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

frostyjacks · 12-05-2015 06:30PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

:rolleyes:

"I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex unions"

Bernice King

MakeEmLaugh · 12-05-2015 06:31PM

Just wondering, have any celebrities come out on the 'No' side?

On the 'Yes' side we've had Chris O'Dowd, Colin Farrell, Hozier, Brian O'Driscoll et al.

Have any celebrities (bar that Tipperary hurler) encouraged people to vote 'No'?

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 06:32PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

So now your slurring the Kings... charming.

No slur, it is well known that King had mistresses. Why would you turn down a bit of eye candy if they are throwing themselves at him?. No different to many white leaders of the day. Good on him!

smash · 12-05-2015 06:33PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

How is stating that the 160 argument is flawed, aggressive ? Or that it is a lie to say equality means, treat everyone equally?

Incoherent? Ya, good one;)

Eh, sorry , sugar, they (160 differences argument) do need to be explained. The Gay campaigners are the ones making the allegations (see previous posts) after all..... (And ye whinge about the nonsense from Iona, lol)

I wager that the people putting up the comments about 160 differences, couldn't even cite 60 of them (hence, the down right refusal to discuss that point) .

And, if they knew what the differences where, they would know that as of May 2015, a fair proportion of that 160 are no longer valid. Also, they would know what some of them have no relevancy to gay people.

Come now, cite 60, and explain it in a way that we know that you haven't copied and paste them, that you understand their relevancy .

You have no qualification to make that statement

The argument was there is 160 differences between CP and Marriage. One fellow poster and myself have called on ye to explain them. It was put to those who rely on that argument, that it's a flawed argument. No rebuttal , so far . No actual effort to address it. Apparently, it is not worth

Comparing to the Black Civil Rights Movement? Oh dear oh dear, the desperation. Martin Luther, a good baptist , would be turning in his grave . I think the black lads had more to worry about than being allowed to marry white folk.....

The bus analogy. Oh dear. Well, the bus is for transporting people ; which means everyone should get a seat. That is what a bus service is suppose to be for, it shouldn't discriminate on colour. However, marriage, in this part of the world,always for only one select group, heterosexuals

There are 160 differences. They don't need to be explained. The fact that they exist is proof of inequality.

You're just not worth any more of my time because you just don't listen.

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 06:33PM

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Just wondering, have any celebrities come out on the 'No' side?

On the 'Yes' side we've had Chris O'Dowd, Colin Farrell, Hozier, Brian O'Driscoll et al.

Have any celebrities (bar that Tipperary hurler) encouraged people to vote 'No'?

Because, we all know, that if he did, as one might suggest (ala Pat Kenny would say), he could wave good bye to any endorsements or money making adventures (outside his own labour) again.

Bannasidhe · 12-05-2015 06:34PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Roll eyes , all you want, you know it's true, and you know Luther King was a bit of a playa

I seriously doubt that 'Martin Luther, a good baptist , would be turning in his grave' given Martin Luther was a Lutheran... clue is in the name.

As for Martin Luther King Jr - your reference to his being a 'playa' and sneering swipe at his wife just shows your true colours and lack of an argument.

Pherekydes · 12-05-2015 06:37PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Since when did a woman ever speak for a man?

Your slip is showing.

aloyisious · 12-05-2015 06:38PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

So, comparing gay people, who have pretty much the majority of the civil rights every other individual enjoys , in the free world, to Apartheid , because they , like many hetro's, who can't marry certain fellow hetro's. ....

Right.

Oh right on!

For (in reference to gay people) who can't marry, read instead: aren't allowed marry (the person of their choice) only that chosen by Iona-ists.

Bannasidhe · 12-05-2015 06:39PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

"I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex unions"

Bernice King

Martin Luther didn't take a bullet for anything - which is whom J.R. claimed would be spinning in his grave. And apparently Luther did became a member of a religion that didn't exist until over 50 years after his death - perhaps the Baptists baptised him and and claimed him for them like the Mormons do...

J.R. was trying to be smart.
He failed.
Hung by his own petard.
Boo Hoo.

WoolyJumper · 12-05-2015 06:40PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Roll eyes , all you want, you know it's true, and you know Luther King was a bit of a playa

If you address peoples actual point, people might be less inclined to roll eyes at you

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 06:40PM

smash wrote: »

There are 160 differences. They don't need to be explained. The fact that they exist is proof of inequality.

You're just not worth any more of my time because you just don't listen.

Those 160 differences DO NEED explaining.

Because, when you go through the list, many of them are inaccurate or down right incorrect.

The fact that none of ye would even cite 60 of them, within a few words, just shows how much ye actually know. Ironically, it's a bit like the Church lot, swallowing everything being said to ye.

Proof tends to mean that the evidence is beyond being challenged. I am putting it to you and everyone else carrying that argument, that many of these are bull****.

While there are actually some legitimate examples, that should be sorted out, you are ignoring the fact that there are legitimate reasons for these so called Inequalities (hey, since we are talking about "equality", perhaps try and understand how it works, yeah?)

At this point, it is evident that the allegations are not going to be backed up. By the way, that list was published YEARS ago, the new family acts will knock down a couple. There were a number of these so called "differences" in Immigration Law that were down right incorrect and had no bearing whatsoever with immigration policy then and now.

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 06:43PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

If you address peoples actual point, people might be less inclined to roll eyes at you

I did address the point.

I was shown a youtube clip of King's wife. It does nothing to rebut my comment about King, himself, personally rolling in his grave. She does not speak for him.

I had also explained why is was nonsense to compare Civil Rights Movement with the fight for gay marriage

VinLieger · 12-05-2015 06:43PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Because, we all know, that if he did, as one might suggest (ala Pat Kenny would say), he could wave good bye to any endorsements or money making adventures (outside his own labour) again.

Ahh yes the classic "they are only doing it for the money" argument, it wouldnt be in the case of colin farell because has a gay brother by any chance? Nah probably just cus he wants to be in more movies

Bannasidhe · 12-05-2015 06:45PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

I did address the point.

I was shown a youtube clip of King's wife. It does nothing to rebut my comment about King, himself, personally rolling in his grave. She does not speak for him.

I had also explained why is was nonsense to compare Civil Rights Movement with the fight for gay marriage

You said Luther not King.

Gee... looks like you are not omnipotent after all.

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 06:47PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Martin Luther didn't take a bullet for anything - which is whom J.R. claimed would be spinning in his grave. And apparently Luther did became a member of a religion that didn't exist until over 50 years after his death - perhaps the Baptists baptised him and and claimed him for them like the Mormons do...

J.R. was trying to be smart.
He failed.
Hung by his own petard.
Boo Hoo.

Was not trying to be "smart".

It is cheap and ridiculous to compare the black struggle with gay marriage. And, I wouldn't be too confident that the Black Civil Rights groups would be too crazy to be linked with this issue. When that comparison springs up, there are only so many ways that can be responded to

Whatever religion he was, he was a Minister ; trying to be pedantic I see.

Ah well, the Gay Community, not content with hijacking marriage, they want to link themselves with the Civil Rights Movement; what next? Holocaust ?

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 06:49PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You said Luther not King.

Gee... looks like you are not omnipotent after all.

You, I , and anyone else will be under no illusion, in any way , shape or form, that my reference about grave spinning thereafter referred to Martin Luther King .....

Oh sorry, Martin Luther King Jr

It really says a lot when you try to hang onto any irrelevant point to save face

Kiwi in IE · 12-05-2015 06:51PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Genuine question - I know I have read posts on the Yes side that made me go ... Nooooooo!!! Don't call them that! Not Now.. just think it k!!

But they are that! And should not be able to sue the public broadcaster for being called that, when it is factually correct! Now broadcasters are quite clearly nervous of them and are therefore overcompensating, Mullen was not pulled up or challenged last night for the barefaced lies he told, which the more gullible out there may well believe. This whole referendum is unbelievable actually. Had Simon Coveney mentioned the word 'lie' last night I'm sure there would be law proceedings starting today. He was probably briefed not to before hand. Mullen was however, lying! Who is 'silencing' who here? I've never known such a nasty campaign for public voting in my life. And it astounds me when I come in here and see 'I don't like the way the yes side are behaving, I was going to vote yes but now I'm voting no'. Are these people on the Iona payroll? And the yes side IS getting nervous about these reactions.

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 06:51PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Similarly, 'I don't like the gays' isn't enough of a reason to not change the laws.

It is not an issue of whether you like or dislike gays.

Nodin · 12-05-2015 06:53PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It is not an issue of whether you like or dislike gays.

Seems to be, given the paucity of the arguments on display here. Either directly, or the "thought of it" generally.

osarusan · 12-05-2015 06:56PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Whatever religion he was, he was a Minister ; trying to be pedantic I see.

Martin Luther and Martin Luther King Jnr are two different people.

aloyisious · 12-05-2015 06:56PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

How is stating that the 160 argument is flawed, aggressive ? Or that it is a lie to say equality means, treat everyone equally?

Incoherent? Ya, good one;)

Eh, sorry , sugar, they (160 differences argument) do need to be explained. The Gay campaigners are the ones making the allegations (see previous posts) after all..... (And ye whinge about the nonsense from Iona, lol)

I wager that the people putting up the comments about 160 differences, couldn't even cite 60 of them (hence, the down right refusal to discuss that point)
/QUOTE]

You have access to the net. Why don't you take some of your time (instead of our's) to google on the privileges and rights given to married couples here, then google on the privileges and rights given to Civil Partnership couples and when you download the info, spend some time comparing the differences between them instead of demanding that we do the work for you.

If you do that and come back with a real item to debate, then you might get no more "downright refusals". Your failure to do so up to the moment is a clear sign that you have no argument to make at all against the statements and information sources/links posted here about the existing differences.

frostyjacks · 12-05-2015 06:58PM

osarusan wrote: »

Martin Luther and Martin Luther King Jnr are two different people.

Whaa?

Nodin · 12-05-2015 07:01PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Whaa?

Martin Luther
http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://cp91279.biography.com/1000509261001/1000509261001_2163219489001_History-Martin-Luther-Sparks-a-Revolution-SF-HD-768x432-16x9.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.biography.com/people/martin-luther-9389283&h=432&w=768&tbnid=ki6sxpcy_oRWXM:&zoom=1&tbnh=112&tbnw=199&usg=__WAmebwyyyJs-zIXGQozASOePzTU=&docid=dQ4Pu3DC68zguM&itg=1

Martin Luther King
http://cp91279.biography.com/1000509261001/1000509261001_1094056090001_Bio-Need-to-Know-Martin-Luther-King-Jr-SF.jpg

SummerSummit · 12-05-2015 07:01PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Was not trying to be "smart".

It is cheap and ridiculous to compare the black struggle with gay marriage.

Why? Inter-racial marraige was only became fully legal in 1967 in the US. Gay marriage is still illegal!!

Vivisectus · 12-05-2015 07:03PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

But , you do have the right to marry. ITS THE SAME RIGJTS AS ANOTHER CITIZENS

All citizens, of sound mind, have a right to marry.

The right has restrictions.

All citizens can only marry if their partner is of the opposite sex, over 18 and of sound mind and not related

A man can't marry a woman, despite being of the opposite sex, if she is his third cousin. Does that make him a second class citizen?

All citizens, of sound mind, have a right to marry. They can only not marry if their partner is not of the same race, of sound mind, and not related.

Man man can't marry another person if they are related, even if they are of the same race - so does that make him a second class citizen?

edit: ah someone already went over this with you I just noticed. But you disregard it because you have decided it is cheap and ridiculous. But where exactly does the difference lie, pray tell?

WinnyThePoo · 12-05-2015 07:06PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Martin Luther didn't take a bullet for anything - which is whom J.R. claimed would be spinning in his grave. And apparently Luther did became a member of a religion that didn't exist until over 50 years after his death - perhaps the Baptists baptised him and and claimed him for them like the Mormons do...

J.R. was trying to be smart.
He failed.
Hung by his own petard.
Boo Hoo.

Useless post, but Petards are great in Age of Empires!:pac:

Maximus Alexander · 12-05-2015 07:07PM

If I'm reading this thread right, Martin Luther time travelled to the future and got shot?

Man, I really didn't pay enough attention in history class.

Bannasidhe · 12-05-2015 07:08PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Was not trying to be "smart".

It is cheap and ridiculous to compare the black struggle with gay marriage. And, I wouldn't be too confident that the Black Civil Rights groups would be too crazy to be linked with this issue. When that comparison springs up, there are only so many ways that can be responded to

Whatever religion he was, he was a Minister ; trying to be pedantic I see.

Ah well, the Gay Community, not content with hijacking marriage, they want to link themselves with the Civil Rights Movement; what next? Holocaust ?

Being pedantic back at ya!

Wassamattah* don't you like it?

Does it hurt when you get caught with your knowledge pants down?

According to my copy of the Gay Agenda we are hijacking Diaspora next.
You're welcome.

*I assume we are now speaking faux street given your use of 'playa'.

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 07:09PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I seriously doubt that 'Martin Luther, a good baptist , would be turning in his grave' given Martin Luther was a Lutheran... clue is in the name.

As for Martin Luther King Jr - your reference to his being a 'playa' and sneering swipe at his wife just shows your true colours and lack of an argument.

You think Martin Luther King was a liberal. Okay, bless your little heart

A Typicaly "god fearing" dude, like many a man and woman of that period.......

The sneering, is not towards King or his wife. It's towards people like ye, trying to high jack a group from the 1960's over issues utterly different to the current one, to suit yer agenda ....

Luther King was born a Baptist and was a Baptist pastor, by the way.While I loathe to use wikiepdia, I thought that was a common fact. Obviously not

http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index=477
http://archive.desertsun.com/VideoNetwork/1663710721001/Martin-Luther-King-Jr-would-not-have-supported-gay-marriage-niece-says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/318311/Martin-Luther-King-Jr

A shur, who knows ?

Bannasidhe · 12-05-2015 07:10PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It really says a lot when you try to hang onto any irrelevant point to save face

Oh... you make me laugh.

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

Comments