floggg wrote: » I actually think you insult the intelligence of the undecideds thinking they could be swayed by the comments in response to the ignorant, bigoted nonsense being posted. If their sympathies lies with the poster spouting that crap, then they aren't that undecided.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I see people in the 'yes' campaign calling people 'closet gays' and implying that if they're a priest they must be a pedophile. It's not so long ago that same slur was being associated with LGBT people, but some people have very short memories. Either that, or they really are just too blinded by their own hatred and prejudice to think that there are many religious people who actually support marriage equality, but they also feel targeted and excluded when they read the opinions of some people in the 'yes' campaign make vicious slurs against their religious beliefs. This referendum isn't about religion, it's about human beings rights, and equal recognition for all citizens of Ireland in the Constitution, I'd prefer to see people argue the legalities than the moralities, and leave their personal grudges at the door if they're the very same people are talking about making progress in society and moving forward.
keeponhurling wrote: » Which is possible, as there is somewhat of a culture of abusing people who hold views other than Yes.
jobbridge4life wrote: » I look forward to the day when I don't have to worry about the hurt feelz of those who believe I deserve to be legally discriminated against. That believe my family deserve less protection. That day I pray for.
keeponhurling wrote: » I think it makes sense, hetrosexual couples can have all the legal rights, without having to participate in something with religious connotations.
keeponhurling wrote: » The only way it would swing to No at this stage would be if the Yes-side ran a very bad PR campaign. Which is possible, as there is somewhat of a culture of abusing people who hold views other than Yes. There are of course many voters who don't particularly care and would be leaning towards Yes, so as long as they aren't turned off, I think it'll pass
kunst nugget wrote: » I think this is pretty simplistic view of it. The Yes side running a bad PR campaign is not going to be the be all and end all of it. The No campaign will be preying on the fears of people with unsubstantiated claims about the ill effects of same sex marriage on society which will be very hard to fight against. Just look at the problems that exists today with the MMR vaccine even though it's been proven conclusively to have no link to autism. Also, the notion that the No side can be free to say whatever they like, no matter how underhand, and yet if the Yes side are seen to not be all sweetness and light, they'll be crucified for it and people will vote against them because of it- that to me seems slightly insane. Another big problem that is happening is the No side calling foul when their motives for voting no are called into question. 'I'm voting no because I believe in the tradition of marriage and it's better for children like this!' 'Well, this viewpoint is completely outdated and not supported by research' 'STOP ATTACKING ME!!!'
kunst nugget wrote: » 'I'm voting no because I believe in the tradition of marriage and it's better for children like this!' 'Well, this viewpoint is completely outdated and not supported by research' '
keeponhurling wrote: » I would say a better answer would be "You're entitled to your view, but I think it would actually be better for children if you vote Yes, because of <insert reasonable argument(s) here>."
Daith wrote: » No, a child needs a mother and father. I find the idea of two men raising a child to be creepy.
kunst nugget wrote: » Why?
logik wrote: » Just a thought, why is there not a poll on this thread? Will you be voting in the referendum? Yes: No: Would also be nice to see how many would be voting Yes Vs No?
endacl wrote: » I had a lovely rogan josh last night. I hope people who support traditional dinners didn't experience their meat and two veg as being undermined or devalued at all in any way. Perhaps it made no difference to their dinner at all? *analogy ends* This debate is fcucking stupid.
keeponhurling wrote: » and you come out with "this debate is focking stupid", or "this debate isn't relevant to you", then you're not going to be convincing many people of the merit of your arguments.
endacl wrote: » Don't raise a child with a another man, so. Creepiness avoided and problem solved.
Magico Gonzalez wrote: » The important question is whether your rogan josh consumption: 1. Made Baby Jesus Cry 2. Did Not Make Baby Jesus Cry Let's get to the crux of the matter here.
keeponhurling wrote: » Well, if you are in a debate trying to convince people, the other people might be making arguments to support their view (and generally it's easier to persuade people not to make changes), and you come out with "this debate is focking stupid", or "this debate isn't relevant to you", then you're not going to be convincing many people of the merit of your arguments.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Or, y'know, we could just break out the violins, or talk about lovey dovey, rather than discuss complications and legal issues that may arise from whether the referendum passes or fails, since we seem to be gone from taking it seriously to descending to the facetious.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It's not as simplistic as that though, is it? And this is why I'm saying that it's equally important to ensure that the children of LGBT marriages are provided equal protection of the State, because right now they're not, because LGBT marriages outside the State aren't recognised is one thing, but also if one of the parties in the marriage has children from a previous relationship, there may be custodial issues that would need to be legislated for. You cannot legislate however for one partner deciding that they don't want their child raised by another person, and that's something that will come up especially in relation to legislating for marriage equality - guardianship issues. So it's not so simple as saying "don't raise a child with another (wo)man", the previous partner may under legislation have no choice in the matter or the manner in which their children are raised, and then because of the way the children's referendum was passed, the State can simply step in and say "we're taking the child away now because you couldn't agree amongst yourselves" (well, not in so many words, but they now have that power!). Or, y'know, we could just break out the violins, or talk about lovey dovey, rather than discuss complications and legal issues that may arise from whether the referendum passes or fails, since we seem to be gone from taking it seriously to descending to the facetious.
david75 wrote: » As usual, your posting is barely legible for being so utterly nonsensical but I'll meet it at its own level. Just for you. I think you're about to discover it is the view of Ireland's people that they do support gay marriage and they will elect to at last shake off that last hypocritical grasp of a church long since made irellevant and finally be rid of the hateful claptrap of the churches self obsessed and self aggrandising splinter group, them four lonely sad clowns in Iona. I just wonder about what will be the next target for your irrelevant and outdated view once the referendum passes and Ireland's people let their unwillingness to be controlled by such a hateful few be known. You're not allowed dismiss other religions anymore, or assume superiority over people of different belief(or skin Colour) anymore (wouldn't be very Christian of you if you did). So where for you next? Are you married? Would any sane woman have you with such a view? The priesthood maybe? You have nobody left to hate, but yourself. And Like most self repressed self loathing closet cases you'll find the closet you've built for yourself is one you revere but despise. You very clearly are a closeted gay. Stop being obsessed with hating gay lifestyle and gay sex, start by loving your life and living it and go have the sex you really want to have. You'll be glad you did(unless you're the priest in which case leave those kids alone)MOD: Take a few days off.
david75 wrote: » Forgot to answer your question. Yep. We'll be having kids. As will thousands of gay couples. All that's really changed is that they'll be brought up to respect faith but ignore hate. Oh wait. That's the same as being Christian. Well I guess you need to go back to Jesus and his main message. Love one another.
Daith wrote: » The referendum has nothing to do with children though regardless if it fails or passes.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Perhaps not from your perspective, and that's fair enough, but from my perspective it certainly does, and not in a moralising "won't somebody think of the children" sort of way, as I've already established that anyone, regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc, is capable of raising a child to be a healthy and mature and well-rounded adult, but if this referendum fails, then because of the children and families bill, those children are considered members of a 'de facto' family (see the EHCR Austria decision), and are not then offered the equal status as those children in heterosexual marriages, thereby only offered what I would consider legally the same sub-standard status that LGBT people are currently subjected to.
