sup_dude wrote: » But it's this that's going to cause the referendum to fail. People assuming that it'll be a landslide are less likely to go vote. Would love if it was a landslide but I don't think it will be that easy.
fran17 wrote: » See this is precisely why nobody comes to this forum to debate any issue regarding homosexuality.There is a constant group,whatever the equivalent to the shinnerbots would be,who have there list of points and answers to issues which lead all debates into a cul de sac.I have spoken in private to quite a few who feel the exact same.Many don't because of the abuse they receive and others,like me,don't engage anymore because its pointless. Just today people have been called: Bigoted Dumb Homophobes Stupid God botherer Dickheads
arayess wrote: » If you say so.... There is a lot in your post that I disagree with but I'm working and to do it justice in a reply would take a while. a few quick points I used fathers rights as an example only. But yes it would concern me. I never got involved cos the forthcoming bill looked promising but I believe it's going to be a watered down flop now. I may well do get involved. and my understanding of free speech is perfectly fine. DQ gets critics but he also gets a lot people on social media who want him shut down. You won't have to look hard to see that. finally - yes i want to attack the yes campaign despite deciding to vote yes. That's ****ing bizarre stuff dude, it's fairly clear I meant some people not all people. Sorry I can't debate further - I've work to do.
fran17 wrote: » But do you not see the link between both? Article 41 3.1 of the constitution says: "the state pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of MARRIAGE,on which the FAMILY is founded,and to protect it against attack" Article 41 1.1 says: "The state recognises the FAMILY as the natural primary and fundamental UNIT GROUP of society" This referendum wants to redefine marriage to be without distinction as to one's sex thus your redefining the family unit.Your redefining the family unit because the constitution clearly states that its founded on marriage.The family is the fundamental unit group of society so its logical to conclude that this family units purpose is to reproduce and provide the future generation of this country.This family unit if which will provide this country with its next generation,is as the constitution states "indispensable to the welfare of the nation and the state". Your mother is completely correct in her view and I think,personally,that you should respect that.
a postere wrote: » Why do you not believe the poll figures ?
sup_dude wrote: » Because there's a difference between a poll and people actually going out to vote. Always has been.
fran17 wrote: » Where is panti,Does anyone know? Last time I read anything in reference to him he stated in an interview about this referendum: "Whereas our civil partnerships here have a lot of weaknesses in comparison to marriage,especially to do with FAMILIES and CHILDREN,so were even more determined to push ahead"....
Bannasidhe wrote: » Never mind Panti
One eyed Jack wrote: » Would you prefer if people were grateful to you for denying them the equal protection of the State or something? Honestly. It simply beggars belief that you aren't willing to understand why people are angry and why people are frustrated. You're calling for tolerance for yourself, while proclaiming that you should somehow be entitled to a free pass for being intolerant of other people. Seriously fran, practice what you preach, and you'll find that people treat you with respect when you treat them with respect. If you don't treat other people with respect, then you shouldn't be surprised and your words about tolerance ring hollow when you're not willing to practice what you preach.
fran17 wrote: » Sure your legal brain,in conjunction with your sexuality,does not permit the computation of a right to a mam and dad in a childs life floggg.This is unfortunate but i'll tell you something,the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland,and humanity,understand the meaning of this and its your flaw to correct.
a postere wrote: » Far from "always has been ", not if the polls are accurate in the first place. A great many polls have been absolutely spot on over the years.
fran17 wrote: » I do practice what I preach,thank you very much.Nobody cares anymore about two men getting married,thats what civil partnership created.You seem to be one of the very few logical people here.Regarding the constitutions definition on marriage being what the family is founded on,Would you be perfectly happy to see a two male family bringing up a young girl? honestly.
a postere wrote: » ? Now there's a turn up for the books ? I thought Pantibliss would be front and center ? Why has he been hidden away / silenced ? and by whom ?
seamus wrote: » Except that your conclusion is wrong because it has been ruled in court to be wrong. The constitution does not consider "Family" to refer to reproduction at all. "Family" in the constitution does not explicitly include children. The constitution does not require nor assume that a "Family" has children. You could just as easily conclude that as the fundamental unit of society, the purpose of the family is to provide unity and support within society by uniting familes to each other. Expanding the definition of marriage does not by implication or necessity change the meaning of the word "Family" in the constitution. It will continue to refer to a married couple. You can claim otherwise all you like, but you'd be wrong.
shruikan2553 wrote: » The reason nobody debates with you is because it's pointless. You make claims, said claims are proven wrong or pointless. You then disappear for awhile before returning to spout the same crap.
sup_dude wrote: » You don't engage anymore? Really? On that note, where's your complaints about the No side calling homosexuals paedophiles, lesser citizens and so on?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Never mind Panti - care to comment on your own flagrant flaunting of the 8th Commandment which is a central to the Faith you claim to espouse?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Hello new poster. There is a handy device called 'google' - if you use it to search Panti Bliss or Rory O'Neill you will find your question answered. Failing that perhaps you would like to visit the Conspiracy Theories forum and ask them to comment on the silencing of a person who was featured in an article in The Guardian just a few days ago.
fran17 wrote: » I see the message has been sent and the playbook is open.Cue the fallacies,red herrings and abuse :rolleyes:
shruikan2553 wrote: » American Academy of Pediatrics American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry American Psychiatric Association American Psychological Association American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy American Psychoanalytic Association National Association of Social Workers Child Welfare League of America North American Council on Adoptable Children Canadian Psychological Association Australian Psychological Society ISPCC Are all ok with it, you should inform them of what you know. All their information must be wrong. What will we do about the young girls who are being raised by 2 men that you wish to deny her a family?
fran17 wrote: » Panti has been sent away for reneducation.I doubt he'll return before the 22nd.
a postere wrote: » Why's he not allowed on Irish media though ?
omnithanos wrote: » My parents will be voting no because they follow the teaching of the church. How should a tolerant practicing catholic who believes in equality vote?
Bannasidhe wrote: » because they are homophobes? :pac:
stmol32 wrote: » "You see people often say, ‘this is like giving the right of a black person to marry a white person because, in certain American states and in South Africa inter-racial marriage is banned and they try to compare this to that, or they try to say it’s like the American south where they had segregation or South Africa where they had apartheid but when blacks were given equal rights, nobody else’s rights were affected. So it was completely fair and acceptable and defensible. There was nobody…when a black person could sit anywhere they liked on a bus or use any drink fountain or go to any school or get married to whom they liked, nobody else’s rights were affected – least of all the rights of children." Actually he's completely wrong about this. Once black people didn't have to move to the back it affected white peoples right to effectively reserved seating on all public transport i.e. they might have to stand where they wouldn't have before. Unlike marriage equality, where nobody else's marriage is affected. Unless he means there won't be as many reception venues available to different sex couples? But then that situation already exists with civil union which, as we all know now, Iona never had a problem with at all.
