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

Bannasidhe · 10-05-2015 09:36AM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I won't have the ghosts of 1916 haunting me next year!:cool:

I get that.

I'm fairly sure my devout Catholic, Republican, can't get me I'm part of the Union, Nan would rise up out of the grave an beat me if I didn't vote... which is why I have far too often found my self standing in a polling booth trying to work out which candidate is the least objectionable

Zen65 · 10-05-2015 09:43AM

Cris Jones wrote: »

thanks for you response. I would though, call it ganged up on, if anybody says no to the yes campaign.

Several people came into the thread and said they were voting no. They were asked to explain why (because it's a discussion forum), and some did, and some didn't. Those who chose not to explain were ignored (what else can you do - it's a discussion forum?) and those who chose to explain had their logic challenged (because it's a discussion forum).

I don't know what you mean by 'ganged up on' except that the posters here are about 80% in favour of a YES, so the discussion will always have that sort of numeric bias (because it's a discussion forum).

henryporter · 10-05-2015 09:47AM

gandalf wrote: »

I see Breda O'Brien is now backtracking totally on her challenge to Panti Bliss for a debate. What a pathetic and cowardly organisation this so called Iona Institute is.

Link here: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/breda-wont-debate-panti-before-vote-31209856.html (fecking sindo of course). Breda herself comes across as usual, as a pathetic narcissist chucking all the toys out of the pram because she can't find any friends to play with in her 16th century world (maybe she should head north to hang around with the DUP chaps)

Zen65 · 10-05-2015 09:49AM

Gutted!

Was so looking forward to seeing this debate, since most of the others have been lame ducks.

Tombi! · 10-05-2015 09:59AM

Mod: Cris Jones please note that arguing/questioning mod instructions (in this case the mod note) on thread or accusing others of being a troll or trolling is breaching the charter of AH. Please be more careful in the future

aloyisious · 10-05-2015 10:28AM

ted1 wrote: »

Can anyone explain as to why there is an election?

The consistution currently has equality and doesn't say marriage is between male and female.

The 2004 civil partnership bill says marriage is between male and female , this could be changed over night.

The 2015 family and relationship bill looks after adoption etc and lets same sex couples adopt among other stuff.

So why the vote? Why not just change the bill?

Because, as you point out, the Govt of the day can change the wording of the bill overnight. So it could do it again, back to what to it read as first, or even more so. The "marriage is between a man and a woman" came from the courts, due to the marriage issue coming before them. It's a legal ruling that the Gov't has to heed.

aloyisious · 10-05-2015 10:37AM

ted1 wrote: »

Thanks, I'll look it up

Our Gov't recognizes foreign same sex marriages as legal contracts, but only as civil partnership contracts, not marriage contracts in law. The E.C.H.R's (Court and Convention both) state that it is left up to individual states to define in it's own laws what marriage is, as long as the laws don't go outside the bounds of the convention and court rulings.

aloyisious · 10-05-2015 10:42AM

Cris Jones wrote: »

why is there a mod warning in first post? no need for it. everyone has to agree with the yes vote. if they don't, they will be ganged up on.

It's only fair play to ensure the minority has a say and not be bullied or ganged-up-on, and to ensure that WUM's or trolls don't come on to get their jollies from putting peoples blood pressure up.

Vivisectus · 10-05-2015 10:45AM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Ok I decided to answer your question do I think that same-sex parents wll harm our children?

Absolutely not unless you happened to be some mad deranged person regardless of sexual ordination.

What is my concern? I feel that it is a further break down of the traditonal family unit. Everyone should be given the chance to have a Mam and a Dad as their family where possible.

There are already ready plenty of broken families in the hetrosexual world. This has the potential to further complicate things. Although the referendum will not change adoption it will change the rights of the child because the parents are now married.
Will there be a fad of the gay community wanting to "create families" as a result of this referendum to be a family.
Will the child get bullied at school because he/she has two mammy's or daddy's?
Will this result in hetrosexual surrogates been "farmed" for payments by the gay community to produce children.

Will this be the final nail in the coffin for the traditional family and the al a carte family will be come the norm?

This in turn could lead to the acceptance of genetically modified babies where requests are put in and the baby produced. As the necessity for natural procreation decreases. (I know this is far fetched but that is what I see the future as in about 100 years).

Once again, all these things are already possible or will in the future be possible, regardless of this vote. Your concern is solely "Oh dear, what will happen if we give gay people the same chance of doing this as straight people already have"

If those things worry you, fine - go and have a look into what we can change. But propose to change the law for all cases, not just the ones where gay people are concerned. Because that is just discrimination dressed up as concern for children.

But once again - we are not voting on anything you have brought forward as a problem. None of it. ALl those things are already possible, or will be possible in the future. It is just that you seem to feel gay people are especially liable to do bad things when they get the same opportunity as everyone else. There is a word for that, you know.

aloyisious · 10-05-2015 10:51AM

gandalf wrote: »

I see Breda O'Brien is now backtracking totally on her challenge to Panti Bliss for a debate. What a pathetic and cowardly organisation this so called Iona Institute is.

Has Breda put her withdrawal down in print? I'd like to think it was because the meet would be on a one to one basis, forcing a tactical retreat (feck, I'm out-classed).

Ta for the S/Indo links...

ROFL at the "it will only distract from the referendum" line. The photo is sooo bad. it look's like some-one has "dropped the hand" and she's just felt it.

omega man · 10-05-2015 10:54AM

dubscottie wrote: »

I can not believe that we are still being told what to do by idiots that think some sky fairy created everything..

This referendum has nothing what so ever to do with children..

I am gay and would like to get married to my other half of 15 years.. (yes 15 years.. We don't all ride the first arse we see)

We hate kids.. And we wont be stealing a straight couples smelly, **** producing, puking, money sucking crotch goblin..

I would like the same rights as my straight brother however..

Yes you should of course be able to marry your long term partner.

However I must point out that if I referred to any specific groups of people such as men, women or even say the gay community like you described children then I'd expect a huge backlash. It seems around here you can say what you want unless it's an actual personal comment on an individual poster.

Sonics2k · 10-05-2015 10:57AM

omega man wrote: »

Yes you should of course be able to marry your long term partner.

However I must point out that if I referred to any specific groups of people such as men, women or even say the gay community like you described children then I'd expect a huge backlash. It seems around here you can say what you want unless it's an actual personal comment on an individual poster.

To be fair, I've had a few exes over the years who felt the same about kids. Some people don't like kids.

omega man · 10-05-2015 11:03AM

Sonics2k wrote: »

To be fair, I've had a few exes over the years who felt the same about kids. Some people don't like kids.

God I get that but "hate" them and then use offence words to describe them.....not particularly nice considering this is a thread about equality. Look I get not everyone wants kids but just leave at that and say I've no interest in kids or whatever. Off topic sorry but I got a bad vibe from that post.

Bannasidhe · 10-05-2015 11:06AM

omega man wrote: »

God I get that but "hate" them and then use offence words to describe them.....not particularly nice considering this is a thread about equality. Look I get not everyone wants kids but just leave at that and say I've no interest in kids or whatever. Off topic sorry but I got a bad vibe from that post.

I agree. Poster doesn't want kids - so don't have kids but no need for that rant.

Vivisectus · 10-05-2015 11:13AM

I assumed it was meant to be funny. Also lol@ "crotch goblins", which I am going to find a reason to repeat in conversation at the earliest opportunity.

LookingFor · 10-05-2015 11:17AM

A thought on what the Bishop of Limerick said, per RTE:

He singles out for special mention its impact on children, who he says have a right to be raised by a mother and father, except when this is not possible.

Something a lot of people on the No side seem to miss is that where a child is being raised by same sex parents, it's not possible or desirable for them to be raised by anyone else.

Every person I've spoken to who's considering voting No has agreed with me, when I've put it to them, that it would not be in the best interests of the child to have them parented by a disinterested donor/surrogate parent (the original mother or father), to be taken from the same sex parents and given to another male/female couple, or to be returned to the original parent(s) who put them up for adoption.

That being the case, the 'mother and father' alternative 'is not possible'.

And so the answer in this scenario according to the Bishop would be to withhold the option of equal status and protection from their family? I kind of have to question whether he has considered the impact of this on these children!

I haven't found one person who's been able to articulate how a No vote will help children in these circumstances, whether they find them desirable circumstances or not. I don't know how anyone can vote No 'in the interests of children' without answering that question.

Bannasidhe · 10-05-2015 11:20AM

Vivisectus wrote: »

I assumed it was meant to be funny. Also lol@ "crotch goblins", which I am going to find a reason to repeat in conversation at the earliest opportunity.

Time and Place...

Let's not give the ***** ammo eh.

Not a NSA agent · 10-05-2015 11:30AM

LookingFor wrote: »

A thought on what the Bishop of Limerick said, per RTE:

Something a lot of people on the No side seem to miss is that where a child is being raised by same sex parents, it's not possible or desirable for them to be raised by anyone else.

Every person I've spoken to who's considering voting No has agreed with me, when I've put it to them, that it would not be in the best interests of the child to have them parented by a disinterested donor/surrogate parent (the original mother or father), to be taken from the same sex parents and given to another male/female couple, or to be returned to the original parent(s) who put them up for adoption.

That being the case, the 'mother and father' alternative 'is not possible'.

And so the answer in this scenario according to the Bishop would be to withhold the option of equal status and protection from their family? I kind of have to question whether he has considered the impact of this on these children!

I haven't found one person who's been able to articulate how a No vote will help children in these circumstances, whether they find them desirable circumstances or not. I don't know how anyone can vote No 'in the interests of children' without answering that question.

I always found it strange how important a mother in father is until the parents arent gay. Then nobody cares about these children's rights.

traprunner · 10-05-2015 11:33AM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

I always found it strange how important a mother in father is until the parents arent gay. Then nobody cares about these children's rights.

Very true. I don't hear the no side making an issue of the 1200 Tulsa files discovered recently where there are 1200 existing children at real risk right now.

pablomakaveli · 10-05-2015 12:51PM

This got posted to Reddit. What Iona thinks will happen with a Yes vote.

One eyed Jack · 10-05-2015 01:17PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

I always found it strange how important a mother in father is until the parents arent gay. Then nobody cares about these children's rights.

Nobody? Nobody cares about those children's rights? Really?

How much do you care about those children's rights or are you just using those children to point score?

traprunner wrote: »

Very true. I don't hear the no side making an issue of the 1200 Tulsa files discovered recently where there are 1200 existing children at real risk right now.

No. No it's not very true. It's an ignorant sweeping statement that both sides are guilty of doing without giving any actual thought to the people they're actually talking about.

The no side have been rightly criticised for putting out misleading information relating to children in their campaigns, and people advocating for marriage equality have said this referendum has nothing to do with children, and then as I saw in one post, they ask "What if one of your hypothetical children is gay?".

Children are being used by both sides in their respective campaigns, and both sides are just as guilty as each other of doing so.

You don't hear the no side making noise about 1200 existing children at risk right now because those children's circumstances aren't useful to their campaign, in the same way as some people in the yes campaign, existing children are irrelevant to their campaign, unless those children might happen to be LGBT. Then the label makes them useful to prick other people's consciences.

If you actually care for the welfare of children, then there are many thousands, thousands more children who need your support in Ireland right now, but the low turnout of the electorate for the Children's Referendum actually told it's own story about just how much the electorate cares about children's welfare in Ireland.

I'd really like to see both sides would acknowledge that children, existing or imaginary, should not be used to guilt trip anyone, but that people should be informed by the facts, reality, and not by imaginary scenarios.

jimdublin15 · 10-05-2015 01:33PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The no side have been rightly criticised for putting out misleading information relating to children in their campaigns, and people advocating for marriage equality have said this referendum has nothing to do with children, and then as I saw in one post, they ask "What if one of your hypothetical children is gay?".

Children are being used by both sides in their respective campaigns, and both sides are just as guilty as each other of doing so.

I have not seen the Yes campaigns/ Posters, leaflets and sites raising the issue of children, or using misleading information about children. Only seen the No side do that. Heck I have not seen the anything from the Yes campaign about children at all. Except for in reply no the No side publishing misleading information, twisted statements and outright lies.

What I have seen one or two individuals Yes votes posts on line such as boards and face book regarding children however this in response to No voters bringing up the topic in the first place.

The No side started it's campaign with publishing outright lies to twisted half truths about children and now whine when individuals defend themselves and their children. I respect everyone for having an option but as a parent making this about kids and lying about the subject I can never forgive the No side.

Bannasidhe · 10-05-2015 01:41PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody? Nobody cares about those children's rights? Really?

How much do you care about those children's rights or are you just using those children to point score?

No. No it's not very true. It's an ignorant sweeping statement that both sides are guilty of doing without giving any actual thought to the people they're actually talking about.

The no side have been rightly criticised for putting out misleading information relating to children in their campaigns, and people advocating for marriage equality have said this referendum has nothing to do with children, and then as I saw in one post, they ask "What if one of your hypothetical children is gay?".

Children are being used by both sides in their respective campaigns, and both sides are just as guilty as each other of doing so.

You don't hear the no side making noise about 1200 existing children at risk right now because those children's circumstances aren't useful to their campaign, in the same way as some people in the yes campaign, existing children are irrelevant to their campaign, unless those children might happen to be LGBT. Then the label makes them useful to prick other people's consciences.

If you actually care for the welfare of children, then there are many thousands, thousands more children who need your support in Ireland right now, but the low turnout of the electorate for the Children's Referendum actually told it's own story about just how much the electorate cares about children's welfare in Ireland.

I'd really like to see both sides would acknowledge that children, existing or imaginary, should not be used to guilt trip anyone, but that people should be informed by the facts, reality, and not by imaginary scenarios.

Both sides?

Bit of an exaggeration I think.

Let's look at the composition of the voice of the No side - it's Iona and assorted allies. The same Iona who has a lengthy track record of claiming to care so much about children that they place the mental and physical health of women below that of a fetus - even a fetus that is incompatible with life.

The same Iona that blithely states that a pregnant rape victim should carry her fetus to term and then give it up for adoption - whither a mother isn't just for 9 months there?

The same Iona that screams ending an unwanted pregnancy is nothing short of murder but doesn't want children to go to loving homes if they might end up with gay parents.

Iona have been banging the 'we care about children' drum for decades but never ever comment on children as risk in care or homeless children - their care is for children who haven't actually been born - or conceived - and children who might fall into the clutches of the gays. That's it.

The Yes side never wanted to include children in this campaign but were given no choice - why? Because the opposition introduced the topic of children and plastered the country with posters proclaiming their faux concern for non-existent children.

The yes side has continually said this is about adults - not children and we get steamrolled over by shrieks of 'won't somebody think of the children'.

Now, when we finally point out that there are children - living breathing children - already being raised in same-sex couples and what about concern for them we are being accused of cynically using children on a par with a group whose spokespeople make their living by faking concern about potential children but ignoring living ones in crises.

cross now :mad:

Fleawuss · 10-05-2015 01:58PM

The religious opposition to SSM is laughable. Their entire belief system is an imaginary scenario.

Not a NSA agent · 10-05-2015 02:01PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody? Nobody cares about those children's rights? Really?

How much do you care about those children's rights or are you just using those children to point score?

The likes of iona or the groups like them make it very clear that this right to a mother and father is incredibly important and we shouldnt be denying it to children but it doesnt matter as soon as gay people are out of the picture.

I dont see how pointing out that their concern disappears is using children for point scoring.

Ave Sodalis · 10-05-2015 02:02PM

A Facebook friend of mine has put up a status about how marriage is for procreation. It's a very long status and he's asked anyone who has a problem with it to contact him via message... However, every single paragraph is correctable and based on ignorance. He's a popular lad though so it's reaching a wide audience and already has 50 likes. These are twenty year olds. A small bit concerning to be honest.

Not a NSA agent · 10-05-2015 02:02PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody? Nobody cares about those children's rights? Really?

How much do you care about those children's rights or are you just using those children to point score?

The likes of iona or the groups like them make it very clear that this right to a mother and father is incredibly important and we shouldnt be denying it to children but it doesnt matter as soon as gay people are out of the picture and as Bann pointed out, they even encourage adoption when it suits them.

I dont see how pointing out that their concern disappears is using children for point scoring.

One eyed Jack · 10-05-2015 02:33PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The yes side has continually said this is about adults - not children and we get steamrolled over by shrieks of 'won't somebody think of the children'.

Now, when we finally point out that there are children - living breathing children - already being raised in same-sex couples and what about concern for them we are being accused of cynically using children on a par with a group whose spokespeople make their living by faking concern about potential children but ignoring living ones in crises.

cross now :mad:

Maybe I'm not being very clear here so I'll try and explain better. I absolutely detest the no campaign and their tactics. No question there. But I've said from the very beginning in any of these threads that it annoys me no end when I see the yes campaign try and say "this has nothing to do with children", and then say "but what if your child is gay?" or whatever.

From my perspective (and I've always made it clear I'm voting yes), I just don't get why the yes campaign wanted to avoid discussing the benefits that this would mean for children, instead defaulting to the stock response 'this referendum isn't about children'.

That sort of trite stock rebuttal just doesn't fly with people who have no interest in the political posturing by either side. It turns people off voting in favour of the referendum proposal because it looks like those people are just interested in issues that affect them only.

IMO the yes campaign are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to attack the no campaign. You'll never combat lies with the truth when it comes to people's inherent prejudices which are based on their experiences.

People aren't just single issues, they're a whole complicated mix of influences. But in making sweeping generalisations about people, the no campaign have shot themselves in the foot (no surprise there really), but the yes campaign aren't doing much better from my perspective.

I wanted to see the yes campaign run a positive campaign, but all I see is political posturing among a few talking heads, and spin from both sides, and I've said it from the beginning that I don't care what the no campaign does, I care that I see the yes campaign are tanking this campaign for themselves, and I'm disappointed, and quite frankly I'm worried that in not being mindful and in making sweeping generalisations about whole groups of people, they're going to turn people off wanting to support them.

I don't mean that to sound like "be nice or else" or whatever kind of way anyone wants to spin it. I mean it as in I'm worried that people are getting so caught up in what the no campaign are doing, that they're forgetting about the people that already support them and want to support them, but the yes campaign are focusing on the issues as opposed to focusing on people. They're preaching acceptance of diversity in society, but failing to acknowledge that people are indeed diverse as it is, and don't fit neatly into labelled categories.

I don't think know if even any of the above will resonate with anyone, but I know what I'm thinking in my head and I'm just not able to articulate it properly. It's just that for me, giving everyone the same opportunity to enter into civil marriage has many benefits for everyone, be they adults, children, homosexual or heterosexual, religious or non-religious, because it's about everyone working towards a society in which everyone is given an equal opportunity to participate, and nobody is left out of the loop because they "don't fit the profile".

kevin12345 · 10-05-2015 02:35PM

sup_dude wrote: »

A Facebook friend of mine has put up a status about how marriage is for procreation. It's a very long status and he's asked anyone who has a problem with it to contact him via message... However, every single paragraph is correctable and based on ignorance. He's a popular lad though so it's reaching a wide audience and already has 50 likes. These are twenty year olds. A small bit concerning to be honest.

It's actually shocking and insulting that people still hold the view that marriage is simply for procreation. People marry each other because they love each other and want that love to be recognised and protected by the state. Many, many couples get married with the intention of never having children and many more get married and biologically cannot have children, we need only look at the census to see the number of people having children outside of marriage. It's insulting to those couples first and foremost. Some people are just too thick to not realise this or are completely focused on their own image of what an "ideal" family is, something which doesn't exist in reality.

jimdublin15 · 10-05-2015 02:59PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Maybe I'm not being very clear here so I'll try and explain better. I absolutely detest the no campaign and their tactics. No question there. But I've said from the very beginning in any of these threads that it annoys me no end when I see the yes campaign try and say "this has nothing to do with children", and then say "but what if your child is gay?" or whatever.

The key difference is the "Yes" side are just responding (defending themselves) in a debate to something being claimed that is an absolutely vile tactic . The "No" side brought children into this debate to play on our emotions and to cloud the subject when the issue it's not about children.

The yes side campaign has replied by trying to educate and address the concern raised by the No side, and challenging effectively the misinformation put out by the No side. The No side have aimed at misinforming the public using children to confuse/manipulate and gain votes in this evil and twisted manner.

As for the post on boards and facebook, that is individuals posts and thoughts and not truly representative either sides campaigns and should not be confused with being anything else but an individuals point of view.

I close on the thought that:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

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

Comments