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

Options
1…325326328330331…335

Comments

  • Options
    #9812
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    When you educate yourself with what Article 41 and 42 says, come back to us.
    I already have thanks.
    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Of perhaps spell out what is "untrue". Saying something without standing your ground doesn't really wash

    your post is untrue "Some of the issues may not affect childless couples, but do affect those that do have children, the majority." that's a blatant lie.
    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Children play a huge role in most Marriages. Children are indirectly an issue when we talk about marriage.
    Only an issue if they exist within a marriage.
    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    There are rights that married couples have, regarding children, that unmarried couples, do not enjoy automatically
    So what's your point?


  • Options
    #9813
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    TwoShedsJackson wrote: »
    I don't think any of them are just going to come out with what's festering at the back of their minds: they think a gay couple are more likely to be paedophiles and/or will turn the child gay, as if that was even possible.

    Come on, surely one of you can just come out and say it?

    I'll admit modern family has given me cause to think gay adoption might be bad, I know it's a show but shows a horrible place for a child to get adopted into I would hope real life gay couple wouldn't be anything like that.


  • Options
    #9814
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Why do gays, clearly feel that hetrosexual couples are not more suitable to raising children? This notion of second class citizens and being inferior is self inflicted

    What exactly is it that you think a hetero couple does to a child, that a homo couple can do to a child?

    And by the by, I can think of loads of hetero couples that, I think, should have no business having children, BUT, I wouldn't deny them A) the right to have children, and B) providing the same protection to them, under the constitution, if they are married.


  • Options
    #9815
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    You do understand that gay and lesbian mothers and fathers already exist in Ireland, right?

    no **** sherlock , get away

    From what I recall their children were born from a previous hetrosexual relationship.

    Nice way to try and cause diversions. "mother and father" clearly meant as one unit

    Don't think Tom and Harry could be considered "mother and father"



    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    There's no class action system in Ireland. Each case would be dealt with on an individual basis,

    I beg your pardon, you are right about "class action". What I should have said was a group of affected individuals (affected by decisions) pooling together resources and initiating a case together , fighting for their own "rights".

    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    and even then, I'm not sure how a civil suit would address any concerns about disproportionate amounts of adoptions favouring anyone? The criteria under which a couple, or even an individual are assessed for suitability for adoption are much broader and more in-depth than simply the person's gender, sex, or sexual orientation.

    Hey doesn't stop them classing themselves as Second Class Citizens :rolleyes:No doubt someone would try it

    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    The only people ignoring any criteria other than the person's gender, sex, or sexual orientation when discussing the issue of adoption. There are many more criteria on which a couple are assessed for their suitability to adopt children. As I have already pointed out previously, the 2010 legislation prohibited unmarried couples from applying as a couple regardless of their sex, gender or sexual orientation. They could always apply individually.

    And, what are the results so far, which class of families are getting better results ?


  • Options
    #9816
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    humanji wrote: »
    Same could be said about fathers and their rights. I mean, they're clearly not equal to women when raising children, right...?

    Fathers arent even mentioned, its all about the importance of mothers in the home. The men are there to just pay the bills. I would vote yes to changing the constitution to value both mothers and fathers but until some other group are sorted I will vote no. Cant have them skipping the queue can we.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9817
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    gravehold wrote: »
    I'll admit modern family has given me cause to think gay adoption might be bad, I know it's a show but shows a horrible place for a child to get adopted into I would hope real life gay couple wouldn't be anything like that.

    I know what you mean. I watched Breaking Bad and ever since I'm convinced that neither school teachers, nor cancer sufferers should be allowed to have kids.


  • Options
    #9818
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    gravehold wrote: »
    I'll admit modern family has given me cause to think gay adoption might be bad, I know it's a show but shows a horrible place for a child to get adopted into I would hope real life gay couple wouldn't be anything like that.

    All this because of a piece of fictional television?? Wow.


  • Options
    #9819
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Interesting phrasing there:
    If you're suggesting we're the same poster, I'm afraid that doesn't wash.


  • Options
    #9820
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    What exactly is it that you think a hetero couple does to a child, that a homo couple can do to a child?

    And by the by, I can think of loads of hetero couples that, I think, should have no business having children, BUT, I wouldn't deny them A) the right to have children, and B) providing the same protection to them, under the constitution, if they are married.

    Your "loads" of examples are without a shadow of a doubt a serious minority of cases. How does that in any way support the argument for gays. If a hetrosexual couple are unfit to raise their child, the State shall intervene. No reason that the child could not be given a adopted mother and father


  • Options
    #9821
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    no **** sherlock , get away

    From what I recall their children were born from a previous hetrosexual relationship.

    You recall incorrectly.

    Never had a heterosexual relationship yet here I am, a biological mother and grandmother.

    And I'm far from being the only one.

    You really have no idea what you are talking about do you.


    What harm do you believe only gay parents (adoptive or biological) will do to children that renders them, en mass, unsuitable?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9822
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    I know what you mean. I watched Breaking Bad and ever since I'm convinced that neither school teachers, nor cancer sufferers should be allowed to have kids.

    I am pretty sure breaking bad is not trying to paint the meth dealer in a good light as a parent. I said I know it's a show but it if this gay propaganda of a good outcome of a gay couple adopting it really gives me pause. I know I shouldn't let propaganda effect me but that family is so bad while it's meant to be a good thing


  • Options
    #9823
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Your "loads" of examples are without a shadow of a doubt a serious minority of cases. How does that in any way support the argument for gays. If a hetrosexual couple are unfit to raise their child, the State shall intervene. No reason that the child could not be given a adopted mother and father

    No reason that the child could not be given an adopted father and father, or mother and mother.


  • Options
    #9824
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Your "loads" of examples are without a shadow of a doubt a serious minority of cases. How does that in any way support the argument for gays. If a hetrosexual couple are unfit to raise their child, the State shall intervene. No reason that the child could not be given a adopted mother and father

    OK.

    And..... <ignore>.

    There. That's better. :)


  • Options
    #9825
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    Your issue has more to do with the spouse of a woman who has had a child with a man than it has to do whether that spouse is gay or not

    Eh, no. The issue is the importance of the a child being raised by a hetrosexual couple , ideally the biological parent as oppose to new "father" . Now, even people of the same sex as the mother will be stepping ahead of the biological father , more people, more problems


  • Options
    #9826
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Your "loads" of examples are without a shadow of a doubt a serious minority of cases. How does that in any way support the argument for gays. If a hetrosexual couple are unfit to raise their child, the State shall intervene. No reason that the child could not be given a adopted mother and father

    Do you have to buy special shoes for all that dodging?


  • Options
    #9827
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    gravehold wrote: »
    I am pretty sure breaking bad is not trying to paint the meth dealer in a good light as a parent. I said I know it's a show but it if this gay propaganda of a good outcome of a gay couple adopting it really gives me pause. I know I shouldn't let propaganda effect me but that family is so bad while it's meant to be a good thing

    Absolutely.

    That old guy who used to sell shoes is a terrible step-father.
    Ban old guys marrying younger women with children!


  • Options
    #9828
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    endacl wrote: »
    OK.

    And..... <ignore>.

    There. That's better. :)

    Good Man, / Women incapable of facing facts . Put the hands over the eyes and ears and scream na na na na na

    A bit like the gays argument for marriage , so


  • Options
    #9829
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    gravehold wrote: »
    I said I know it's a show but it if this gay propaganda of a good outcome of a gay couple adopting it really gives me pause. I know I shouldn't let propaganda effect me but that family is so bad while it's meant to be a good thing
    Why is it propaganda? It's a comedy show. And by design shows distorts everyday situations into farcical ones for comedic effect.

    You may as well say that Friends makes you think about whether extra marital sex should really be legal at all.

    Or that Father Ted provides evidence that religion should be outlawed.


  • Options
    #9830
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    If you're suggesting we're the same poster, I'm afraid that doesn't wash.

    A non-denial denial.


  • Options
    #9831
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    Do you have to buy special shoes for all that dodging?

    What dodging would that be?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9832
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Eh, no. The issue is the importance of the a child being raised by a hetrosexual couple , ideally the biological parent as oppose to new "father" . Now, even people of the same sex as the mother will be stepping ahead of the biological father , more people, more problems

    What harm do you believe only gay parents (adoptive or biological) will do to children that renders them, en mass, unsuitable?


  • Options
    #9833
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Good Man, / Women incapable of facing facts . Put the hands over the eyes and ears and scream na na na na na

    A bit like the gays argument for marriage , so

    'the gays'... You realise quite a number of those arguing for marriage access for same-sex couples are straight.

    More utter nonsense.


  • Options
    #9834
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    gravehold wrote: »
    I am pretty sure breaking bad is not trying to paint the meth dealer in a good light as a parent. I said I know it's a show but it if this gay propaganda of a good outcome of a gay couple adopting it really gives me pause. I know I shouldn't let propaganda effect me but that family is so bad while it's meant to be a good thing

    What are you talking about? Breaking Bad was blatant propaganda from the Terminal Cancer Schoolteacher Association of America. Their entire agenda was to try and paint themselves as people who would do anything to ensure the financial security of their families, but they ended up making themselves look like terrible parents in my view.


  • Options
    #9835
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Absolutely.

    That old guy who used to sell shoes is a terrible step-father.
    Ban old guys marrying younger women with children!

    Actually that family is prefectly good. Jay is a fine stepfather.


  • Options
    #9836
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    What harm do you believe only gay parents (adoptive or biological) will do to children that renders them, en mass, unsuitable?

    Show tunes. If we're talking 'en mass', then I have to pick a stereotype. Show tunes it is.


  • Options
    #9837
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Good Man, / Women incapable of facing facts . Put the hands over the eyes and ears and scream na na na na na
    You haven't brought facts to any argument. Just your twisted view of society and your made up interpretation of our constitution.
    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    A bit like the gays argument for marriage , so
    I really wish you'd stop this...


  • Options
    #9838
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    gravehold wrote: »
    Actually that family is prefectly good. Jay is a fine stepfather.

    I disgree, AND why about Peggy and his other kids eh???
    Dead beat Dad :mad:


  • Options
    #9839
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    What dodging would that be?
    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    What exactly is it that you think a hetero couple does to a child, that a homo couple can do to a child?

    And by the by, I can think of loads of hetero couples that, I think, should have no business having children, BUT, I wouldn't deny them A) the right to have children, and B)providing the same protection to them, under the constitution, if they are married.

    I neatly bolded the bits you dodged. Because you had difficulty.


  • Options
    #9840
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    What are you talking about? Breaking Bad was blatant propaganda from the Terminal Cancer Schoolteacher Association of America.

    Actually, I think it was deep cover propaganda for Obamacare.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9841
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,557 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    There is no right to marry someone of the same sex.

    @frostyjacks: Yes, you are correct in that assertion.

    Like Tom for the NO Side mentioned at the Wynnes Hotel debate last week about marriage rights, there was an international meeting in Paris in 1948 about human rights, the international Human Rights Act of the United Nations. Tom mentioned it in how existing rights came about; debate and decision making. Peculiarly enough, what he apparently failed to see was that while the meeting was about extending existing rights, and laying down new rights and the laws/rules about recognizing all of them, IT WAS ALSO THAT THE RIGHTS WOULD BE OPEN TO ALL THE PEOPLE.

    Without that debate, the UN Declaration on Human Rights would not have decided upon and put out as the standard we all should judge ourselves by. There would have been NO extension of basic human rights.

    This debate ongoing here, and elsewhere, in our country, is about extending existing civil marriage rights here to a part of our society presently disbarred from those marriage rights. If you vote no, while you are using your vote franchise the way you choose to, you are continuing the denial of an existing civil right to a part of the society you live in.

    Let anyone who think's civil marriage is NOT a basic civil right step forward and make a coherent case for their point of view, and not merely write "because it say's so in our constitution". The argument of the Vote Yes side is that the right to civilly marry here should be extended to same sex couples as an Irish civil right. That in itself (IMO) is a self sufficient case in itself.

    Look at the person beside you and ask yourself this - Do I have a human right to say to that person "no, you are not entitled to the same civil right to marry that other people here have, that of a free choice to whom you can civilly marry". That (IMO) is what you will do if you vote NO on the 22nd. Regardless of how you see the result of your No vote, that is the end result of your vote.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement