of words because to use the true meanings would leave you falling flat on your face.

Marriage is a religious ceremony and/or a legal ceremony. It's amazing how some people just don't want to get this FACT!

Because some gay people would like to get LEGALLY married - how does this actually affect the lives of the "vote NO brigade".

Just imagine the YES vote won.
What is the worst fear of the NO voters?
Give us your nightmare scenario as to how we will all be affected.

Flem31

floggg wrote: »

It's not an attempt to win a debate. It's just a response to words and actions.

This isn't a political or fiscal issue being debated, it's people's rights and relationships. Many of us find arguments in favour of continued discrimination morally reprehensible.

We don't call out people or their arguments as bigoted just to be mean or bully them. It's because we feel that advocating discrimination is bigotry - especially when there appears to be no basis for it other than contempt and dislike.

It's not name calling for the sake of it - it's a challenge to that bigotry. You can't challenge it unless you acknowledge it.

Pretending that their arguments and attitudes are deserving of equal respect or are simply a difference opinion old give them undue weight and falsely imply that they are a reasonable position to hold.

Believing that somebody is less equal than others or less deserving of legal protection and privileges granted to others is never a reasonable position to hold - and you cannot hold such believes without there being a black mark on your character.

I know that the word Bigot has become the buzzword here over the last hour......did you look it up before posting

"a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions"

As a more general comment and as I have said before, I am undecided.......but if the posts over the past two hours are indicative of how the Yes campaign will conduct their campaign, I believe it will not be popular with the large number of undecided voters like me.
Trying to win a campaign by repeated name calling is unlikely to succeed......stick to the rational arguments about fairness and equality and the chances of success are far greater.

S.R.

1123heavy wrote: »

No I did not. I said it would be child abuse to put children through such a horrific upbringing and mess with their minds in such a disturbing way as to give them 2 of the same parent (there is a difference). I honestly think some of you are having me on in claiming that it's perfectly acceptable for two "fathers" to raise a child while in a SSM.

You are right. No to 2 fathers, No to 2 mothers.

Penny Tration

1123heavy wrote: »

No I did not. I said it would be child abuse to put children through such a horrific upbringing and mess with their minds in such a disturbing way as to give them 2 of the same parent (there is a difference). I honestly think some of you are having me on in claiming that it's perfectly acceptable for two "fathers" to raise a child while in a SSM.

You're saying that them having two parents of the same sex is child abuse. So the two parents are abusing the child, in your opinion. Don't back track now.

Shrap

fran17 wrote: »

Between the sarcasm you actually make a couple of good points.Yes marriage is a religious ceremony,traditionally has been and after this silly little storm has blown over will continue to be.Also your right that the whole gay union argument is built of the changing and redefining of words because to use the true meanings would leave you falling flat on your face.

You do rather insist on marriage being traditionally a religious ceremony, when all the evidence you have been provided with shows that BEFORE your religious definition existed it was a contract that was entered into between a man and the father of a girl who was effectively sold in exchange for property or goods? Religion just prettied up the ceremony a bit. We managed to change the "tradition" a number of times in the meantime. And we'll do it again, to reflect the current social norms.

S.R.

endacl wrote: »

Fair play. Good stuff. And such a well reasoned an argued post too. Well. That's my mind changed. I'm impressed. Very impressed. Well done.

If you think I am here to change your mind then you are wrong.
I am not here to change minds of RWD cars fans.

1123heavy

What is the issue? You called gay parents child abusers! That's an issue.

No I did not. I said it would be child abuse to put children through such a horrific upbringing and mess with their minds in such a disturbing way as to give them 2 of the same parent (there is a difference). I honestly think some of you are having me on in claiming that it's perfectly acceptable for two "fathers" to raise a child while in a SSM.

Daith

fran17 wrote: »

whole gay union argument is built of the changing and redefining of words because to use the true meanings would leave you falling flat on your face.

Show me the definition of marriage in our constitution?

ZiabR

S.R. wrote: »

I will vote. Of course against.

Why, can i ask?

floggg

ebbsy wrote: »

What the Yes camp would need to be careful of is accusing people of discrimination just because they have a different opinion.

They might get a nasty shock next year.

But it is discrimination. It's saying "Your relationship is not worthy of or entitled to the same rights, protections, and privileges as mine. It is ubequal and undeserving".

That is nothing if not discrimination - particularly given the absence of any compelling reason for the differing treatment.

fran17

Grayson wrote: »

Yes, marriage is a religious ceremony. Except for the ones in registry offices of course.

And gay people have a huge aversion to religion. that can easily be seen by all the gay men who joined the church.

And marriage is defined as a union of men and women. except for when it isn't. And except for when the definitions of words change. And they change literally all the time. I can say that because the definition of literally changed last year to include both the literal definition and a figurative definition. So even if I'm wrong about the definitions of words changing, I'm right because the definition of that word changed.

But yeah. I'm with you man. It's a gay conspiracy to take down the church. FIGHT THE POWER. (especially when that power is a traditionally oppressed minority)

Between the sarcasm you actually make a couple of good points.Yes marriage is a religious ceremony,traditionally has been and after this silly little storm has blown over will continue to be.Also your right that the whole gay union argument is built of the changing and redefining of words because to use the true meanings would leave you falling flat on your face.

kunst nugget

S.R. wrote: »

I will vote. Of course against.

Shít must be getting serious if Yoda's getting involved.

Penny Tration

1123heavy wrote: »

Daith I expressed my opinion on family life, what is the issue ? It appears you and those of a similar mentality aren't happy and feel the need to demonise those who aren't of the "Teletubby happy" mindset. I want what's best for the future of Ireland and its children, I do not feel voting yes will serve Ireland's best interests and therefore will not be doing so. I should not have to answer to anyone or accept abuse.
Take your hate filled intimidating posts (that only seek to make those of different opinions outcasts) elsewhere.

What is the issue? You called gay parents child abusers! That's an issue.

nozzferrahhtoo

S.R. wrote: »

I will vote. Of course against.

Your "of course" seems to assume a self evident nature to your position that is not shared by the majority of the posters on this thread. You might find therefore you are expected to adumbrate your rationale behind this. Do not be surprised.

endacl

S.R. wrote: »

I will vote. Of course against.

Fair play. Good stuff. And such a well reasoned an argued post too. Well. That's my mind changed. I'm impressed. Very impressed. Well done.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Of course I'll vote... I wouldn't block the passage of any Bill.. :pac:

Daith

S.R. wrote: »

I will vote. Of course against.

Any particular reason?

S.R.

I will vote. Of course against.

kunst nugget

My main concern is that when gay marriage comes in and it radically alters the traditional definition of marriage, I will be forced to marry a man. In a church. By a straight priest. In front of all my friends. Even though I am not gay and I am already married. I'll be mortified.

floggg

Flem31 wrote: »

Not getting upset at all.....just find it strange that labelling others in the negative is seen as a only way to win the debate.

Was it not the negative labelling of SSC in the past that delayed the progression of attitudes to a point where this referendum has a great chance of passing.

Attitudes have changed....but the labelling of people in the negative continues....sad really

It's not an attempt to win a debate. It's just a response to words and actions.

This isn't a political or fiscal issue being debated, it's people's rights and relationships. Many of us find arguments in favour of continued discrimination morally reprehensible.

We don't call out people or their arguments as bigoted just to be mean or bully them. It's because we feel that advocating discrimination is bigotry - especially when there appears to be no basis for it other than contempt and dislike.

It's not name calling for the sake of it - it's a challenge to that bigotry. You can't challenge it unless you acknowledge it.

Pretending that their arguments and attitudes are deserving of equal respect or are simply a difference opinion old give them undue weight and falsely imply that they are a reasonable position to hold.

Believing that somebody is less equal than others or less deserving of legal protection and privileges granted to others is never a reasonable position to hold - and you cannot hold such believes without there being a black mark on your character.