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

ohnonotgmail · 27-04-2015 10:11AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not approaching it from a religious POV, it's just pure common sense. Two people of the same sex cannot do the same job as an opposite sex couple, however much the gay lobby try and spin it. It doesn't need proving, the thing proves itself. Why pretend otherwise?

ROFLMAO. I dont think there is any point discussing this with you. You dont seem to be big on the whole thinking thing.

Huntergonzo · 27-04-2015 10:13AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Well we already have pastors in america who blame natural disasters on things like homosexuality. Earthquakes and hurricanes and the like.

I even have a nut job of a religious neighbour who tells the few remaining people who still listen that negative events that happen in the town where I live can be blamed on the non-standard relationship I am in. Quite literally things like car crashes that happen on the stretch of road where I live can be traced back - in his mind - to gods displeasure at who I share my beds with.

Well that's pretty bigoted, that neighbour of yours should be either reported to the police for harassment or taken into care depending on the circumstances. It's probably not very PC to say but I think people like him have a form of mental illness and should be receiving some sort of psychiatric help.

Shrap · 27-04-2015 10:13AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not approaching it from a religious POV, it's just pure common sense. Two people of the same sex cannot do the same job as an opposite sex couple, however much the gay lobby try and spin it. It doesn't need proving, the thing proves itself. Why pretend otherwise?

Your sense is far from pure, because you're not making any. You have yet to tell us WHAT exactly a parent of one particular sex can do that a parent of the opposite sex cannot.

Until you specify what part of the parenting job cannot be done as well by a man as by a woman, or a woman as by a man, then your "common sense" is entirely illusionary.

VinLieger · 27-04-2015 10:17AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not approaching it from a religious POV, it's just pure common sense. Two people of the same sex cannot do the same job as an opposite sex couple, however much the gay lobby try and spin it. It doesn't need proving, the thing proves itself. Why pretend otherwise?

It actually does need proving no matter how much your blinkered and bigotted view of how the world works wants to believe it

27-04-2015 10:18AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not approaching it from a religious POV, it's just pure common sense. Two people of the same sex cannot do the same job as an opposite sex couple, however much the gay lobby try and spin it. It doesn't need proving, the thing proves itself. Why pretend otherwise?

I do not know why you are pretending what you are pretending. I do know that you have been asked what the difference is - what they can not actually achieve compared to an opposite sex couple - and you have simply dodged and ignored those questions.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Well that's pretty bigoted, that neighbour of yours should be either reported to the police for harassment or taken into care depending on the circumstances. It's probably not very PC to say but I think people like him have a form of mental illness and should be receiving some sort of psychiatric help.

It would deprive me of the amusement he brings me were he to be taken away by the folk in white coats. I have caught him on a couple of occasions flicking "holy water" onto my land and murmuring prayers and sermons to himself.

The police are well aware of him - given he finds the most comical reasons to call them and send them to my home. He once found that if he leans out his window far enough - to the point of near suicide - that he can see my girlfriends sunbathing naked around the back of my house for example. He found this sufficient reason to consume garda time.

aloyisious · 27-04-2015 10:18AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not approaching it from a religious POV, it's just pure common sense. Two people of the same sex cannot do the same job as an opposite sex couple, however much the gay lobby try and spin it. It doesn't need proving, the thing proves itself. Why pretend otherwise?

If you're referring to procreation, then yes, in most cases LGBT same-sex couples, married or other, can't do the same "job" by themselves. We know about birds and bees., and on how IVF plus a willing gay or lesbian person can and will help out same-sex couples faced with the "job" problem. One does not have to seek a non-national woman for surrogacy.

When I wrote "in most cases" I had in mind the same-sex couple in the UK which had a transgender female to male partner who kept the womb and vagina he was born with and was impregnated and gave birth to two children.

aloyisious · 27-04-2015 10:19AM

BTW, Ronan and a govt minister are discussing the issue of SSM on RTE Radio 1 now.

ohnonotgmail · 27-04-2015 10:22AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I do not know why you are pretending what you are pretending. I do know that you have been asked what the difference is - what they can not actually achieve compared to an opposite sex couple - and you have simply dodged and ignored those questions.

It would deprive me of the amusement he brings me were he to be taken away by the folk in white coats. I have caught him on a couple of occasions flicking "holy water" onto my land and murmuring prayers and sermons to himself.

The police are well aware of him - given he finds the most comical reasons to call them and send them to my home. He once found that if he leans out his window far enough - to the point of near suicide - that he can see my girlfriends sunbathing naked around the back of my house for example. He found this sufficient reason to consume garda time.

you should have reported him for being a dirty oul' perv

frostyjacks · 27-04-2015 10:23AM

sup_dude wrote: »

Again, how will you voting No change it?

Because you can't make things equal that just aren't. In order to raise the status of a gay relationship, we're going to redefine marriage, bringing it down a level.

27-04-2015 10:24AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you should have reported him for being a dirty oul' perv

I will leave that between him and his imaginary friend to worry about

If he ever became an issue I would deal with him - but thus far he is merely a source of some amusement.

Ave Sodalis · 27-04-2015 10:24AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because you can't make things equal that just aren't. In order to raise the status of a gay relationship, we're going to redefine marriage, bringing it down a level.

That's not answering the question. How will you voting No protect the family?

ohnonotgmail · 27-04-2015 10:24AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because you can't make things equal that just aren't. In order to raise the status of a gay relationship, we're going to redefine marriage, bringing it down a level.

answer the question. How will voting No change any of this? You do realise that same sex couples can already have children and adopt together? that voting No will have absolutely no effect on this, AT ALL.

eviltwin · 27-04-2015 10:25AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because you can't make things equal that just aren't. In order to raise the status of a gay relationship, we're going to redefine marriage, bringing it down a level.

How will it bring it down a level? Whatever than means. I'm married, how will SSM affect my relationship?

Huntergonzo · 27-04-2015 10:26AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It would deprive me of the amusement he brings me were he to be taken away by the folk in white coats. I have caught him on a couple of occasions flicking "holy water" onto my land and murmuring prayers and sermons to himself.

The police are well aware of him - given he finds the most comical reasons to call them and send them to my home. He once found that if he leans out his window far enough - to the point of near suicide - that he can see my girlfriends sunbathing naked around the back of my house for example. He found this sufficient reason to consume garda time.

Haha jaysus he sounds like a right piece of work alright, I suppose if he's providing entertainment then leave him to it. Also I think people like him provide a public service, nothing drives people to seeing sense quicker than observing the actions of a person who takes their conservative beliefs far too seriously.

AtomicHorror · 27-04-2015 10:33AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because you can't make things equal that just aren't. In order to raise the status of a gay relationship, we're going to redefine marriage, bringing it down a level.

In what sense is a gay relationship lesser than mixed gender relationship? How will my marriage be diminished? How is this measured?

What is the level of my marriage now and what will it be after the yes vote passes?

VinLieger · 27-04-2015 10:34AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because you can't make things equal that just aren't. In order to raise the status of a gay relationship, we're going to redefine marriage, bringing it down a level.

Marriage is about two people who love each other making a commitment and nothing else, extending this right to people of the same sex isnt redefining what marriage is, it's opening it up to people who shamefully up until now have been told their love is not the same or real as heterosexual couples

AtomicHorror · 27-04-2015 10:36AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Two people of the same sex cannot do the same job as an opposite sex couple, however much the gay lobby try and spin it. It doesn't need proving, the thing proves itself.

This is a first. A self-proving assertion.

So we all have to back up our arguments, but not you. That must be nice.

Still waiting on answers to the below (I don't let stuff go, sorry):

AtomicHorror wrote:

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because you're saying that a same sex unit can do the same job as a traditional unit, which is illogical.

Saying that one mixed sex unit can do the same job as another mixed sex unit is also illogical.

frostyjacks wrote: »

It would be like my employers hiring a chimpanzee to work alongside me and pretending it's capable of doing the same job.

Well actually since the gender mix is the basis of your argument above and since species is not a element of your argument above, this analogy is very seriously broken.

A more appropriate analogy would work on the basis of the gender composition of the unit doing the job. So actually your analogy should read:

"It would be like my employers hiring a woman to work alongside me and pretending she's capable of doing the same job."

Uh oh.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Society is fragmenting enough as it is, we don't need to accelerate it.

How is the fragmentation of society measured? What is the evidence that fragmentation is increasing? What is the evidence that the increase would accelerate if same-sex family units are protected?

frostyjacks · 27-04-2015 10:41AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

answer the question. How will voting No change any of this? You do realise that same sex couples can already have children and adopt together? that voting No will have absolutely no effect on this, AT ALL.

I've answered it. A yes vote will say one's marriage is equal to something that it clearly isn't.

Ave Sodalis · 27-04-2015 10:43AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I've answered it. A yes vote will say one's marriage is equal to something that it clearly isn't.

How will a No vote protect the family? Do you know what you're voting on?

eviltwin · 27-04-2015 10:45AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I've answered it. A yes vote will say one's marriage is equal to something that it clearly isn't.

No it won't. It will say a homosexual relationship is equal to a straight one. Most people already see it that way marriage or not, this just brings the law up to date. What is, in your opinion, the danger to a heterosexual marriage if this passes?

Bannasidhe · 27-04-2015 10:45AM

aloyisious wrote: »

BTW, Ronan and a govt minister are discussing the issue of SSM on RTE Radio 1 now.

There is a govt minister?

I thought it was the Ronan Mullen show as he was the only person talking most of the time.

kunst nugget · 27-04-2015 10:47AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I've answered it. A yes vote will say one's marriage is equal to something that it clearly isn't.

So should we outlaw marriage for infertile couples or couples who choose not to have kids. Maybe have a time period for people to have children within or else their marriage is revoked?

ohnonotgmail · 27-04-2015 10:49AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I've answered it. A yes vote will say one's marriage is equal to something that it clearly isn't.

you havent answered the question. How will voting no change anything in relation to the raising of children?

kunst nugget · 27-04-2015 10:54AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There is a govt minister?

I thought it was the Ronan Mullen show as he was the only person talking most of the time.

Considering he is the FG director for the marriage referendum, Coveney gave a pretty uninspired performance with way too many gaps and brain farts from him.

27-04-2015 10:54AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I've answered it. A yes vote will say one's marriage is equal to something that it clearly isn't.

Marriages at the moment are not generally equal anyway - so your using "equal" as a buzz word is just white noise really.

Your systematic ignoring of every poster who asks you to quantify the differences and their effects however is more than telling.

wetfoot · 27-04-2015 10:57AM

PutDownArtist wrote: »

Look, I have nothing against the LGBLT society whatsoever.

Hello there. i know you seem to have all sorts of reasoning for your 'no' vote, addressing the balance, showing the power of your voice, exercising your democratic right blahdiblahdiblah. But I'd be ever so grateful if you could not say things like the above when you're voting to ensure that LGBT people don't have equal rights. If you've got nothing against us, then don't vote against us.

And if you are going to vote against us then don't insult our intelligence by dressing it up as something else. Your intent really doesn't matter, you're actively voting for something negative to happen to LGBT people so be a grown up and own your action.

Honestly, all this stuff about the no voters citing child abuse and kids needing a mother or a father just makes me roll my eyes. I'm gay, not stupid. And I know that most of the no voters don't really care what me and Mrs me get up to because we are women and that's a bit naughty but kind of kinky and appealing.

I do wish that no voters would just hold their hands up and say that it's the sodomy they don't hold with. That's fine, I've got no problem with people saying that they don't want a willie up their bottom (although, I've not seen anything so far that says it will be compulsory). I've been hearing that kind of bollox for over thirty years. It's when its dressed up as some kind of legitimate moral societal concern that I get miffy.

padd b1975 · 27-04-2015 10:58AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There is a govt minister?

I thought it was the Ronan Mullen show as he was the only person talking most of the time.

I doubt that very much.:rolleyes:

Shrap · 27-04-2015 11:01AM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Considering he is the FG director for the marriage referendum, Coveney gave a pretty uninspired performance with way too many gaps and brain farts from him.

Yeah, I thought so too. What a train wreck of an interview, but Coveney's frustration was understandable tbf. I've met people who were reduced to tears by Mullen's blatent lying in the face of reasoned debate and he has an uncanny knack of making people forget their own arguments out of sheer exasperation.

:mad::mad: Eww, he's a (insert bannable string of curse words here). He came over as angry and petulant though, and got caught out in a few lies at least.

AtomicHorror · 27-04-2015 11:02AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I've answered it. A yes vote will say one's marriage is equal to something that it clearly isn't.

Of course a homosexual marriage is not qualitatively equal to a heterosexual marriage. But then no heterosexual marriage is qualitatively equal to any other heterosexual marriage. This referendum is not about that. When the yes vote passes, it won't be written into the constitution that all marriages are qualitatively equal, because that's already untrue and a useless thing to put into a constitution anyway. This is a really strange idea you're pedalling.

What exactly do you understand by "equality"? It seems like you've misunderstood the concept. When we talk about all human beings being equal, we're not saying they're all the same height, weight, colour, intelligence... we're saying they must be treated equally, in order to afford them equality of opportunity. To level the playing field (as much as we can) so that everyone gets a chance to reach the potential and live to their utmost.

That's what we mean by equality, that's what has always been meant by it.

Your central point is completely and utterly worthless to this discussion because you've misunderstood the word "equality".

Zubeneschamali · 27-04-2015 11:15AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because you're saying that a same sex unit can do the same job as a traditional unit, which is illogical. It would be like my employers hiring a chimpanzee to work alongside me

All the studies say same sex couples do an equally good job as opposite sex ones raising children, so you seem to be suggesting that you do a job a chimp could handle.

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

Comments