Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…197198200202203…325

Comments

  • #5972
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    kitten_k wrote: »
    What annoys me the most about the No campaign is that their posters are so misleading. The referendum changes nothing in relation to gay couples becoming parents!! this could lead to people voting no due to being misinformed!

    I personally will be voting yes and sincerely hope it is passed.

    As far as I can tell, if I vote yes, the state will take my children off me and give them to a gay couple who'll turn them gay. It's political correctness gone mad! You couldn't make it up!


  • #5973
    southstar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 465 ✭✭southstar


    Yes, the law society of Ireland have been blasting us all with gay rays to get us to agree to gay marriage so that they can make a fortune from us when gay divorce becomes the latest trendy thing for the rainbow flag flying PC brigade to do. The dastardly bastid

    Are they like the fire brigade?


  • #5974
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    galljga1 wrote: »
    I have no clue to what this is related. Anyone enlighten me?

    He's looking for condoms for animals… this is obviously the work of one of those lefty liberal, 'look at me!' types…


  • #5975
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    If the yes campaign succeeds, which I think it will, then I'd hop to see IONA and other similar groups getting done for inciting hatred if they keep up they crap.


  • #5976
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,160 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    PutDownArtist wrote: »
    So many posters are choosing to live up to the negative gay stereotyping with their behaviour. The following video keeps popping into my mind when I read this thread.


    Vote yes or I'll slap you soooooo super hard!!!

    Who are these posters you're speaking of? Well done, you're making yourself look even more of a bigot.


  • Advertisement
  • #5977
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    southstar wrote: »
    Are they like the fire brigade?

    Kind of. Except they don't put out fires. They persecute good, honest Christians who just want to be left alone to make gay people feel guilty and dirty for being sinners just like their parents and their grandparents did before them. Is that too much to ask?!?!


  • #5978
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    PutDownArtist wrote: »
    No amount of internet bullying will make me vote yes.:o



    What? You're not voting yes? A whole vote? Guys we might as well concede defeat now. PutDownArtist is voting no.


  • #5979
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    kitten_k wrote: »
    What annoys me the most about the No campaign is that their posters are so misleading. The referendum changes nothing in relation to gay couples becoming parents!! this could lead to people voting no due to being misinformed!

    I personally will be voting yes and sincerely hope it is passed.

    Yes and even though it's irrelevant to this referendum what would be wrong with gay couples becoming parents anyway? What demonstrable evil can possibly come of 2 loving people of the same gender raising a child? It just makes the No side look even worse, but I say let them have their soapbox, nothing could do their stone age opinions more harm.


  • #5980
    CiDeRmAn
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,798 CMod ✭✭✭✭CiDeRmAn


    OldNotWIse wrote: »

    My mother never did a single night feed. She had post natal depression and my dad heard that some other woman on our road with PND had tried to flush her kid down the toilet. So, he did every night feed because he was afraid of what she would do if woken up :P He was on bath duty too as far as I remember and the world didn't implode because it wasn't my mother. He brought me shopping for a dress for my first school disco. In some ways he is my best friend. So with the greatest respect....gender roles my backside :)

    I was always better at the late nights/early mornings than my wife so I did most of the night feeds and the settling the little man off to sleep if he awoke, I used to look forward to cradling my son in the wee hours tbh.
    We work opposite shifts and so I get to spend equal time with him and there are jobs I do with him and jobs my better half does, not because I'm a bloke and she's a lady but because there are things I don't mind doing, like ironing and vacuuming, while there are things she does almost exclusively (never knew a toaster had a crumb tray to be emptied until we started living together!
    Do these people not realise (well, aside from the fact that this referendum does not actually affect the ability of gay couples to have or adopt children), that there are already thousands of "unconventional" families in existence? Single parents, gay parents, step-parents, foster parents etc....

    Bang on the money.
    The thing that affects kids is the lack of love and support from the adults in their lives, nothing to do with the penis quotient of their parents bedroom.


  • #5981
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    I'm voting no, there ya go, I just said it! Not a bigot, not a homophobe, not a practicing Catholic, just think that children is EVERYTHING to do with marriage, and equating a family with two fathers, or two mothers, to a family where the child is being raised by its biological parents, is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

    And the yes folks banging on like raging lunatics that this referendum has NOTHING to do with children, that's just a downright insane argument to ask anyone to believe and trying to argue otherwise in my eyes has discredited everything about the yes campaign. It is also ridiculous that this forum, where I am anonymous, is the only place I can state these genuinely held views without invoking bile and rage down on top of myself, such is the level aggression that is fueling the yes campaign.

    I've tried looking at this from every single angle and there is just no way I can see how giving gay people the right to a recognition of their family within our constitution, makes one single iota of sense.

    This is about the selfish need of people who cannot, as a matter of human design, ever create children within their own relationship, wanting to turn nature and biology on its head and demand that they can not just have children, (and they can), but then demand that we now recognise them on the very same terms as a family that can procreate and create children from within their own relationship, and not just that, but that we now give them constitutional protection as well? Seriously?!? If it wasn't such a serious matter it would be hilarious.


  • Advertisement
  • #5982
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,947 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    I'm voting no, there ya go, I just said it! Not a bigot, not a homophobe, not a practicing Catholic, just think that children is EVERYTHING to do with marriage, and equating a family with two fathers, or two mothers, to a family where the child is being raised by its biological parents, is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

    And the yes folks banging on like raging lunatics that this referendum has NOTHING to do with children, that's just a downright insane argument to ask anyone to believe and trying to argue otherwise in my eyes has discredited everything about the yes campaign. It is also ridiculous that this forum, where I am anonymous, is the only place I can state these genuinely held views without invoking bile and rage down on top of myself, such is the level aggression that is fueling the yes campaign.

    I've tried looking at this from every single angle and there is just no way I can see how giving gay people the right to a recognition of their family within our constitution, makes one single iota of sense.

    This is about the selfish need of people who cannot, as a matter of human design, ever create children within their own relationship, wanting to turn nature and biology on its head and demand that they can not just have children, (and they can), but then demand that we now recognise them on the very same terms as a family that can procreate and create children from within their own relationship, and not just that, but that we now give them constitutional protection as well? Seriously?!? If it wasn't such a serious matter it would be hilarious.

    And none of things you mention will be affected in any way by you voting no. But sure dont let facts get in the way of your rant.


  • #5983
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    And none of things you mention will be affected in any way by you voting no. But sure dont let facts get in the way of your rant.

    Of course they will be affected, how on earth will fundamentally changing the meaning of marriage, not fundamentally change the meaning of the family?


  • #5984
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    golfball37 wrote: »
    You forgot to mention the legal profession creaming it from the increase in divorces that will inevitably follow also.

    VOTE NO TO DIVORCE!!

    Oh...wait... that boat sailed looong time ago...


  • #5985
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    I'm voting no, there ya go, I just said it! Not a bigot, not a homophobe, not a practicing Catholic, just think that children is EVERYTHING to do with marriage, and equating a family with two fathers, or two mothers, to a family where the child is being raised by its biological parents, is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

    And the yes folks banging on like raging lunatics that this referendum has NOTHING to do with children, that's just a downright insane argument to ask anyone to believe and trying to argue otherwise in my eyes has discredited everything about the yes campaign. It is also ridiculous that this forum, where I am anonymous, is the only place I can state these genuinely held views without invoking bile and rage down on top of myself, such is the level aggression that is fueling the yes campaign.

    I've tried looking at this from every single angle and there is just no way I can see how giving gay people the right to a recognition of their family within our constitution, makes one single iota of sense.

    This is about the selfish need of people who cannot, as a matter of human design, ever create children within their own relationship, wanting to turn nature and biology on its head and demand that they can not just have children, (and they can), but then demand that we now recognise them on the very same terms as a family that can procreate and create children from within their own relationship, and not just that, but that we now give them constitutional protection as well? Seriously?!? If it wasn't such a serious matter it would be hilarious.

    Goddammit, you're right!!! But we shouldn't stop there! We should round up all single parents into some sort of internment camp because of the obscene cruelty they have played on their children and society in general and we should get rid of divorce so that we force parents to stay together for the good of their children! Some naysayers say that sh¡t fúcks a kid up but let's be honest they're probably liberals and you know what that sort are like.


  • #5986
    Smiles35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭Smiles35


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Of course they will be affected, how on earth will fundamentally changing the meaning of marriage, not fundamentally change the meaning of the family?

    But that's not in our hands though. Birds still go bild a nest .ect without a cert.


  • #5987
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,947 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Of course they will be affected, how on earth will fundamentally changing the meaning of marriage, not fundamentally change the meaning of the family?

    all the issues around children have already been legislated for.


  • #5988
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Of course they will be affected, how on earth will fundamentally changing the meaning of marriage, not fundamentally change the meaning of the family?

    Yeah, people don't realise how hard it's going to be for us straight people to have to say 'I'm married… but I'm not gay married!!!' because once this marriage 'equality' comes in people won't know if I'm gay or straight just from looking at my wedding ring! You couldn't make it up!


  • #5989
    CiDeRmAn
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,798 CMod ✭✭✭✭CiDeRmAn


    So, will you be looking to have civil marriages to couples who can't have kids or decide not to have children?

    The core then is if marriage is a framework purely for the act of procreation and the creation of a stable family, or can marriage possibly be about a life long commitment for two people to move into the future, tying their destinies together as a couple, a synergy of love and support.
    How on earth can the ability of two men or women getting married affect "one single iota" of the marriages of anyone else?
    There are plenty of screwed up kids being produced by mixed gender parents.
    Children benefit from a loving supportive household, be it provided by a mix of Mam and Dad, a parent and a step parent, foster parents, grand parents, all the situations described by Oldnotwise.

    If human design is where you are coming from and what we are adhering to, there are plenty of hetro couples out there that'd be childless if nature was allowed to continue to dictate who could be a parent and who could not.
    A gay couple can provide a stable loving household for a child, a child from a previous relationship, a child who is fostered or adopted can find a good home with loving parents, regardless of gender, and there are plenty of studies to prove that.

    And there is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion, even one contrary to the overall one being forwarded.
    The problem is that the "No" vote will do nothing to change the situation of hetrosexuals in our community but will maintain an inequality for our brothers, sisters, friends, colleagues and children who are gay and deserve the same rights to live in a committed and recognised union.


  • #5990
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Goddammit, you're right!!! But we shouldn't stop there! We should round up all single parents into some sort of internment camp because of the obscene cruelty they have played on their children and society in general and we should get rid of divorce so that we force parents to stay together for the good of their children! Some naysayers say that sh¡t fúcks a kid up but let's be honest they're probably liberals and you know what that sort are like.

    Single parents have NOTHING to do with this debate! Any single parents I know, serious regret that they are single parents, they wish their family unit was still intact. They will openly admit that their partner let them down and their life is a financial struggle since they became single parents and that the job of them raising their children would be a lot easier if their relationship had not broken down. But in any event single parents have absolutely NOTHING to do with the SSM debate.


  • #5991
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,707 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    I'm voting no, there ya go, I just said it! Not a bigot, not a homophobe, not a practicing Catholic, just think that children is EVERYTHING to do with marriage, and equating a family with two fathers, or two mothers, to a family where the child is being raised by its biological parents, is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

    And the yes folks banging on like raging lunatics that this referendum has NOTHING to do with children, that's just a downright insane argument to ask anyone to believe and trying to argue otherwise in my eyes has discredited everything about the yes campaign. It is also ridiculous that this forum, where I am anonymous, is the only place I can state these genuinely held views without invoking bile and rage down on top of myself, such is the level aggression that is fueling the yes campaign.

    I've tried looking at this from every single angle and there is just no way I can see how giving gay people the right to a recognition of their family within our constitution, makes one single iota of sense.

    This is about the selfish need of people who cannot, as a matter of human design, ever create children within their own relationship, wanting to turn nature and biology on its head and demand that they can not just have children, (and they can), but then demand that we now recognise them on the very same terms as a family that can procreate and create children from within their own relationship, and not just that, but that we now give them constitutional protection as well? Seriously?!? If it wasn't such a serious matter it would be hilarious.


    No you haven't.

    And since when are heterosexual couples vetted before they meet the criteria for marriage and then only given permission by the State to enter into marriage on condition that they reproduce within the marriage?

    They're not, and children are not an automatic condition of marriage.


  • Advertisement
  • #5992
    bruschi
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,149 Mod ✭✭✭✭bruschi


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    I'm voting no, there ya go, I just said it! Not a bigot, not a homophobe, not a practicing Catholic, just think that children is EVERYTHING to do with marriage, and equating a family with two fathers, or two mothers, to a family where the child is being raised by its biological parents, is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

    And the yes folks banging on like raging lunatics that this referendum has NOTHING to do with children, that's just a downright insane argument to ask anyone to believe and trying to argue otherwise in my eyes has discredited everything about the yes campaign. It is also ridiculous that this forum, where I am anonymous, is the only place I can state these genuinely held views without invoking bile and rage down on top of myself, such is the level aggression that is fueling the yes campaign.

    I've tried looking at this from every single angle and there is just no way I can see how giving gay people the right to a recognition of their family within our constitution, makes one single iota of sense.

    This is about the selfish need of people who cannot, as a matter of human design, ever create children within their own relationship, wanting to turn nature and biology on its head and demand that they can not just have children, (and they can), but then demand that we now recognise them on the very same terms as a family that can procreate and create children from within their own relationship, and not just that, but that we now give them constitutional protection as well? Seriously?!? If it wasn't such a serious matter it would be hilarious.

    well gay people can currently adopt under legislation right now, so this vote has nothing to do with children as the constitution has already covered that point. so you're no vote has no consequence on the reason you profess.

    secondly, how is it not considered to be homophobic that you think gay people raising children is hilarious, silly, selfish? Why are you better than a gay person? Why is their sexuality a precursor to their ability to raise children?

    Also, your point about turning nature and biology on its head, does that go for heterosexual people who cannot procreate? would you call those people selfish for wanting to have kids but use modern scientific advances to have a family? And if not, why not, considering you think its selfish for gay people to want to have kids.

    you absolutely have your right for your opinion and your vote, but you are totally misguided in your logic for voting no


  • #5993
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    I'm voting no, there ya go, I just said it! Not a bigot, not a homophobe, not a practicing Catholic, just think that children is EVERYTHING to do with marriage, and equating a family with two fathers, or two mothers, to a family where the child is being raised by its biological parents, is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

    And the yes folks banging on like raging lunatics that this referendum has NOTHING to do with children, that's just a downright insane argument to ask anyone to believe and trying to argue otherwise in my eyes has discredited everything about the yes campaign. It is also ridiculous that this forum, where I am anonymous, is the only place I can state these genuinely held views without invoking bile and rage down on top of myself, such is the level aggression that is fueling the yes campaign.

    I've tried looking at this from every single angle and there is just no way I can see how giving gay people the right to a recognition of their family within our constitution, makes one single iota of sense.

    This is about the selfish need of people who cannot, as a matter of human design, ever create children within their own relationship, wanting to turn nature and biology on its head and demand that they can not just have children, (and they can), but then demand that we now recognise them on the very same terms as a family that can procreate and create children from within their own relationship, and not just that, but that we now give them constitutional protection as well? Seriously?!? If it wasn't such a serious matter it would be hilarious.



    Have you considered putting that on a poster?

    You may have to condense your message a tad - something like:

    Protect children except if they have queer parents!

    or the more truthful:

    Blah Blah Nothing to do with the Referendum!


  • #5994
    Neyite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,947 ✭✭✭✭Neyite


    LordNorbury wrote: »

    This is about the selfish need of people who cannot, as a matter of human design, ever create children within their own relationship, wanting to turn nature and biology on its head and demand that they can not just have children, (and they can), but then demand that we now recognise them on the very same terms as a family that can procreate and create children from within their own relationship, and not just that, but that we now give them constitutional protection as well? Seriously?!? If it wasn't such a serious matter it would be hilarious.

    I'm straight, engaged to a man. By matter of human design I appear to be unable to create children naturally. So if we choose to have a child using donor eggs or donor sperm, I'm not worthy of constitutional protection, nor is my assisted conception child?

    Or is it OK for us because we are hetrosexual?


  • #5995
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    No you haven't.

    And since when are heterosexual couples vetted before they meet the criteria for marriage and then only given permission by the State to enter into marriage on condition that they reproduce within the marriage?

    They're not, and children are not an automatic condition of marriage.

    YES I HAVE!!! What are you trying to argue here? A heterosexual couple, save in the case of infertility, which might not even be a disability, it could simply be down to the age of the mother, can conceive children. A gay couple can't. A straight couple who decide not to have kids, or cannot have kids, or are too old to have kids, how do you take those facts concerning a straight couple and them supplant them straight into an SSM debate to argue that people who can simple never conceive their own children by virtue of their same sex, can act as if they are a family and now want the constitution to say so?!? It's nothing short of ridiculous in my opinion.


  • #5996
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    YES I HAVE!!! What are you trying to argue here? A heterosexual couple, save in the case of infertility, which might not even be a disability, it could simply be down to the age of the mother, can conceive children. A gay couple can't. A straight couple who decide not to have kids, or cannot have kids, or are too old to have kids, how do you take those facts concerning a straight couple and them supplant them straight into an SSM debate to argue that people who can simple never conceive their own children by virtue of their same sex, can act as if they are a family and now want the constitution to say so?!? It's nothing short of ridiculous in my opinion.

    So what's this got to do with the SSM referendum?


  • #5997
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    Neyite wrote: »
    I'm straight, engaged to a man. By matter of human design I appear to be unable to create children naturally. So if we choose to have a child using donor eggs or donor sperm, I'm not worthy of constitutional protection, nor is my assisted conception child?

    Or is it OK for us because we are hetrosexual?

    I'm straight, I'm single, I would love to have kids, but I have the grace to accept that it hasn't happened for me. I genuinely don't get the obsession people these days have with having children. If I was in your situation, I'd be very wary of the fact that my child will at some stage want to reach out and find it's biological other parent.


  • #5998
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,822 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Here is Kate Bopp's husband agreeing with someone that nobody can love a child as much as it's birth mother. This just shows you what they think of adoptive mothers and also fathers Who'd do anything for there kids.


  • #5999
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,947 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    I'm straight, I'm single, I would love to have kids, but I have the grace to accept that it hasn't happened for me. I genuinely don't get the obsession people these days have with having children. If I was in your situation, I'd be very wary of the fact that my child will at some stage want to reach out and find it's biological other parent.

    this referendum has nothing to do with children. NOTHING.


  • #6000
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Yeah I know, but its closed isn't it?


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057413044

    There's this one too :)
    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    Donegal. It's always Donegal.
    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Maybe the No voters can retreat there and set up their theocratic Catholic state when all's said and done.


    Not in my county they can't!
    PutDownArtist wrote: »
    So many posters are choosing to live up to the negative gay stereotyping with their behaviour. The following video keeps popping into my mind when I read this thread.


    Vote yes or I'll slap you soooooo super hard!!!

    Thus far, according to this thread and the assumptions on it, despite being a woman who is attracted to men, I'm actually gay.
    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Single parents have NOTHING to do with this debate! Any single parents I know, serious regret that they are single parents, they wish their family unit was still intact. They will openly admit that their partner let them down and their life is a financial struggle since they became single parents and that the job of them raising their children would be a lot easier if their relationship had not broken down. But in any event single parents have absolutely NOTHING to do with the SSM debate.

    Really? Cause I'm a child of a single mother and I think I speak for both of us when I say I am very glad my father is not in my life. Yeah, it'd be easier in terms of finance and stuff but if mum's family helped her out more, she'd also be in a better position. Single parents aren't to do with it, no. But the stand the No argument (and you) are taking can be applied to single parents also.


  • Advertisement
  • #6001
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    A heterosexual couple, save in the case of infertility, which might not even be a disability, it could simply be down to the age of the mother, can conceive children.

    So a hetero couple can have children except when they can't. Well done.

    And nobody has ever given a monkey's about this question when said couple goes to the registry office to get married.

    But suddenly, it's a huge obstacle when a same sex couple shows up? Because homophobia reasons.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement