Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

circadian · 18-12-2014 03:09PM

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 agree with this sentiment. Generally though, if you're on the fence you should probably be listening to yourself and vote with what decision you believe to be correct.

The Yes and No campaigns will cloud your judgment and expect the tit for tat spats will increase in the run in.

You don't need others to help you decide, deep down you already have the answer, we all do.

ZiabR · 18-12-2014 03:10PM

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 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 · 18-12-2014 03:12PM

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.

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.

Daith · 18-12-2014 03:13PM

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...

Cue someone jumping in that the Yes voters are calling No voters narrow minded and everyone can vote the way they want.

RobertKK · 18-12-2014 03:15PM

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.

It worked fine in the past before the state/government of whatever region decided they had the final say on marriage.

eyescreamcone · 18-12-2014 03:16PM

S.R. wrote: »

We all know that you are a liar.

We all know that you're a bigot

MOD: Take a few days off.

kunst nugget · 18-12-2014 03:21PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It worked fine in the past before the state/government of whatever region decided they had the final say on marriage.

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 · 18-12-2014 03:28PM

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.

There is a difference between how and who we marry.

I think you would find the age of consent laws would be an obstacle...

Shenshen · 18-12-2014 03:31PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It worked fine in the past before the state/government of whatever region decided they had the final say on marriage.

How many thousands of years ago would that have been?

Xcellor · 18-12-2014 03:31PM

Cant vote not a citizen.

But if I could vote I would vote Yes. The sooner "gay" becomes normal the better. It's not life style choice, people don't choose to be gay they just are and denying them a way to express their love and commitment based on hocus pocus bible bull$hit is wrong...

I will be strongly behind the Yes campaign.

Going Strong · 18-12-2014 03:32PM

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...

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 · 18-12-2014 03:36PM

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...

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?

mrsbyrne · 18-12-2014 03:41PM

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.

AnonoBoy · 18-12-2014 03:42PM

S.R. wrote: »

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

If they'll cover my mortgage - SURE!

Admit it dude - your post was trying to make a sh*t point and I called it out easily.

If that's your reasoning behind being against gay marriage then you really should examine your own prejudices.

Daith · 18-12-2014 03:42PM

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.

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?

osarusan · 18-12-2014 03:44PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Do you think you can shout and berate someone into changing their mind?

Isn't that exactly what some posters have claimed?

mrsbyrne wrote: »

All your doing is putting fence sitters and undecided off.

I don't believe that this actually happens at all, despite what people have posted.

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.

eviltwin · 18-12-2014 03:44PM

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.

I agree up to a point but when you are hearing "gay marriage is bad for children", "gay marriage will lead to the destruction of society" and other gems like that how can you put any positive spin on it? Its not nice to be hearing that you're loved one isn't deserving of the right to marry and shouldn't have children because they will be a terrible parent. I'm amazed at how much restraint there is in the gay community tbh with some of the comments they have to put up with.

smash · 18-12-2014 03:44PM

I hope it gets passed because Ireland desperately needs to change. Then the divorce laws and abortion laws need to be looked at too.

Daith · 18-12-2014 03:45PM

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.

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 and it's all your fault".

Going Strong · 18-12-2014 03:47PM

"Don't blame me. It's The Gays who made me a bigot!"

PopePalpatine · 18-12-2014 03:48PM

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"

You know, I've never seen anyone declare that they were swayed towards voting "Yes" for this referendum because of the tactics of the "No" campaign.

mrsbyrne · 18-12-2014 03:48PM

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?

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.

Daith · 18-12-2014 03:49PM

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.

No I bloody didn't. I picked an example of the No side which you ignored and jumped to a conclusion about you.

If somebody thinks two men raising children is a form of child abuse, I'm not going to change their opinion with a smile ok?

Ash.J.Williams · 18-12-2014 03:52PM

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.

the fact you believe people with bigoted views are voting should be reason enough to vote, no??

RobertKK · 18-12-2014 03:52PM

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?

Well I don't believe anyone here supports allowing paedophilia or hebephilia.

Gehad_JoyRider · 18-12-2014 03:57PM

Im voting yes because because there no real argument not to.

Daith · 18-12-2014 03:59PM

Gehad_JoyRider wrote: »

Im voting yes because because there no real argument not to.

The No side never have presented any argument at all. Never. In how many threads we have had on this.

Gehad_JoyRider · 18-12-2014 04:01PM

Daith wrote: »

The No side never have presented any argument at all. Never. In how many threads we have had on this.

wouldnt know never read them

shruikan2553 · 18-12-2014 04:02PM

Daith wrote: »

The No side never have presented any argument at all. Never. In how many threads we have had on this.

There have been plenty of arguments presented. Just nothing that has anything logical or scientific backing it up. It tends to fall back to its my opinion and you're opressing me.

Daith · 18-12-2014 04:02PM

Gehad_JoyRider wrote: »

wouldnt know never read them

It basically boils down to

"I can vote how I want"
"Why do we need the state involved in marriage anyway"

Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Comments