How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

eviltwin · 22-03-2015 12:19PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Didn't say that, I said I am voting with my conscience. That is what Yes voters will too, it is there right.

If people can't accept a different opinion, then it is you who has the problem. I have no problem if you want to vote Yes.

When voting with your conscience has no impact on you but impacts the lives of many people then I think its time to reexamine it.

shruikan2553 · 22-03-2015 12:19PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Catholics could go to Protestant schools.

Then there was no problem.

aloyisious · 22-03-2015 12:21PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I am voting no as it is what my conscience tells me. This comes from the following:
I come from a conservative background, and growing up there was no such thing as same sex marriage, no such thing was ever heard of same sex marriage being a right. For me marriage was always a man/woman thing.

It has nothing to do with hating people who are homosexual, I don't carry around hate for people, life is short enough than to be hating people when one should be looking after their own lives.

My parents were great, couldn't have had a better childhood or young adult life without them. They had a very strong faith which they passed on.
We are our own people, but I respect the generations who went before me. A lot of people turn their backs on what their parents taught them or tried to.
My parents didn't hate anyone and never taught anyone to hate anyone else for that matter. They didn't have a love for civil marriage either and that is for heterosexual people...I'm the same, I don't believe the state should have a role in marriage, which is something from recent centuries.

I also don't like being labelled, one Yes advocate called me a bigot for having traditional views of marriage. Then you see generalisations by some of No voters being homophobic. Like, why would one want to change sides when there is a lack of understanding.
A lot of No voters are simply people who simply believe marriage is a male/female thing, and it has nothing to do with hating anyone or denying some new found right or equality.
If the Yes side keep failing to understand this, then it is their problem.

Robert: those who believe that marriage is only for heterosexual couples use forever can also be seen as having a "nurtured" trait from centuries of that belief being repeated to them in church, school and home on religious belief grounds. Another way of describing that is to call it brainwashing.

The item before us for choice in the forthcoming referendum is about the extension of Civil Marriage. to homosexual couples. It has nothing to do with the rites of Religious Marriage. This continued and deliberate campaign of portraying Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage as one and the same thing only suits one purpose, to keep marriage under the control of religion.

That is emphasised by the regular message from the "NO" that it's all about the family, and the family is all about children who flow from the God-given gift of procreation. Get the children early and you have them for life.

tigger123 · 22-03-2015 12:22PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Didn't say that, I said I am voting with my conscience. That is what Yes voters will too, it is there right.

If people can't accept a different opinion, then it is you who has the problem. I have no problem if you want to vote Yes.

I have absolutely no problem with other people having opinions, but their opinions shouldn't be built into our laws. Straight marriage will not change if we introduce SSM.

Equally, I could say it is my opinion (which it isn't) that black people shouldn't marry white people because it's outside of my viewpoint of what constitutes marriage.

Annasopra · 22-03-2015 12:23PM

Front page letter. How anyone could deny happiness to this man is beyond me.

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/letters/at-60-and-gay-i-can-dream-31085474.html

P_1 · 22-03-2015 12:24PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I am voting no as it is what my conscience tells me. This comes from the following:
I come from a conservative background, and growing up there was no such thing as same sex marriage, no such thing was ever heard of same sex marriage being a right. For me marriage was always a man/woman thing.

It has nothing to do with hating people who are homosexual, I don't carry around hate for people, life is short enough than to be hating people when one should be looking after their own lives.

My parents were great, couldn't have had a better childhood or young adult life without them. They had a very strong faith which they passed on.
We are our own people, but I respect the generations who went before me. A lot of people turn their backs on what their parents taught them or tried to.
My parents didn't hate anyone and never taught anyone to hate anyone else for that matter. They didn't have a love for civil marriage either and that is for heterosexual people...I'm the same, I don't believe the state should have a role in marriage, which is something from recent centuries.

I also don't like being labelled, one Yes advocate called me a bigot for having traditional views of marriage. Then you see generalisations by some of No voters being homophobic. Like, why would one want to change sides when there is a lack of understanding.
A lot of No voters are simply people who simply believe marriage is a male/female thing, and it has nothing to do with hating anyone or denying some new found right or equality.
If the Yes side keep failing to understand this, then it is their problem.

That's fair enough I guess, shame that you're allowing a bronze age text influence your decisions on a present day issue but I go calling you names over it

Bannasidhe · 22-03-2015 12:24PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Do better research please.

Kings Inns... Catholics were barred from Trinity.
Amazing there were ever hedge schools...oh yeah Catholic education was banned.
Daniel O'Connell had to campaign for Catholic Emancipation act.

Catholics weren't allowed vote until 1793.

I know the history of the of the past with the Pope and the King.

You haven't answer the question - If Catholic's were barred from all the things you claim how did Daniel O'Connell manage to come from a wealthy, Catholic, Land owning family and not only qualify as a barrister but also have a successful practice?

No, no don't know the facts - you believe the spin and are trying to weave it into some justification for denying some Irish citizens in the second decade of the 21st century equality.
You claim you respect your ancestors and therefore desire to keep the status quo. Ironically, the status quo you seek to preserve was introduced as part of Anglicization by those very same people you are complaining persecuted Catholics. My ancestors were Gaelic Irish - they had no problem with homosexuality. I know because I have read what they wrote not relied on second hand spin.

At the end of the day, in the context of this debate, it doesn't matter how anyone was treated prior to independence. It matters how the Irish State treats it's citizens NOW.

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 12:24PM

eviltwin wrote: »

When voting with your conscience has no impact on you but impacts the lives of many people then I think its time to reexamine it.

Why should your opinion matter more?

The biggest joke of this campaign is the word equality, as you think your conscience opinion is worth more, as it affects other people.

We are being asked as individuals to give our opinion, it doesn't matter what others think or want, we have to do what we believe, or else be gullible being led by others.

Mark Tapley · 22-03-2015 12:27PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I am voting no as it is what my conscience tells me. This comes from the following:
I come from a conservative background, and growing up there was no such thing as same sex marriage, no such thing was ever heard of same sex marriage being a right. For me marriage was always a man/woman thing.

It has nothing to do with hating people who are homosexual, I don't carry around hate for people, life is short enough than to be hating people when one should be looking after their own lives.

My parents were great, couldn't have had a better childhood or young adult life without them. They had a very strong faith which they passed on.
We are our own people, but I respect the generations who went before me. A lot of people turn their backs on what their parents taught them or tried to.
My parents didn't hate anyone and never taught anyone to hate anyone else for that matter. They didn't have a love for civil marriage either and that is for heterosexual people...I'm the same, I don't believe the state should have a role in marriage, which is something from recent centuries.

I also don't like being labelled, one Yes advocate called me a bigot for having traditional views of marriage. Then you see generalisations by some of No voters being homophobic. Like, why would one want to change sides when there is a lack of understanding.
A lot of No voters are simply people who simply believe marriage is a male/female thing, and it has nothing to do with hating anyone or denying some new found right or equality.
If the Yes side keep failing to understand this, then it is their problem.

I understand that no voters do not see themselves as bad people. Yet you use tradition and religion as a justification for denying others equality .Does your conscience think you have done a good days work when your words and actions have a negative impact on others.

eviltwin · 22-03-2015 12:28PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Why should your opinion matter more?

The biggest joke of this campaign is the word equality, as you think your conscience opinion is worth more, as it affects other people.

We are being asked as individuals to give our opinion, it doesn't matter what others think or want, we have to do what we believe, or else be gullible being led by others.

My opinion doesn't matter more but I'm mature enough to know that its not just about me and what I want. I live in a society with all sorts of people who do things I don't always agree with but I don't believe I should force my will on them. I trust people to make their own way in life and make their own decisions. We can't micro manage the lives of others especially in situations like this where those decisions have no impact on our own lives. Vote how you want Robert but don't expect me to respect it.

Mark Tapley · 22-03-2015 12:30PM

RobertKK wrote: »

it doesn't matter what others think or want,.

Ah now I see it.

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 12:31PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You haven't answer the question - If Catholic's were barred from all the things you claim how did Daniel O'Connell manage to come from a wealthy, Catholic, Land owning family and not only qualify as a barrister but also have a successful practice?

No, no don't know the facts - you believe the spin and are trying to weave it into some justification for denying some Irish citizens in the second decade of the 21st century equality.
You claim you respect your ancestors and therefore desire to keep the status quo. Ironically, the status quo you seek to preserve was introduced as part of Anglicization by those very same people you are complaining persecuted Catholics. My ancestors were Gaelic Irish - they had no problem with homosexuality. I know because I have read what they wrote not relied on second hand spin.

At the end of the day, in the context of this debate, it doesn't matter how anyone was treated prior to independence. It matters how the Irish State treats it's citizens NOW.

There was nothing stopping him from using the Protestant system tog et educated, there was if one wanted a Catholic education, which a vast majority did want and avoided the Protestant schools.
If you did some research you would see the ban on being in the legal profession was appealed.

Daniel O'Connell's family had their land taken off them.

tigger123 · 22-03-2015 12:32PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Why should your opinion matter more?

The biggest joke of this campaign is the word equality, as you think your conscience opinion is worth more, as it affects other people.

We are being asked as individuals to give our opinion, it doesn't matter what others think or want, we have to do what we believe, or else be gullible being led by others.

SSM will cost you nothing. If the referendum is passed your life will not change in anyway whatsoever. Everything will be exactly as it was before except more people can get married.

floggg · 22-03-2015 12:34PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I think this attitude is something that let's the Gay Community down ......... just because I'm not a homomaniac it doesn't make me homophobic.

This was an attitude that I was really struggling to understand.

If you dont believe LGBT people should not be entitled to the same rights as you are, why would you be offended if you are described as carrying some form of prejudice towards them?

How else would you describe thinking another group is lesser, or less deserving than you?

The only explanation for that line of thinking I can come up with is that the people concerned are so convinced of their negative perceptions they hold of negative views of LGBT people (be it that we are all dysfunctional individuals, hedonistic deviants or harmful or a negative influence on children), that it simply doesn't occur to them that we might be capable or deserving of equality.

Essentially their prejudices prevent them conceiving themselves as prejudiced.

They are so convinced that LGBT people and our relationships are fundamentally different from them or their own relationships, that the idea of recognising us or our relationships as equal to them or their own relationships seems almost illogical to them.

They don't wish to deny us equality out of malice or spite - and since they aren't motivated by malice or spite, they can't conceive their actions as being discriminatory or prejudicial.

That attitude is usually married with a tendency to place more importance on maintaining their belief or position than actually ensuring the accuracy or veracity of their belief.

So when facts and evidence are presented to them which show their assumptions, beliefs and prejudices against LGBT people are false or unfounded, they will reject them as being incompatible with how they view the world. And because their beliefs have become so central to how they see the world, and how they believe the world should be, they will consider attempts to get them to consider and acknowledge those facts and evidence as attacks on them personally, and as bullying.

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 12:39PM

eviltwin wrote: »

My opinion doesn't matter more but I'm mature enough to know that its not just about me and what I want. I live in a society with all sorts of people who do things I don't always agree with but I don't believe I should force my will on them. I trust people to make their own way in life and make their own decisions. We can't micro manage the lives of others especially in situations like this where those decisions have no impact on our own lives. Vote how you want Robert but don't expect me to respect it.

One has to use their own brain.
If one believes in traditional marriage, it is nothing to do with what others want. Nothing to do with love or hate.
It is just what they believe.
Your attitude is why allow the people to vote because the decision affects other people.
Voting in a general election affects other people based on who is voted for.
At the end of the day, people will vote for what they believe, and not what they are told to vote for.

I am mature enough to respect everyone who votes whether Yes or No and the subsequent outcome. The problem is the people who are able to vote but won't.

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 12:40PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The biggest joke of this campaign is people voting no despite the fact a yes vote will have absolutely no impact on their own lives, purely because they dislike the idea of 2 people of the same gender getting married. It's petty and small minded. You're not voting on whether or not you think being gay is icky, you're voting on human rights. Now is not the time to be acting like a child throwing a tantrum because their parents asked them to share their toys.

That is the sort of attitude that does the Yes campaign damage.

eviltwin · 22-03-2015 12:49PM

RobertKK wrote: »

One has to use their own brain.
If one believes in traditional marriage, it is nothing to do with what others want. Nothing to do with love or hate.
It is just what they believe.
Your attitude is why allow the people to vote because the decision affects other people.
Voting in a general election affects other people based on who is voted for.
At the end of the day, people will vote for what they believe, and not what they are told to vote for.

I am mature enough to respect everyone who votes whether Yes or No and the subsequent outcome. The problem is the people who are able to vote but won't.

Using your brain Robert means looking beyond your nose at the society you live in and the people you share your country with.

Traditional marriage...whats that? Marriage has changed and evolved over the years, there was a time you could only marry in the church and not divorce and look at whats happened there. There are still people out there who refuse to acknowledge a civil marriage as a marriage because its non traditional...are they right?

I will respect the outcome of the vote whatever it is but if its a No the fight for full equal rights continues.

Bannasidhe · 22-03-2015 12:49PM

RobertKK wrote: »

There was nothing stopping him from using the Protestant system tog et educated, there was if one wanted a Catholic education, which a vast majority did want and avoided the Protestant schools.
If you did some research you would see the ban on being in the legal profession was appealed.

Daniel O'Connell's family had their land taken off them.

Education

Former Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald was researching and editing Irish primary education in the early nineteenth century at the time of his death. His work on this book has been completed by his son, John FitzGerald. This study uses the data contained in an 1824 British Parliamentary Inquiry to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the extent of the Irish schools system. This Inquiry was undertaken some years before the introduction of the national school system in Ireland. In an international context, the comprehensive nature of this information is most unusual for an early-19th century state. This study uses these data to analyse the geographical pattern of male/female and Catholic/Protestant school attendance at that time; the scale of payments by parents, (few children, and then mainly those of Anglican parents, received free education); and to discuss the extent to which this pattern may have been influenced by various factors such as geography, religion, and urbanisation; and, finally, the degree to which children of differing religions in different parts of the country shared the same schools.

The analysis shows that there was a fair amount of mixed denominational education at the time. It also shows that at that stage ‘hedge schools’ were almost all taking place in some kind of structure – the idea of a literal hedge school is misinformed. Data are presented on the number of children at school, what sex they were, what they paid for school, what religion they were etc. We will publish these data electronically on open access to allow other scholars to interrogate the data.

https://www.ria.ie/Publications/Books/History/Irish-Primary-Education-in-the-early-nineteenth-ce

'Few children received a free education and those were mainly Anglican' - so Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers etc were also not usually those who received a free education.

'Fair amount of mixed denominational education at the time' - that's more than we have now.

Are you seriously complaining that State funded schools may have privileged the official State religion at a time when 96% of state funded schools are controlled by one religion in a republic whose Constitution guarantees freedom of religion? Seriously???

O'Connell land in Kerry - sale of land small amounts of land post Famine long after the repeal of the Penal Laws. Still significant land owners in the 1870s.

The O’Connells are an ancient Gaelic family, whom Burke claims had their origins in county Clare, before moving to West Kerry. The most famous member of the family is Daniel O’Connell, MP and Barrister-at-Law, who was a major political figure in pre-Famine Ireland. At the time of Griffith’s Valuation, Maurice O’Connell was one of the principal lessors in the parishes of Kilcrohane and Templenoe, barony of Dunkerron South and Nohaval, barony of Trughanacmy, while Elizabeth O’Connell was one of the principal lessors in the parish of Aglish, barony of Magunihy. Charles O'Connell was the lessor of several townlands in the parish of Dromod, barony of Waterville at the same time. Large portions of another O'Connell estate, that of the O'Connells of Grena, in the baronies of Magunihy and Trughanacmy were offered for sale in the Encumbered Estates court in 1850 and 1852. Over 1000 acres of the estate of Rickard O'Connell, including the lands at Carhen, were offered for sale in the Encumbered Estates Court in 1854. Lands at Upper Carhen, barony of Iveragh, in the possession of John Primrose, were offered for sale at the same time. In 1859, over 500 acres of land held on lease by Primrose from the O'Connell estate was offered for sale in the Landed Estates Court. Primrose was an agent for the O'Connell estate. Over 2000 acres of Maurice O'Connell's estate was offered for sale in the Encumbered Estates Court in November 1855. Lands at Carhen, on lease to the Barry and Trant families since the 1770s, were offered for sale in November 1857. Premises in Tralee, the property of Maurice Charles O'Connell, were offered for sale in the Landed Estates Court in June 1866. In the 1870s the O’Connell estate at Derrynane amounted to over 17,000 acres. Another member of the family, James, established himself at Killarney in the early nineteenth century, leasing lands from the Herberts. This estate amounted to over 18,000 acres in the 1870s and included lands in the parish of Ratass, barony of Trughanacmy. An offer was made by the Congested Districts Board on over 2000 acres of Sir Maurice O'Connell estate in 1913 while over 8600 acres of the estate of Daniel C. O'Connell was vested in the estate in 1914. Over 2000 acres of Daniel O'Connell's estate was vested in the Board in 1914.

http://landedestates.nuigalway.ie/LandedEstates/jsp/estate-show.jsp?id=1828

That enough research for you? Royal Irish Academdy and NUI Galway. I have loads more but my fry up is ready and there is a rugby match I want to watch on at 1 o clock.

Now, what does this have to do with this:

At the end of the day, in the context of this debate, it doesn't matter how anyone was treated prior to independence. It matters how the Irish State treats it's citizens NOW.

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 12:50PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing mature about denying other people the rights afforded to yourself based on vague references to tradition. The fallacy of traditional marriage as you describe it has been covered many, many times in this thread. I can only assume you're choosing to ignore posts that dont suit your outlook.

I don't care about other posts. I am not voting on other posts. I am voting what I feel deep down in my conscience.
I don't care if one wants to argue the fallacy of tradition marriage, it is not changing my opinion because you want it to.

I was just giving my views earlier. It was not to start a debate to tell me how wrong I am.

I let others scream from the rooftops here about their want for a Yes. I don't feel a need to try or want to change their opinion.
I am comfortable with what I am doing without feeling the need to want to change others.

eviltwin · 22-03-2015 12:54PM

RobertKK wrote: »

That is the sort of attitude that does the Yes campaign damage.

Why? Because its actually the crux of the issue?

Regardless of the outcome of the vote your life doesn't change. A yes vote doesn't have any negative outcome for you does it? Its not going to make your life harder or worse..it will have a huge impact on the thousands of gay couples and their families though living in this country, it will have a huge impact on the gay children growing up here over the next decade or so.

If you want to be a child about it and blame your upbringing on your ****ty attitudes go ahead ( although I grew up in an ultra conservative household and still managed to grow up to have an open mind despite that so I don't buy the whole "my parents raised me this way" rubbish ). Your making a choice to deny equality and that speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 12:54PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Education

https://www.ria.ie/Publications/Books/History/Irish-Primary-Education-in-the-early-nineteenth-ce

'Few children received a free education and those were mainly Anglican' - so Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers etc were also not usually those who received a free education.

'Fair amount of mixed denominational education at the time' - that's more than we have now.

Are you seriously complaining that State funded schools may have privileged the official State religion at a time when 96% of state funded schools are controlled by one religion in a republic whose Constitution guarantees freedom of religion? Seriously???

O'Connell land in Kerry - sale of land small amounts of land post Famine long after the repeal of the Penal Laws. Still significant land owners in the 1870s.

http://landedestates.nuigalway.ie/LandedEstates/jsp/estate-show.jsp?id=1828

That enough research for you? Royal Irish Academdy and NUI Galway. I have loads more but my fry up is ready and there is a rugby match I want to watch on at 1 o clock.

Now, what does this have to do with this:

At the end of the day, in the context of this debate, it doesn't matter how anyone was treated prior to independence. It matters how the Irish State treats it's citizens NOW.

Yes those dates and location are telling.

You will find the O'Connells originally were dispossessed in the past. It was in the 1600s that land was dispossessed.
Sure my ancestors in the 1800s owned land too, but I have seen records in Britain were this same land was taken off the Catholic owners in 1640s and given to Protestants.

tigger123 · 22-03-2015 12:55PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't care about other posts. I am not voting on other posts. I am voting what I feel deep down in my conscience.
I don't care if one wants to argue the fallacy of tradition marriage, it is not changing my opinion because you want it to.

I was just giving my views earlier. It was not to start a debate to tell me how wrong I am.

I let others scream from the rooftops here about their want for a Yes. I don't feel a need to try or want to change their opinion.
I am comfortable with what I am doing without feeling the need to want to change others.

What's your opinion on how marriage has been continually redefined through the previous centuries?

B_Wayne · 22-03-2015 12:57PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't care about other posts. I am not voting on other posts. I am voting what I feel deep down in my conscience.
I don't care if one wants to argue the fallacy of tradition marriage, it is not changing my opinion because you want it to.

I was just giving my views earlier. It was not to start a debate to tell me how wrong I am.

I let others scream from the rooftops here about their want for a Yes. I don't feel a need to try or want to change their opinion.
I am comfortable with what I am doing without feeling the need to want to change others.

Nobody is preventing you from expressing your opinion Robert. However it is not protected from criticism. Your argument is weak to be frank, you've previously argued that it will be a cover for paedophiles. Your arguments are awful and irrational.

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 12:58PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Why? Because its actually the crux of the issue?

Regardless of the outcome of the vote your life doesn't change. A yes vote doesn't have any negative outcome for you does it? Its not going to make your life harder or worse..it will have a huge impact on the thousands of gay couples and their families though living in this country, it will have a huge impact on the gay children growing up here over the next decade or so.

If you want to be a child about it and blame your upbringing on your ****ty attitudes go ahead ( although I grew up in an ultra conservative household and still managed to grow up to have an open mind despite that so I don't buy the whole "my parents raised me this way" rubbish ). Your making a choice to deny equality and that speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.

Oh look the name calling again, this is the attitude I am talking about.

That says what kind of person you are. You can't debate so you call me a child.

Do you think this is how you convince people to change how they vote? Call them names while making out you are somehow superior to someone like me who is inferior because I don't agree with you?

eviltwin · 22-03-2015 01:04PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Oh look the name calling again, this is the attitude I am talking about.

That says what kind of person you are. You can't debate so you call me a child.

Do you think this is how you convince people to change how they vote? Call them names while making out you are somehow superior to someone like me who is inferior because I don't agree with you?

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I think its pretty straight forward. Regardless of your own personal opinion voting yes is the right thing to do if you want to live in a country that treats people equally. There shouldn't be any soul searching involved. If you choose to deny equality it does say a lot about the you and your character but you've made up your mind to vote No and I'm not going to waste my time trying to get you to see the bigger picture when you are so entrenched in your views. Your attitude is childish. Its the kind of argument I'd expect from a teenager or a kid not an adult. You have failed to give any credible reason why its logical to vote No and in your last few posts you turn it back on your upbringing. I find that distasteful. You're an adult right? Form your own opinions.

B_Wayne · 22-03-2015 01:05PM

I'm pretty confident we're never going to persuade Robert. I'm just gonna eat popcorn as he lectures a history lecturer in history while repeatedly spouting she's wrong.

