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

Penny Tration

S.R. wrote: »

Jingle Balls, let two gays to adopt you and enjoy life with 2 fathers. If you think it's ok for somebody else to be adopted by 2 men I am sure you would be happy to follow my proposition.

As I'm 25 and have parents, I doubt very much that I'm a suitable candidate for adoption.

However, I wouldn't see the issue with having two gay parents, male or female. As long as I'm brought up with love and acceptance, how could it be a bad thing?

EazyD

S.R. wrote: »

So you are not ready to have 2 fathers?

I'd happily have 2 fathers if that was the situation I was born/adopted into and they showed me the same love and direction my own parents have shown me. Anything else or will you just keep repeating that?

bodice ripper

S.R. wrote: »

So you are not ready to have 2 fathers?

could be an improvement on the useless one I have now.

lertsnim

I'll be voting yes for equality for all citizens

S.R.

EazyD wrote: »

S.R, are you ready to board the time travel machine back to the previous centuries where you belong? "All aboard the bigot train"

So you are not ready to have 2 fathers?

Shrap

S.R. wrote: »

AnonoBoy, are you ready to be adopted by two gay men?

Personally, if I had no parents and was still of an age to need some, I couldn't think of better parents than my actual parent's best friends, who are the most gorgeous and loving long term couple that I ever met. Wonderful people, and any child would be lucky to have them as parents.

endacl

S.R. wrote: »

AnonoBoy, are you ready to be adopted by two gay men?

Are you going to contribute anything constructive at all?

dark crystal

Crew Gentle Income wrote: »

There seems to be a belief in this thread that people dont have a right to say no to an issue.
If thats the case, why bother having a referendum...apart from the requirement under the law

Of course, everyone who votes no is considered homophobic which according to the Collins dictionary means an intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality

But since I dont hate or fear homosexuals I'm not homophobic but lets not let an agenda get in the way of truth.

I wouldn't call it homophobia as such, but I do wonder why anyone would vote to deny someone else an equal right. That's what puzzles me most.

Why are you more deserving of the legal right to marry than someone else?

S.R.

endacl wrote: »

'RWD car fans'

I think in this instance, without fear of card, ban or infraction, that I can safely call the poster in question out as a homophobic bigot.

Either that, or they're mechanically confused. There's no fundamental difference in either cooling or ventilation fans between RWD and FWD cars.

Are you ready to be adopted by two gay men and enjoy your life?

EazyD

S.R. wrote: »

AnonoBoy, are you ready to be adopted by two gay men?

S.R, are you ready to board the time travel machine back to the previous centuries where you belong? "All aboard the bigot train"

bodice ripper

S.R. wrote: »

AnonoBoy, are you ready to be adopted by two gay men?

its always about the gay men, isn't it?

Misandrist.

S.R.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

So all gay men are abusers then ? :rolleyes:

Plenty of people were abused by their biological parents or adopted straight parents too.

That's a p*ss poor attempt at making a stupid point lad.

AnonoBoy, are you ready to be adopted by two gay men?

efb

Crew Gentle Income wrote: »

There seems to be a belief in this thread that people dont have a right to say no to an issue.
If thats the case, why bother having a referendum...apart from the requirement under the law

Of course, everyone who votes no is considered homophobic which according to the Collins dictionary means an intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality

But since I dont hate or fear homosexuals I'm not homophobic but lets not let an agenda get in the way of truth.

Not at all, people can say no, and have that view challenged in a forum where things are debated, and the no can challenge the yes side

bennyl10

1123heavy wrote: »

This will only open the floodgates for all sorts of problems down the line. What next ? SSC being allowed to adopt ? As my old Irish teacher used to say, "Little by little they build the castle" ...

The referendum will have no baring on adoption. Legislation for SSC to be able to adopt is,being introduced before the referendum.

Irrelevant red herring is all that is.

kylith

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.

So considering the fact that there are already children being raised, and adults who have been raised, by SSCs* with absolutely zero signs of them having messed up minds, or being disturbed, or having had horrific upbringings what exactly is your problem?

*Both globally and in Ireland, by both gay men and gay women, both adopted and biological children.

AnonoBoy

Crew Gentle Income wrote: »

There seems to be a belief in this thread that people dont have a right to say no to an issue.

Not at all.

People can vote no - but the people on this thread who said they are are putting forward stupid reasons why they're doing so and we're pointing them out.

PopePalpatine

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Lumping people who don't think like you into a 'brigade' is colossally lazy.

That's the way he rolls. Anyone who doesn't want to return to the quasi-fascistic Ireland of the past is part of the "PC brigade" to him.

shruikan2553

The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.[5][6][23][24] Statistics show that home and childcare activities in homosexual households are more evenly split between the two rather than having specific gender roles,[25] and that there were no differences in the interests and hobbies of children with homosexual or heterosexual parents.[26]

Plenty of links in there to explain it in more detail. Proves my point that if you are worried about children then you should be wanting SSM to be brought in. Only took me less than 3 minutes to find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting

endacl

logik wrote: »

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

'RWD car fans'

I think in this instance, without fear of card, ban or infraction, that I can safely call the poster in question out as a homophobic bigot.

Either that, or they're mechanically confused. There's no fundamental difference in either cooling or ventilation fans between RWD and FWD cars.

S.R.

Jingle_Balls wrote: »

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

Jingle Balls, let two gays to adopt you and enjoy life with 2 fathers. If you think it's ok for somebody else to be adopted by 2 men I am sure you would be happy to follow my proposition.

AnonoBoy

I think this is what some people fear will happen if the Yes vote wins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ervtik_7jYQ

uck51js9zml2yt

There seems to be a belief in this thread that people dont have a right to say no to an issue.
If thats the case, why bother having a referendum...apart from the requirement under the law

Of course, everyone who votes no is considered homophobic which according to the Collins dictionary means an intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality

But since I dont hate or fear homosexuals I'm not homophobic but lets not let an agenda get in the way of truth.

AnonoBoy

S.R. wrote: »

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

So all gay men are abusers then ? :rolleyes:

Plenty of people were abused by their biological parents or adopted straight parents too.

That's a p*ss poor attempt at making a stupid point lad.

floggg

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.

Oh Fran (do you have a Google alert set up for new threads with the word "gay" in them BTW?).

I assume you are aware that marriage was originally not seen as an religious matter by the Christian church, and was a private civil matter.

So it's a bit rich for Christianity to claim ownership of it.

Marriage has been a state regulated matter for centuries. Civil marriage is the only recognised form of marriage in this state (from a legal and policy perspective).

eyescreamcone

Beware the Destruction!!!

Vote NO!!!

Shrap

Flem31 wrote: »

As a more general comment and as I have said before, I am undecided.......

All rhetoric aside, what would decide you? If you knew (as I do) a number of couples who loved each other so much that they wished to spend the rest of their lives together and commit to each other in the same way as other people can, what argument would you use to tell them they shouldn't be allowed to?

IMO, if you couldn't come up with a reasonable argument (while face to face with a loving couple who asked you, say) then it would seem churlish not to vote yes and allow them the same standard of commitment that heterosexuals are allowed to make to each other.

eyescreamcone

1123heavy wrote: »

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.

Destruction?

Please clarify

Will we all be turned into a pillar of salt by "the imaginary friend"

Destruction!!! - is this the type of crap we're going to have to put up with for the next few months?

efb

mikemac1 wrote: »

Sharing of tax credits for all!

Isn't that why couples get married?

CP already have the same tax credits

Ken79

It makes them happy and costs me nothing. It's a no-brainer.

I'll vote and I really hope you do to. You might say this form of discrimination doesn't effect you personally but discrimination tarnishes all who tolerate it and some day you may find yourself needing others to stand up for you.

PopePalpatine

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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?

It was also our "cultural legacy" to lock up pregnant unmarried mothers. No doubt Manach is just drive-by posting as usual.