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?
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 !
RobertKK wrote: » The state didn't sanction the sex that brought the children into being in the first place. I am simply posting about marriage, not the rights and obligations of parents and children in their relationship. You say to make things simpler, yet if we had what I advocate from the start of the creation of this state, we wouldn't be voting on who can marry who.
logik wrote: » So does that mean that children are also abused in single parent families? Are you really as narrow minded as you are coming across in all of your posts...
Shenshen wrote: » Marriage is a legal act that turns strangers into close family in the eyes of the law. How would you structure this without any legal framework? And yes, I do say simpler. It's a one-size-fits-most legal agreement, making it relatively simple (and inexpensive) to enter into. It also makes things that much more clear when both parties decide to exit the agreement again, with laws and regulations guiding how to disentagle their belongings, rights and obligations. Making each case individual would benefit nobody other than the people getting paid for drawing up the individual contracts and disolving them.
S.R. wrote: » We all know that you are a liar.
RobertKK wrote: » It worked fine in the past before the state/government of whatever region decided they had the final say on marriage.
kunst nugget wrote: » Hmm, so if we privatised marriage, we truly could marry how we wanted? Could I marry a 11 year old girl against their will if I wanted to? I think I'd prefer marriage to have a statutory standing in this country and to have marriage equality.
RobertKK wrote: » There is a difference between how and who we marry. I think you would find the age of consent laws would be an obstacle...
S.R. wrote: » AnonoBoy, are you ready to be adopted by two gay men?
mrsbyrne wrote: » Nasty juvenile derogatory namecalling, on both sides, but remember it is the gay community and supporters who want to make changes so why are they not putting a positive spin on it? What do you hope to achieve with this slanging match? Do you think you can shout and berate someone into changing their mind? All your doing is putting fence sitters and undecided off. Seriously, stop.
mrsbyrne wrote: » Do you think you can shout and berate someone into changing their mind?
mrsbyrne wrote: » All your doing is putting fence sitters and undecided off.
mrsbyrne wrote: » This is why we'll all be back here next June having a row about why the turnout was only 26% and the referendum was defeated. The LGBT leaders need to look at this thread to see the style of "yes" campaigning that's going on Boards at least. Nasty juvenile derogatory namecalling, on both sides, but remember it is the gay community and supporters who want to make changes so why are they not putting a positive spin on it? What do you hope to achieve with this slanging match? Do you think you can shout and berate someone into changing their mind? All your doing is putting fence sitters and undecided off. Seriously, stop.
osarusan wrote: » I think it's a weak as pi$$ argument to make a poster's desire to vote 'No' somehow the fault of the 'Yes' side.
Daith wrote: » This, especially the "the uppity gays telling me how to vote. I was going to vote no but now some gay has called somebody else something, so I'm def going to vote no now"
Daith wrote: » So basically "two men raising a child is a form of child abuse" and we need to put a positive spin on it? Seriously? The No side can say what they want and the Yes side have to smile and nod?
mrsbyrne wrote: » See what you did there? I'm actually a supporter of gay marriage but you've taken my post and deliberately made it look as if I accused gay couples of abusing children. What on earth is wrong with you? Stop spitting and frothing, calm down and try and think of something positive which could possibly result in a fence-sitter or "don't know" or "don't care" coming down in favour of the yes side.
bop1977 wrote: » I probably won't due to just not caring either way about the issue. I don't think that a protest vote will apply as most people likely to vote will either, vote with their bigoted prehistoric views or vote with a bit of cop on and pass it.
Going Strong wrote: » Why not remove the consent laws so? More interfering by government in our personal affairs. What if a nice man makes me an offer on my daughter? Am I to lose out financially on being able to cash in instead of having another mouth to feed for some years left to come? Some libertarian you are.
kunst nugget wrote: » A simple selling mistake on my part. If we privatise marriage and we're free to marry who we want, surely we won't have to worry about the age of consent?
Gehad_JoyRider wrote: » Im voting yes because because there no real argument not to.
Daith wrote: » The No side never have presented any argument at all. Never. In how many threads we have had on this.
Gehad_JoyRider wrote: » wouldnt know never read them
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eaabbaf8a16773590ee22dd6c15f1d68.svg)