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 01:13PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

Nobody is preventing you from expressing your opinion Robert. However it is not protected from criticism. Your argument is weak to be frank, you've previously argued that it will be a cover for paedophiles. Your arguments are awful and irrational.

Australian police said same sex marriage was used as a cover in one paedophile scandal.
It involved Australia, the US and Russia. It led to Russia banning adoption to a number of countries given it was a Russian child that was being taken around the world by the two men to be abused by other men.
My argument is this will blow up in the faces of the gay community in the future just like when paedophiles joined the church because it gave them a cover of respect and people were afraid to boo to a priest, people are the same now with gay people because they fear causing unintended offense.
If one cared for others they would say it, better to be hated for saying something people don't want to hear.
Because they then have no excuses when it happens.

All you need to be is a paedophile with no record, hook up with another paedophile who has no record, pretend to be gay and pretend to be lovers, have your SSM, go through the process and get access to a child.
This is what happened in Australia.
It is not fantasy, it is already a reality, but no one wants to have a public debate because it will cause offense, even though the intention is good.

aloyisious · 22-03-2015 01:14PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Why should your opinion matter more?

The biggest joke of this campaign is the word equality, as you think your conscience opinion is worth more, as it affects other people.

We are being asked as individuals to give our opinion, it doesn't matter what others think or want, we have to do what we believe, or else be gullible being led by others.

i think that that was partly what your conscience was about, how you treated other people. Certainly JC thought how you treat others, and had respect for them, was important. I'd imagine that he'd like the idea of giving equality to others that are denied the civil right you have.

This notion of gullibility you mention is what the Iona Instutute is calling and relying on in their fight against the equalization of Civil Marriage. It's called the doctrine of the faithful that has been propounded down the centuries to RCC adherents.

The Christian faiths have history here on marriage and it's exclusivity. Ne Temere from the RC side here after our new state was born. it wishes to keep what control it still has over marriage here, hence the opposition to same-sex civil marriage. It say's marriage is all about the family, the family means children, and children are future faith-adherents. It's in it's self-interest to block the equalization of civil marriage across the sexual divide.

Bannasidhe · 22-03-2015 01:18PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes those dates and location are telling.

You will find the O'Connells originally were dispossessed in the past. It was in the 1600s that land was dispossessed.
Sure my ancestors in the 1800s owned land too, but I have seen records in Britain were this same land was taken off the Catholic owners in 1640s and given to Protestants.

Trust me - you do not want to get into a p*ssing contest with me about what happened in the Early Modern Period.

Consider this: If the O'Connells were dispossessed in the 17th century (they were in Clare then under the overlordship of the Protestant O'Briens, Earls of Thomond and direct descendants of Brian Ború by the way) and no Catholic was allowed to own land how did the Catholic O'Connells end up owning a large swathes of Kerry in the 18th century?

You're not really thinking this through are you?

Now, what does this have to do with this:

At the end of the day, in the context of this debate, it doesn't matter how anyone was treated prior to independence. It matters how the Irish State treats it's citizens NOW.

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 01:23PM

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I think its pretty straight forward. Regardless of your own personal opinion voting yes is the right thing to do if you want to live in a country that treats people equally. There shouldn't be any soul searching involved. If you choose to deny equality it does say a lot about the you and your character but you've made up your mind to vote No and I'm not going to waste my time trying to get you to see the bigger picture when you are so entrenched in your views. Your attitude is childish. Its the kind of argument I'd expect from a teenager or a kid not an adult. You have failed to give any credible reason why its logical to vote No and in your last few posts you turn it back on your upbringing. I find that distasteful. You're an adult right? Form your own opinions.

It says a lot about you, It says a lot about you. I don't care what it says about me.

I should come on here and tell lies to keep people like you happy, that would be the adult thing, right? Be PC and afraid to post what one really believes because eviltwin will have to rant about a person being truthful in their opinion and views is childish and distasteful.
A lot of people don't buy the equality argument, but some are not mature enough to realise that.

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Comments