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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

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

1…4647495152…327

Comments

  • #1442
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    YFlyer wrote: »
    The priest voting yes?

    I think Osarusan is referring to the one who edits the 'Alive' toilet paper who closely resembles Gandalf!


  • #1443
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,343 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    I'm a bit surprised to hear that I need the permission of something written in the constitution to procreate. Can some-one tell what that is?


  • #1444
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Clare Byrne is too weak to deal with that debate. Jeremy Paxman wouldn't have let Mullen get away with blatant lying unchallenged.

    RTE are the limp handshake of current affairs!


  • #1445
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    I think Osarusan is referring to the one who edits the 'Alive' toilet paper who closely resembles Gandolf!

    F*** off he looks nothing like me :P


  • #1446
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    And Fidelma! 'I was a yes voter but...' BOLLOCKS!

    That has become the new 'I'm not homophobic but...'


  • Advertisement
  • #1447
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,255 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    aloyisious wrote: »
    I'm a bit surprised to hear that I need the permission of something written in the constitution to procreate. Can some-one tell what that is?

    They were taking about your right to have a child and those child's rights to have a mother that you and your parter might take from the child. It only really relates to surrogacy.


  • #1448
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    gandalf wrote: »
    F*** off he looks nothing like me :P

    The spitting image of you he is :D

    I spelt your name wrong too to add insult to injury. Had to go back and edit!


  • #1449
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,928 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    I think Osarusan is referring to the one who edits the 'Alive' toilet paper who closely resembles Gandolf!

    Yes I was.


  • #1450
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,928 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    gandalf wrote: »
    Clare Byrne is too weak to deal with that debate. Jeremy Paxman wouldn't have let Mullen get away with blatant lying unchallenged.

    She needs to be trained on how to transition from one panelist to another.

    she has a habit of saying something like "that's a very important point, how would you respond to that" which validates (unknowingly, I'd say) what is being said.

    Just get the other person to respond, don't comment on the content.


  • #1451
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    osarusan wrote: »
    That blond-haired bigot and the ould priest are doing their side no favours.
    Soft spoken Eileen King from Mothers and Fathers Don't Matter? Her point about tradition and how marriage has always been a man and a woman is plain prejudice. She does not want her marriage to be lessened by same sex marriage, nor does she want her marriage to be associated with same sex ones. I genuinely wonder if she thinks her husband (or future husband) is going to suddenly turn into a woman should same sex marriage be introduced.


  • Advertisement
  • #1452
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Santa Cruz wrote: »
    They have a different opinion so they must be bigots.

    No. They dont have an opinion. They have an extension of their religious delusions. And as such are beyond reasoned opinions on the matter, or participating in rational debate on it. And so by definition are bigots :
    n.One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


  • #1453
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    I truly think that all this whingeing about being 'silenced' and 'bullied' was a nasty, manipulative but clever ploy from the no side, which has actually worked to silence the yes side somewhat. Very 'silenced' the no side sounded tonight!


  • #1454
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    They were taking about your right to have a child and those child's rights to have a mother that you and your parter might take from the child. It only really relates to surrogacy.

    And of course only gay people would ever do that...
    That's why there was that court case about the woman whose sister acted as a surrogate because her lesbian partner couldn't carry a child due to not having a womb on account of being a man.


  • #1455
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    I feel like donating eggs and offering to be a surrogate for a gay couple after watching that. Never mind convincing me to vote yes!


  • #1456
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    And Fidelma! 'I was a yes voter but...' BOLLOCKS!

    That has become the new 'I'm not homophobic but...'
    So true. I don't believe her for a second. At best I'd say she attempted to entertain the thought of same sex marriage within her closed little mind before quickly resorting to norm. Fidelma on fatal foetal abnormality ~ Life is full of suffering.... Enough said.


  • #1457
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,255 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    And of course only gay people would ever do that...
    That's why there was that court case about the woman whose sister acted as a surrogate because her lesbian partner couldn't carry a child due to not having a womb on account of being a man.

    I've read that a few times and I'm still confused, the lesbian was going out with a man who was a trans woman? They were a natural couple just didn't identify as one? Either way it sounded like the child had a mother. Science has jumped past that, mother no longer needed.


  • #1458
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    gandalf wrote: »
    Clare Byrne is too weak to deal with that debate. Jeremy Paxman wouldn't have let Mullen get away with blatant lying unchallenged.

    RTE are the limp handshake of current affairs!
    Claire asked RÓnÁn whether he fundamentally agrees with same sex marriage irrespective of the change it would make to our constitution (As clear a YES/NO question as the referendum itself) and allowed him to slide off into his usual spiel about children and surrogacy. Why oh why did she not demand he answer the question I will never know. Obviously I do, but it was a perfect opportunity to expose the blatant homophobia and bigotry endemic in the No side's arguments.


  • #1459
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,343 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    They were taking about your right to have a child and those child's rights to have a mother that you and your parter might take from the child. It only really relates to surrogacy.

    Oh I must have misunderstood Tom Finegan, the MAFM legal eagle, thought he said one needed permission to procreate.


  • #1460
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,343 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    K4t wrote: »
    Soft spoken Eileen King from Mothers and Fathers Don't Matter? Her point about tradition and how marriage has always been a man and a woman is plain prejudice. She does not want her marriage to be lessened by same sex marriage, nor does she want her marriage to be associated with same sex ones. I genuinely wonder if she thinks her husband (or future husband) is going to suddenly turn into a woman should same sex marriage be introduced.

    is she the lady who said marriage had been around for thousands of years, using that as a reason not to extend Civil Marriage to LGBT couples?


  • #1461
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,255 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Oh I must have misunderstood Tom Finegan, the MAFM legal eagle, thought he said one needed permission to procreate.

    He meant children, that was oblivious. They need permission for surrogacy which has evolved from even the current understating. They reckon in the next 2 years they'll be able to create a child with 2 male jeans fused without any input genetically from a woman. That's screwing with the gene pool which I wouldn't be in favour of but if men are entitled to family should they be denied it. The gay community is excited, I'm terrified.


  • Advertisement
  • #1462
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    aloyisious wrote: »
    is she the lady who said marriage had been around for thousands of years, using that as a reason not to extend Civil Marriage to LGBT couples?
    Something to that affect. She recycles the same line every time in that annoying, passive aggressive tone. She looks like an angel who's been touched by a mental deficiency. Apologies in advance for the bullying I am sure to be accused of! *not really sorry*


  • #1463
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I've read that a few times and I'm still confused, the lesbian was going out with a man who was a trans woman? They were a natural couple just didn't identify as one? Either way it sounded like the child had a mother. Science has jumped past that, mother no longer needed.

    No.
    Are you drunk monkey?

    There was a woman, an Irish women, an Irish woman living in Ireland, who couldn't carry a fetus to term so her sister said you can use my womb - you with me so far?
    I then sarcastically said that the woman's lesbian partner couldn't help because of being a man - which is an absurd comment because men who identify as men cannot be lesbians - not even if they have t-shirts saying 'I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body'.
    See - the 'lesbian partner' was really her husband - a man.

    Straight married couple involved in surrogacy - it's not just the gays shock!

    And they went to court because the Government (aka THE MAN) said actually - legally the sister who isn't with the man but who owned the womb that was used is the Mammy under Irish law and the Court agreed.

    Still with me?

    Irish law says that the surrogate is the mother and the only way she can 'lose' her rights as a mother is if she signs them away in exactly the same way as if she was giving the child up for adoption.


  • #1464
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    They reckon in the next 2 years they'll be able to create a child with 2 male jeans fused without any input genetically from a woman.

    Levis or Wranglers?


  • #1465
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    The "virgin birth" denied Jesus the right to a father. Down with that sort of thing!


  • #1466
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,352 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    lazygal wrote: »
    We wouldn't abandon the country for this reason alone. As I said, we'd add to our reasons for why we might move abroad. The recent case of a brain dead pregnant woman kept alive while her brain rotted away certainly made us think about the realities of me being pregnant again in this country. Combined with friends of ours living abroad who want their marriage recognised here should they return to Ireland and the general religious centred education system that thinks a child coming to know god is the most important subject, a vote against equality wouldn't really give us a warm fuzzy feeling about this country and raising our children here.

    I've lived here when the country was in far worse shape, and I've seen it progress. It will continue to progress, of that I'm confident. If you want to find fault, you'll find fault. But I'm not looking for reasons to find fault, so of course I would consider it OTT to abandon the country over a No vote.

    lazygal wrote: »
    BTW I'm not entirely comfortable with the 'religious' elements of the educate together model and the learn together programme. Feedback from some parents on it that I've heard makes me feel the ET schools are complicit in the Dept of Ed 'kids need to know about god' rule rather than offering a properly secular education.

    I judge from your "feedback" line that you don't actually have direct experience of an Educate Together school. My son got a "properly secular" education from an ET school, while at the same time being exposed to the existence of various faith systems. It was good for him, and today he is a decent atheist with what looks to me like a high degree of tolerance and empathy for people of faith. But - to bring this back to the point - his atheism doesn't make him more likely to vote Yes than his Christian friends. They all plan to vote Yes, regardless of their faiths. I think that's pretty cool, and it is one of the reasons why I remain optimistic for Ireland's future whatever the result next week.


  • #1467
    sunshine and showers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭sunshine and showers


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    The "virgin birth" denied Jesus the right to a father. Down with that sort of thing!

    Technically Jesus had two fathers and he turned out ok!


  • #1468
    SummerSummit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 103 ✭✭SummerSummit


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    The "virgin birth" denied Jesus the right to a father. Down with that sort of thing!

    But Jesus was his own father. A M. Night Shyamalan plot twist perfectly explained using a shamrock.


  • #1469
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    K4t wrote: »
    Something to that affect. She recycles the same line every time in that annoying, passive aggressive tone. She looks like an angel who's been touched by a mental deficiency. Apologies in advance for the bullying I am sure to be accused of! *not really sorry*

    Bigot Barbie


  • #1470
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    We do not need to see the size of the pile of amended legislation to decide whether the principle is right or wrong.
    If you want the principle to be more than a slogan, you actually do.
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    .Covney is more angry than passionate.
    Simon's just doing a job. Tomorrow he'll be doing much the same, only it'll be a meeting with the IFA about subsidies for Yak farming.


  • Advertisement
  • #1471
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,343 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    I'm kind'a amused that what applies for marriage law in Massachusetts is thought by Ronan and the gent who returned from there to be what we should bear in mind when we decide what's right in law here for Ireland. However the out-of-left-field scare story of what might be put into education and schoolbooks here if civil marriage is extended to LGBT couples must have been like manna from heaven for Ronan. That might not have even occurred to Iona to use as a "protect the kids" angle.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement