Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

PopePalpatine · 08-05-2015 07:25PM

I can't help but laugh when I see the term "heterophobe" being bandied about. It's like seeing a butthurt basement dweller whinge about "feminazis" stopping him from losing his virginity. :pac:

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2015 07:29PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Like a broken record here. They are not a mother and father. If a mother and father are available , they should be considered , first

You know that if anyone answered that properly, they would be banned from this site.

If you answered the question I wouldn't need to keep asking.
You are the one making a big deal about gay couples adopting therefore it is only fair that you voice exactly what your concerns are... biological relationship to the child doesn't seem to be an issue since apparently any 'Mother'+'Father' combination will do...

Now let's examine : You know that if anyone answered that properly, they would be banned from this site.

'Properly'? Interesting term... and this 'properly' is enough to earn a person a site ban meaning the mods/cmods/admins wouldn't consider it proper at all.

Essentially, you hold an opinion that you know is not proper but do not have the courage of your convictions to actually voice that opinion so you will bluff and bluster and feign concern for children when in fact your opinion is based on nothing more than unfounded prejudice.

08-05-2015 07:29PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

They're so sneaky about it too. They mention that the section of the constitution is about 'the family' then immediately jump to acting as if that means its about children, which it isn't. Twats.

If you heard him on the radio to today he was spinning a different tale, saying it was nothing against people who can't have children, single parents, watch the video its a different story, I think they seriously need to be brought up on their manipulation tactics, uninformed or undecided people are being given false discriminative information that could lead them to vote no.

because no one can apparently give the same love as a mother and a father.

eviltwin · 08-05-2015 07:30PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

So it's about money then? Material goods? Whose got more money?

A lot of hetrophobics here, lol

Any chance you have any stats, (hey don't doubt that the gays are loaded)

No it's not all about money but it is kinda important. Kids cost money and when you don't have it and are stressing about how you're going to manage it affects everyone. So while it's not the most important aspect it's still important.

Why is it 'heterophobic' to think a gay couple can make good parents?

jimdublin15 · 08-05-2015 07:31PM

222233 wrote: »

http://ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3934
Have a look ...

So the no side is just homophobia, nothing else

https://youtu.be/M_IqNcogmO8

gravehold · 08-05-2015 07:32PM

222233 wrote: »

ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3934[/url]
Have a look ...

So the no side is just homophobia, nothing else

Where is the homophobia in that video?

Not a NSA agent · 08-05-2015 07:32PM

Anyone who is still going on about children at this point either has made no effort into looking it up or doesnt accept anything other than their own prejudice.

08-05-2015 07:39PM

gravehold wrote: »

Where is the homophobia in that video?

The part where there is an unbalanced seesaw with the gay couples.

The part where "if we vote yes we will be forced to pretend that two mothers and two fathers are just the same as a mother and a father"
(they are all people there is no definition of a mother and a fathers roles or responsibilities that suggests two gay people can't provide the same family setting".

"This is why marriage equality is really inequality for children"
Having two gay men as parents is inequality for children ? No thats just homophobia, allowing the wrong "men and women" to have children is inequality for children.

Lt J.R. Bell · 08-05-2015 07:43PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No? It doesn't at all.

The family is the fundamental unit of society and currently that family unit is recognised as one man and one woman in union and given the protection of the State through the institution of Civil Marriage.

The only people difference in criteria between those couples who have the opportunity to enter into Civil Marriage and be recognised by the State as a family, at the moment, are opposite sex couples. This is discrimination against couples of the same sex, who are currently not eligible to enter into Civil Marriage, and can therefore never be recognised by the State as a family.

Personally, I prefer that Article was amended to exclude the family = marriage based. There would be no need for gay marriage then. Frankly, opposition to gay marriage probably wouldn't be there, then, as religion has nothing to do with it, an Iona would be up ****s creek

But, I don't see that provision on family being removed. Discrimination happens all of the time. What is unjustifiable about it? They family units play a different role. Any conciliation to gay marriage might be the need to make the "mother" provision gender neutral, thus, allowing fathers , who ever they swing, better Paternity Leave Packages.

Can't wait for the IBEC boys who declared that gay marriage is good for business swallow those proposals

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You already know this because you yourself linked to the case law earlier in which the Supreme Court declared that there was no recognition of same sex couples as a 'de facto' family in Irish legislation (J.McD v P.L. [2010]). Even in the case of a Civil Partnership, protections provided to civil partners in respect of the shared home make no reference to the accommodation needs of children as a relevant criterion.

Accommodation needs of the children would be dealt with in maintenance claims, and the equivalent to divorce proceedings for the dissolution of the Civil Partnership. Not all of the children to the gay families will involve a situation where the non biological parent has a legal obligation to the child as the child is being provided for by the non gay biological parent.

Wait until the gays enjoy the joys of "divorce" and the pain of the financially better off person having to pay half of the proceeds of a gaff, in order to pay maintenance, even if only they owned the gaff. THe biggest winners: Family Lawyers

What is stopping these issues from being sorted out by an amendment of the Civil Act. These are serious issues, so I am not being flippant,there is a valid point, as it won't always be the case that the other non gay parent is around or is useful.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The Children and Family Relationship Act addresses guardianship and adoption concerns, but it doesn't still recognise a same sex couple as a family.

Many other family units are not recognised as Constitutional Families.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The Civil Partnership Act makes no references to children and still does not recognise a same sex couple as a family.

They got a better deal than other family units just as "deserving" of protection.

Early days. If all of this was planted in one go, as Shatter had planned, it would have not have been enacted. Stupidly, this is just being rushed out before the Referendum, and the legislators just want to get this passed the easiest way possible

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The only way a same sex couple can be recognised as a family by the State is through the Institution of Civil Marriage, which is currently denied to them because a same sex couple do not meet the criteria that they must be of opposite sex. The referendum proposed an amendment to the Irish Constitution which would allow same sex couples the same opportunity to avail of Civil Marriage as opposite sex couples, ie -

"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".

Yes, at this present moment, correct.

But, would there be a demand if Civil Partnership Act and subsequent legislation dealt with most of that in the future, by amendments .?

Trudiha · 08-05-2015 07:43PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

So it's about money then? Material goods? Whose got more money?

A lot of hetrophobics here, lol

Any chance you have any stats, (hey don't doubt that the gays are loaded)

By mentioning that I'm just as good as you and statistically less likely to be a sex offender, I'm hetrophobic?

I'm on my phone at the moment but someone will be along with the stats soon, they are dead easy to find.

Lt J.R. Bell · 08-05-2015 07:46PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Anyone who is still going on about children at this point either has made no effort into looking it up or doesnt accept anything other than their own prejudice.

I suggest you pay attention on the significance of the Institution of marriage in the Constitution and the laws on Children.

There is a very clear indirect relationship with both issues.

Your friend has already spelt out legitimate concerns surrounding family rights and what happens when there is a break down in the relationship

A divorce often centrals around providing provisions for ... the children

Grand if no children are involved in either a hetro or gay relationship, but that is often a minority of cases

Lt J.R. Bell · 08-05-2015 07:48PM

Trudiha wrote: »

By mentioning that I'm just as good as you and statistically less likely to be a sex offender, I'm hetrophobic?

I'm on my phone at the moment but someone will be along with the stats soon, they are dead easy to find.

I can't wait. Bye for now dharling

eviltwin · 08-05-2015 07:50PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

I suggest you pay attention on the significance of the Institution of marriage in the Constitution and the laws on Children.

There is a very clear indirect relationship with both issues.

Your friend has already spelt out legitimate concerns surrounding family rights and what happens when there is a break down in the relationship

A divorce often centrals around providing provisions for ... the children

Grand if no children are involved in either a hetro or gay relationship, but that is often a minority of cases

You don't need to be married to go through relationship breakdown. In fact don't the stats show cohabiting couples are more likely to break up compared to married couples?

gravehold · 08-05-2015 07:50PM

222233 wrote: »

The part where there is an unbalanced seesaw with the gay couples.

The part where "if we vote yes we will be forced to pretend that two mothers and two fathers are just the same as a mother and a father"
(they are all people there is no definition of a mother and a fathers roles or responsibilities that suggests two gay people can't provide the same family setting".

"This is why marriage equality is really inequality for children"
Having two gay men as parents is inequality for children ? No thats just homophobia, allowing the wrong "men and women" to have children is inequality for children.

The seesaw in unblanced cause they both went to the same side for some reason, if one the other men saton the fair side from the other man with would be balanced not sure it's homophobia cause some gay couples didn't know how a seesaw works.

Diversity is better a male and a female is more diverse then just men, I think we all agree diversity is good, diversity is strength, diversity is what make the world peaceful.

Well a male/male or female/female parents isn't exactly and equal pair of gende in the parents you could even say it's an inequal gender pair.

jimdublin15 · 08-05-2015 07:52PM

gravehold wrote: »

Where is the homophobia in that video?

0:31: "If we change this as the government wants, two men or two women will be given the right to marry and to have children."

It's might be or might not be homophobic, but suggesting a vote would somehow relate to my rights to have kids does make the hair stand up on the back of my neck as parent. I can and have the right to have children. Many Gay people do and will continue to do so and with or without a vote this will never change that no matter what Iona thinks.

Voting Yes or No to "SSM" will not change the above so why even mention it.

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 07:53PM

gravehold wrote: »

some gay couples didn't know how a seesaw works.

08-05-2015 07:54PM

gravehold wrote: »

The seesaw in unblanced cause they both went to the same side for some reason, if one the other men saton the fair side from the other man with would be balanced not sure it's homophobia cause some gay couples didn't know how a seesaw works.

Diversity is better a male and a female is more diverse then just men, I think we all agree diversity is good, diversity is strength, diversity is what make the world peaceful.

Well a male/male or female/female parents isn't exactly and equal pair of gende in the parents you could even say it's an inequal gender pair.

Why do you think they both went to "the same side" then?
Why aren't they considered valid enough to take a side each?

Diversity is NOT always better, if the no argument is about children than if it wins we need to change the constitution just to make sure that a single mother or single father is not considered an equal parent to a structure with a mother and a father

B_Wayne · 08-05-2015 07:54PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Where did I suggest gays = sex offenders?

Since we are on the issue, which you brought up

I didn't know that the Irish Criminal System kept those kind of stats. Care to produce them? Do the Priest identify themselves as straight ? (not a reason to oppose gays by the way )

You said you'd be banned from site if you named the harm that gay parents would pose to children, what's the shocking thing you were going to refer to? In relation to sexual orientation of paedophiles, the below goes into plenty of detail on subject.

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

gravehold · 08-05-2015 07:58PM

222233 wrote: »

Why do you think they both went to "the same side" then?
Why aren't they considered valid enough to take a side each?

I don't know why they went to the one side maybe they went there so sit and make out not to play on the seesaw. It seems like they didn't want to play on the seesaw or each would have gone to a different side. I don't think it's fair to conclude from the video they where too dumb to figure out how a seesaw works

eviltwin · 08-05-2015 08:01PM

gravehold wrote: »

I don't know why they went to the one side maybe they went there so sit and make out not to play on the seesaw. It seems like they didn't want to play on the seesaw or each would have gone to a different side. I don't think it's fair to conclude from the video they where too dumb to figure out how a seesaw works

It's an Iona video. I wouldn't read that much into it. Iona probably think gay people have sex and listen to disco music all day.

sjb25 · 08-05-2015 08:10PM

eviltwin wrote: »

It's an Iona video. I wouldn't read that much into it. Iona probably think gay people have sex and listen to disco music all day.

You can't say Iona and sex worse gay in the same sentence!!!!!! Frogs mite start falling from the sky are you happy

One eyed Jack · 08-05-2015 08:22PM

222233 wrote: »

http://ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3934
Have a look ...

So the no side is just homophobia, nothing else

I'll give them one thing - they sure as hell are masters of subliminal subtext and manipulation! :pac:

We aren't simply being asked to redefine marriage

We're not being asked to redefine marriage

We are also being asked to redefine the family

We're not being asked to redefine the family

If we change this, as the government wants

Don't trust government, government baaad, trust us, we wouldn't lie to you... :rolleyes:

Two men and two women will be given the right to marry, and to have children

Nobody has the right to marry. There exists no such right in the Irish Constitution. Opposite sex couples may avail of the opportunity to enter into the marriage contract. Same sex couples may not. Nobody needs the right to procreate either, they can have children regardless of whether they are married or not, and at least a third of children born in Ireland in 2013 were born to unmarried parents.

Two men can never give a child a mother and a father. Two women can never give a child a mother and a father

Which completely ignores the fact that there's more to being a parent to a child than my old man's rather, ahem, "sagely" advice - "Ya didn't get it for stirrin' tae!"

I think he may have been referring to the fact that a functioning penis meant it was my duty to go forth and multiply. Personally IMO there's more to being a parent than simply whether I am capable of reproduction or not.

If we vote yes on May 22nd, we will be forced to pretend that two fathers, or two mothers, are just the same as a mother and a father

The only people trying to force anyone to pretend anything are the likes of IONA who are trying to pretend that this referendum has anything to do with parenting. The referendum addresses the question of maintaining discriminatory criteria in the constitution with regard to civil marriage, or removing said discriminatory criteria by means of an amendment to the constitution, and nothing more.

This is why 'marriage equality', is really 'inequality, for children'

This is the kind of cart before the horse bollocksology that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Marriage equality refers to giving couples, regardless of their sex the opportunity to enter into marriage.

The only inequality for children that I can see is that if their parents are denied the opportunity to enter into marriage, the children do not enjoy the same recognition by the State as part of a family, because their family is not recognised as a family by the State.

So if you think a mothers love is unique and irreplaceable, and a fathers love, then vote no, on May 22nd.

Ehh, surely a non-sequitur there?

I DO think a mother's love is unique and irreplaceable (hell as much as she gets on my tits I still love my mother to bits), and I DO think a fathers love is irreplaceable (as much as he used drive me demented before he popped his clogs a while back, still loved the bastard), because they are my parents! I also see a mother and a mothers love as unique and irreplaceable, and I also see a father and a fathers love as unique and irreplaceable. Is that some sort of a trick question and there's another kind of parent that the IONA institute are keeping to themselves?

I'm still not convinced as to why that should encourage me to vote no tbh. Every child, every person, deserves to know what it feels like to matter to someone, to be loved by someone, and to be able to share that love within the most fundamental unit of society which is regarded by the State as the family and protected and promoted by the State through the institution of Civil Marriage.

engineerbrah · 08-05-2015 08:43PM

For all those having a go at me:

We are talking about school children here, they do not have the maturity to 'respect' SSM. Having a male & female role model is ideal for every child and you know it. Kids adopted into gay 'families' will be teased and no amount of 'acceptance' lectures for 10 years old will change that.

Think long & hard what you are voting for instead of jumping on the bandwagon.

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 08:46PM

engineerbrah wrote: »

For all those having a go at me:

We are talking about school children here, they do not have the maturity to 'respect' SSM. Having a male & female role model is ideal for every child and you know it. Kids adopted into gay 'families' will be teased and no amount of 'acceptance' lectures for 10 years old will change that.

Think long & hard what you are voting for instead of jumping on the bandwagon.

Who was having a go at you?

eviltwin · 08-05-2015 08:48PM

engineerbrah wrote: »

For all those having a go at me:

We are talking about school children here, they do not have the maturity to 'respect' SSM. Having a male & female role model is ideal for every child and you know it. Kids adopted into gay 'families' will be teased and no amount of 'acceptance' lectures for 10 years old will change that.

Think long & hard what you are voting for instead of jumping on the bandwagon.

I find kids are pretty decent. They will usually respect anyone until they are told otherwise. My youngest is 5 and he and his peers have no sense of prejudice. It's only as they get a bit older and see and hear prejudice at home and in society that they start showing it. But it's not inevitable. Most parents manage to raise kids who aren't bullies.

If a child is being bullied for having gay parents tackle the bully just as you would with every other kind of bullying.

nathang20 · 08-05-2015 08:51PM

Do ye know something lads? Its very easy for "some" people to say that same sex marriage is wrong, it goes against all they "wish" they stood for, or whatever reason they want to use as being their "response". I'm gay, and I mentioned earlier in the thread how I was in college when "being Gay was legalised". Now, I hold no doubt or hate towards people who want a "No" vote. People tend to get locked down into an institutionalised way of thinking and I'm not saying that any posters here have. The same kind of thinking always makes me think of people, who may believe that being Gay is "a choice" or can be controlled, and again, not all. Of course the family unit needs to be preserved, but we need to diversify that family unit. The only family I've ever known had nothing but love (and of course we argued), knowing who I am.

We all have a choice on the 22/05. I know 11 people that will be voting "yes", they are my family. They see I am nothing but human. I have nothing but love and respect. I am sick and tired of this planet being dictated into categories and if you're in a minority, proceed with caution! The minority may not have screamed so loud as what is about to happen. Ireland is going to set a standard on the 22nd! I have no doubt about that. At the end of the day, who wants to go through their life fighting? Me? not anymore!

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2015 08:54PM

engineerbrah wrote: »

For all those having a go at me:

We are talking about school children here, they do not have the maturity to 'respect' SSM. Having a male & female role model is ideal for every child and you know it. Kids adopted into gay 'families' will be teased and no amount of 'acceptance' lectures for 10 years old will change that.

Think long & hard what you are voting for instead of jumping on the bandwagon.

Oi - that's my family you are having a go at with your 'families' B.S. matey and it's people like you with your 'families' who teach kids it's ok to 'tease' as you so delicately put it.

And knock off the school children crap too as if anyone is calling for mandatory sex ed in junior infants. Last time I looked there were children ( i.e. not legally adults) in school with beards.

Most children are far more accepting of diversity and difference than your hidebound post would suggest you are - it only becomes an problem for them when some adult whose mind runs in small, insular, ever decreasing circles tells them it is a problem.

You should think long and hard before having a go at people's families.

Zhane · 08-05-2015 08:54PM

engineerbrah wrote: »

For all those having a go at me:

We are talking about school children here, they do not have the maturity to 'respect' SSM. Having a male & female role model is ideal for every child and you know it. Kids adopted into gay 'families' will be teased and no amount of 'acceptance' lectures for 10 years old will change that.

Think long & hard what you are voting for instead of jumping on the bandwagon.

Children tease other children for being ginger, wearing glasses, having braces. Children can be absolute bast@ards if they are raised that way. If your child has an issue with mine, then thats your job to parent your child.

El Weirdo · 08-05-2015 08:58PM

engineerbrah wrote: »

We are talking about school children here, they do not have the maturity to 'respect' SSM.

This is bollocks. My daughter is 11 and she absolutely has the maturity to respect SSM.

Do you know why? Because she has parents that brought her up properly and aren't fucking bigoted homophobes.

ETA: If you have kids that you don't trust not to bully other kids because of their family make-up (or indeed, anything), then you need to take a long, hard look at your parenting skills because, frankly, they mustn't be up to much.

KingBrian2 · 08-05-2015 09:11PM

engineerbrah wrote: »

For all those having a go at me:

We are talking about school children here, they do not have the maturity to 'respect' SSM. Having a male & female role model is ideal for every child and you know it. Kids adopted into gay 'families' will be teased and no amount of 'acceptance' lectures for 10 years old will change that.

Think long & hard what you are voting for instead of jumping on the bandwagon.

You can add ageism to homophobia. Children are not mature. Some adults are down right fools and they are allowed look after children.

Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

Comments