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

KingBrian2 · 09-05-2015 07:33PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Let's say you have an only child and he comes to you and says he is gay. Do you think that the only consequences are for him?

In this scenario I would never be a grand parent and the family line would be over. You think I would not have reason in such a situation to be disappointed or pissed off?

The whole gay rights thing has always been selfish and self centered. Never thinking of others only their own "rights". I am voting no. My mind has been made up for me.

The referendum is still weeks away, if you were undecided for now than make your decision closer to the vote. Homosexuals are seeking the protections and rights that we all have as citizens. They have been bullied,left out & demeaned for so long. I sure don't think they are being selfish. Even if they are being a little selfish than so what, it is not hurting anyone. How many times in school where people called gay as a insult? It is even part of the lingo. Looking back it must have been really hurtful to those who are homosexual.

Dimithy · 09-05-2015 07:43PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Let's say you have an only child and he comes to you and says he is gay. Do you think that the only consequences are for him?

In this scenario I would never be a grand parent and the family line would be over. You think I would not have reason in such a situation to be disappointed or pissed off?

The whole gay rights thing has always been selfish and self centered. Never thinking of others only their own "rights". I am voting no. My mind has been made up for me.

A yes vote wont suddenly make more people gay. Your child would still be gay, whether they could get married or not.

You either haven't thought this through, or you've work backwards from no to come up with your argument.

Bannasidhe · 09-05-2015 07:49PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Let's say you have an only child and he comes to you and says he is gay. Do you think that the only consequences are for him?

In this scenario I would never be a grand parent and the family line would be over. You think I would not have reason in such a situation to be disappointed or pissed off?

The whole gay rights thing has always been selfish and self centered. Never thinking of others only their own "rights". I am voting no. My mind has been made up for me.

My Dad always thought his surname would end with my brother because he (brother) has three daughters and my sister's son had his father's surname (he has since taken his stepfather's name) but guess what - daddy's dyke daughter had a boy and that boy has her surname (and by extension his grandfather's surname) and that boy is all grown up and has a son (and a daughter) who also have that surname so my dad's surname has been carried on because the lesbian had a child and that child had children so the original daddy has a grandson and a great granddaughter and great grandson who he adores and, at 83 years old, is voting yes because he loves his great grandchildren to bits and no f*cker will tell him all his children are not equals.

Homosexuality does not make a person infertile. Many, many lesbians and gay men have biological children.

Vote no if you wish, but if a child of yours does turn out to be gay you could end up paying a terrible price. My father nearly did because he 'couldn't stand the queers' so his queer daughter would have nothing to do with him. Daddy Dear realised before it was too late, and it was painful, but now his greatest joy is to kick a ball around with the 5 year old boy who will carry his name and his family into the future.

As for selfish - gays are no more or less selfish and self-centered than any other Irish person who wants to get married.

B_Wayne · 09-05-2015 08:20PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Let's say you have an only child and he comes to you and says he is gay. Do you think that the only consequences are for him?

In this scenario I would never be a grand parent and the family line would be over. You think I would not have reason in such a situation to be disappointed or pissed off?

The whole gay rights thing has always been selfish and self centered. Never thinking of others only their own "rights". I am voting no. My mind has been made up for me.

Your view that your child being at fault for being gay seems incredibly selfish and self centered based on the reasoning you just outlined. It's not their choice to be gay and you'd have to be pretty awful as a parent to be 'pissed' over it.

Zubeneschamali · 09-05-2015 08:22PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The whole gay rights thing has always been selfish and self centered.

Here's a word for you: Uppity.

spud82 · 09-05-2015 08:23PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Here's a word for you: Uppity.

Thin the word bigot fits also

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 09-05-2015 08:39PM

Zen65 wrote: »

The change to the constitution, if accepted will not result in more persons under the age of 17 being married, and you know that.

Honestly, you need to stop spouting nonsense!

Sorry, I'm quoting from the material that Yes voters have presented as the changes that this amendment will bring. Don't pretend that I'm the one suggesting we need to change the law to allow for SSM for 16 year olds. That''s what you lot are saying, every time you throw out your spam list of 160 differences.

Can anyone tell me why I should vote in favour of increasing, instead of reducing, the number of marriages of under 17 year olds?

aloyisious · 09-05-2015 08:54PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Let's say you have an only child and he comes to you and says he is gay. Do you think that the only consequences are for him?

In this scenario I would never be a grand parent and the family line would be over. You think I would not have reason in such a situation to be disappointed or pissed off?

The whole gay rights thing has always been selfish and self centered. Never thinking of others only their own "rights". I am voting no. My mind has been made up for me.

On page 11 and 12 of today's Irish Indo, there's an article about a senior FG figure (it's Gen Sec) and his youngest son, coming out as gay. The Gen Sec is a regular committed RC Christian church-attender & daily home-prayer. He has had no problem with the sexuality of his son because he bought into the whole parent for life deal; my children are my children: period. He has the complete opposite view as you on what the situation is. He made up his own mind after reviewing the situation and didn't have his mind made up for him. Perhaps you might consider taking the same route of personal evaluation.

Annasopra · 09-05-2015 08:58PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Let's say you have an only child and he comes to you and says he is gay. Do you think that the only consequences are for him?

In this scenario I would never be a grand parent and the family line would be over. You think I would not have reason in such a situation to be disappointed or pissed off?

The whole gay rights thing has always been selfish and self centered. Never thinking of others only their own "rights". I am voting no. My mind has been made up for me.

The irony. You selfishly expect grandchildren and then complain about so called selfishness.

G_R · 09-05-2015 09:06PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why I should vote in favour of increasing, instead of reducing, the number of marriages of under 17 year olds?

Mod: this has nothing to do with the debate on SSM - please stick to the topic

traprunner · 09-05-2015 09:10PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Let's say you have an only child and he comes to you and says he is gay. Do you think that the only consequences are for him?

In this scenario I would never be a grand parent and the family line would be over. You think I would not have reason in such a situation to be disappointed or pissed off?

The whole gay rights thing has always been selfish and self centered. Never thinking of others only their own "rights". I am voting no. My mind has been made up for me.

I would not be pissed off or disappointed. It's not as if people have a switch tonturn on and off between homosexuality and heterosexuality. You could be a grandparent if he adopts.

PopePalpatine · 09-05-2015 09:13PM

traprunner wrote: »

I would not be pissed off or disappointed. It's not as if people have a switch tonturn on and off between homosexuality and heterosexuality. You could be a grandparent if he adopts.

And he would be a better parent, because at least he won't whine about his bloodline.

gormdubhgorm · 09-05-2015 09:16PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Civil Partnership is not marriage.

It does not have the Constitutional protection afforded to marriage.

It does not grant the Constitutional status of being recognized as a family and afforded the constitutional protections extended to a family.

The argument that marriage is for procreation may be powerful but to use that only against homosexuals but not the infertile or post menopausal is to apply different rules to homosexuals on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Ability to procreate is not a condition of marriage but the No side are trying to make it one. Therefore, logically, they should apply this criteria to all couples who wish to get married and this should be reflected in their campaign.

Imagine your family is constantly being denigrated, called a social experiment and abnormal? Would you get cross when the same people over and over and over again insist you are not to be trusted around children but never actually say why? How many times do you have to be subjected to hurtful, hateful, bile before you get to feel anger?
If a person came on here and posted untruths about your favourite soccer team over and over and over again and cried 'I'm being bullied' if you pulled them up on it would that be ok?
Now imagine it's your family they are talking about...

'Ultra- religious slant of the Yes vote' - you lost me there.

I meant the ultra-religious slant of the no vote I will fix that typo.
I have no doubt that the issue raises pent up aggression from the gay community over the way that they were treated by society but the fact is when most people refer to a family unit it refers to mother and father, That is my issue with it. If gay people did not adopt children or have children via surrogacy, I would have no problem voting yes.

But at the moment it comes down to three choices for me:

1) Have a child brought into the world who has a mammy and a mammy or a daddy and a daddy. Which i think is unfair on the child. Not to mention the complication of the surrogate mother heaped in on top of this,

2) It is unfair that the gay people cannot marry as they do not have the same constitutional entitlements as the rest of society, Everyone should have the same rights etc etc.

3) Three abstain from voting on it

Zen65 · 09-05-2015 09:20PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

In this scenario I would never be a grand parent and the family line would be over. You think I would not have reason in such a situation to be disappointed or pissed off?

Wow! You seem to have so little love to offer a child, I hope you do not have one.

Ironically you seem to think that a child would be worse off with same-sex guardians/parents. I think most real parents in the situation you describe would see their own disappointment as minuscule compared to the potential bigotry, discrimination and marginalisation their child may have to face.

Well done you!

gormdubhgorm · 09-05-2015 09:34PM

I see the argument put by a few people where heterosexuals are infertile and adopt/go for the surrogate mother option that it negates the argument on procreation.

But in my view that is trying to aid the creation of the family unit of the mother and father. Rather then completely rip up nature and have two males or two females as the legal parents of a child.

At the moment after reading the bit of this thread I am no nearer deciding.

I will either vote no or spoil my vote instead. That is as far as I have got!

swampgas · 09-05-2015 09:39PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I see the argument put by a few people where heterosexuals are infertile and adopt/go for the surrogate mother option that it negates the argument on procreation.

But in my view that is trying to aid the creation of the family unit of the mother and father. Rather then completely rip up nature and have two males or two females as the legal parents of a child.

At the moment after reading the bit of this thread I am no nearer deciding.

I will either vote no or spoil my vote instead. That is as far as I have got!

Look at it this way. There are, and will be, families with same sex parents. Do you think they should be able to get married, giving them and their children the same protection and rights as male-female parents, or do you think these families should be denied these protections and rights?

Not a NSA agent · 09-05-2015 09:41PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I see the argument put by a few people where heterosexuals are infertile and adopt/go for the surrogate mother option that it negates the argument on procreation.

But in my view that is trying to aid the creation of the family unit of the mother and father. Rather then completely rip up nature and have two males or two females as the legal parents of a child.

At the moment after reading the bit of this thread I am no nearer deciding.

I will either vote no or spoil my vote instead. That is as far as I have got!

Only straight people should be allowed to take children away from their natural parents?

thegreatescape · 09-05-2015 09:42PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I see the argument put by a few people where heterosexuals are infertile and adopt/go for the surrogate mother option that it negates the argument on procreation.

But in my view that is trying to aid the creation of the family unit of the mother and father. Rather then completely rip up nature and have two males or two females as the legal parents of a child.

At the moment after reading the bit of this thread I am no nearer deciding.

I will either vote no or spoil my vote instead. That is as far as I have got!

This issue has already been passed, gay people can adopt. This referendum is purely about whether two people can get married, regardless of their sex. They might not ever have children, but it's about being able to be seen by everyone else in society as equal.

It means a lot to me to be able to tell the man I love that I'd like to get married someday, and after May 22nd I'd be to mean it when I say get married, not as a civil partner. Even saying it, 'will you civil partner me?' it doesn't have a ring to it. All any person in the world wants is to be treated equally, and that's all we're asking for people to vote on in this referendum. To give LGBTQ people the same happiness that straight people have.

Ave Sodalis · 09-05-2015 09:49PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I see the argument put by a few people where heterosexuals are infertile and adopt/go for the surrogate mother option that it negates the argument on procreation.

But in my view that is trying to aid the creation of the family unit of the mother and father. Rather then completely rip up nature and have two males or two females as the legal parents of a child.

At the moment after reading the bit of this thread I am no nearer deciding.

I will either vote no or spoil my vote instead. That is as far as I have got!

Whether you vote yes or no, it will have no baring on same sex couples and children. It's a manifestation from the No side that the referendum has any baring on whether or not homosexuals can adopt etc. It doesn't.

One eyed Jack · 09-05-2015 09:49PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I meant the ultra-religious slant of the no vote I will fix that typo.
I have no doubt that the issue raises pent up aggression from the gay community over the way that they were treated by society but the fact is when most people refer to a family unit it refers to mother and father, That is my issue with it. If gay people did not adopt children or have children via surrogacy, I would have no problem voting yes.

People who are LGBT are already able to conceive children, they can already adopt children, and they can already have children via surrogacy. The outcome of the referendum will mean that they may apply as a couple, jointly for access to these services. They may not always qualify as there are other factors besides the potential parents sexual orientation are considered beforehand.

You're right when you say that when most people refer to the family unit, they are referring to a mother and a father, and this is this is pretty much how the State sees it too - the only family that is recognised by the State is that of a married couple. Unmarried couples, unmarried parents (including cohabiting parents/couples and couples in civil partnerships), regardless of their sexual orientation are not viewed as a family unit by the State.

But at the moment it comes down to three choices for me:

1) Have a child brought into the world who has a mammy and a mammy or a daddy and a daddy. Which i think is unfair on the child. Not to mention the complication of the surrogate mother heaped in on top of this,

This happens anyway, regardless of the outcome of the referendum. But if the referendum passes, it will mean that the child will have more protection as part of a family unit should the parents choose to get married.

2) It is unfair that the gay people cannot marry as they do not have the same constitutional entitlements as the rest of society, Everyone should have the same rights etc etc.

3) Three abstain from voting on it

Voting no, or abstaining from voting, really won't help to achieve this. The referendum is more about legislating for what's happening already, as opposed to what could happen or what might happen, etc. There are same sex couples raising children in Ireland already today, right now. All this referendum is doing in practical terms is proposing that everyone has the opportunity to enter into marriage without distinction as to their sex. The practical, legal and social applications of that, and the benefits it will bring to all of society... well, you know all this already yourself.

bodice ripper · 09-05-2015 09:53PM

I wanted to post in the last few pages, but I couldn't afford enough tinfoil for a hat that big.

Not a NSA agent · 09-05-2015 09:54PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Every time someone says the referendum is about children, baby Jesus cries.

Ive given up trying to correct people at this stage, I have yet to meet someone who was concerned about children to actually accept that gay people will continue to have children. Concerned enough to want to prevent them getting children but stop caring once they have them.

ebbsy · 09-05-2015 09:54PM

The Yes gestapo were at the door today, I left them out in the rain.

evo2000 · 09-05-2015 09:55PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I see the argument put by a few people where heterosexuals are infertile and adopt/go for the surrogate mother option that it negates the argument on procreation.

But in my view that is trying to aid the creation of the family unit of the mother and father. Rather then completely rip up nature and have two males or two females as the legal parents of a child.

At the moment after reading the bit of this thread I am no nearer deciding.

I will either vote no or spoil my vote instead. That is as far as I have got!

Ripping up nature how? thats a completely over dramatic view of the whole thing, ud swear "standard" familys were gonna up and disappear in the wake of a yes vote and the world would be plunged into darkness!

The reality is some kids would be far better off being adopted by a gay couple than to be living in shelters or poverty or state schemes or whatever, if any couple can meet the needs of a child both financially and emotionally i dont see why they shouldnt be allowed provide a better life for a child, i think the no vote need to stop playing the "think of the kids!" card as a poor attempt to mask there ignorance.

What exactly do you think the difference will be of a gay couple raising a child? its not like the child is being adopted by aliens or some **** lol

bodice ripper · 09-05-2015 09:56PM

ebbsy wrote: »

The Yes gestapo were at the door today, I left them out in the rain.

I roached a No flyer.

Annasopra · 09-05-2015 09:57PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I meant the ultra-religious slant of the no vote I will fix that typo.
I have no doubt that the issue raises pent up aggression from the gay community over the way that they were treated by society but the fact is when most people refer to a family unit it refers to mother and father, That is my issue with it. If gay people did not adopt children or have children via surrogacy, I would have no problem voting yes.

But at the moment it comes down to three choices for me:

1) Have a child brought into the world who has a mammy and a mammy or a daddy and a daddy. Which i think is unfair on the child. Not to mention the complication of the surrogate mother heaped in on top of this,

2) It is unfair that the gay people cannot marry as they do not have the same constitutional entitlements as the rest of society, Everyone should have the same rights etc etc.

3) Three abstain from voting on it

The thing is;

A) This referendum isn't about adoption

This referendum isn't about surrogacy

gormdubhgorm · 09-05-2015 09:59PM

swampgas wrote: »

Look at it this way. There are, and will be, families with same sex parents. Do you think they should be able to get married, giving them and their children the same protection and rights as male-female parents, or do you think these families should be denied these protections and rights?

That is the best argument I have heard so far in fairness. But if by voting yes am I encouraging same sex couples to get children in their new legal married family unit (where they other wise would not?). When i think that Mother and Father is ideal for any family unit?

I know the vote will pass as a yes no matter what I vote. I just feel that my conscious will be annoying me no matter what I do.

I have not been keeping taps on the polls in detail are there many undecided voters?

Blogatron52 · 09-05-2015 10:02PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But in my view that is trying to aid the creation of the family unit of the mother and father. Rather then completely rip up nature and have two males or two females as the legal parents of a child.

Is it nature?! Is it "right".."perfect".."normal"...? Or is it what we've been told is all of these things up until now? No one actually knows what is right or wrong.. We know what we're told.

Voting yes will change nothing.. Not for kids.. Not for you.. Not for me. Some lgbt people will get the extra rights they so strangely don't already have.. But that's about it!

It's about as exciting as whether the president should be 21 or 35 really!

thegreatescape · 09-05-2015 10:04PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is the best argument I have heard so far in fairness. But if by voting yes am I encouraging same sex couples to get children in their new legal married family unit (where they other wise would not?). When i think that Mother and Father is ideal for any family unit?

I know the vote will pass as a yes no matter what I vote. I just feel that my conscious will be annoying me no matter what I do.

I have not been keeping taps on the polls in detail are there many undecided voters?

Not at all. I don't think any more people would apply for adoption if this were to pass, in my opinion anyway. All that is being asked upon is that gay people get the same rights as straight people when it comes to married. Even being able to say that you're married to the person you love isn't an option right now for gay people, as all that is available is a civil partnership.

gormdubhgorm · 09-05-2015 10:05PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The thing is;

A) This referendum isn't about adoption
This referendum isn't about surrogacy

i am well aware of that but it does copper-fasten surrogacy and adoption for the same sex couples by completely changing the nature of the relationship both for the parents and the child.

There is no point ignoring the fact that adoption and surrogacy are very much tied into the debate even though both can be done already regardless of the result of the referendum. As the legal rights etc will have changed like another poster stated.

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

Comments