Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…6566687071…327

Comments

  • #2012
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Don't worry at all, you're not being smart.

    It's a false comparison, because I would not be out of the picture. But in answer, I do believe that should a situation like that arise, the other person should be treated with the same legal rights a step-parent would have.

    And even if that did happen, I'd still truly believe that LGBT parents should allow to be married because, and say it with me again, "this referendum has nothing to do with gay people having children because they already can and do.".

    Anyway, here's a my AMA from a while back http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057365334

    Thanks!


  • #2013
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,204 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Don't mean to be smart, but things would only be the same way if your children's mother became a lesbian, gave you the boot, and shacked up with another woman to raise your kids. Would you still feel the same way then?
    Grand_Rajnah wrote: »
    Mod

    How about having a bit of tact please? I genuinely can't imagine how insulting that must be.

    We're not going down this direction of discussion. Drop it.

    If it's ok Mod I'll answer that.

    I am Sonics mother.

    I did not 'become' a lesbian or give anyone the 'boot'.

    I was a lesbian long before he was even an egg never mind a child and I am still a lesbian now that he is a grown man.

    Sonics knew far more about his biological father than a lot of the children of heterosexual mothers - and infinitely more about both his biological mother and father than most adopted people.

    Your comment was crass, presumptuous, ill-informed, judgmental and, above all, ignorant.

    One can only hope you do not go around asking single pregnant women where the baby daddy is or adopted children about their 'real' parents - or perhaps you do as that is the level of your comment to Sonics.


  • #2014
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    Some nice bible-thumping 'vote no' posters went up around my morning commute overnight. If it had been a few weeks ago I'd have been annoyed - now I think they'll just help a yes vote. This is around Dame Street, ChristChurch. I hope people will leave them alone - I think they will backfire, and I hope as many people as possible see them.


  • #2015
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    LookingFor wrote: »
    Some nice bible-thumping 'vote no' posters went up around my morning commute overnight. If it had been a few weeks ago I'd have been annoyed - now I think they'll just help a yes vote. This is around Dame Street, ChristChurch. I hope people will leave them alone - I think they will backfire, and I hope as many people as possible see them.

    Can you remember what any of them said?


  • #2016
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    SireOfSeth wrote: »
    Can you remember what any of them said?

    They are blue and green posters - I didn't want to stop to look at them, but they each carry a couple of bible quotes under 'The Word of God' and then 'Vote No' at the bottom. One of the quotes is about God creating 'male and female'. The other is the old 'what God has put together let no man put asunder'. Not sure if both types of poster carry the same quotes, but those were two of them for sure.

    I mean, I guess it's not Leviticus or whatever, but something tells me the group behind them aren't aware of Irish people's aversion to pulpit preaching.


  • Advertisement
  • #2017
    godwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 393 ✭✭godwin


    I won't vote, I don't care about the result either way. Sick to death of hearing about this whole referendum TBH.


  • #2018
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    And yet you opened a thread on the subject right now :) Masochist much? :)

    In fairness its nearly over.


  • #2019
    Hammer Archer
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 11,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hammer Archer


    godwin wrote: »
    I won't vote, I don't care about the result either way. Sick to death of hearing about this whole referendum TBH.
    Then the best way of ensuring that you don't hear about it again is by voting yes. If it fails to pass, it'll be put to the public again eventually.


  • #2020
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,651 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    godwin wrote: »
    I won't vote, I don't care about the result either way. Sick to death of hearing about this whole referendum TBH.

    So sick of it that you just popped into a thread about it?


  • #2021
    godwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 393 ✭✭godwin


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    So sick of it that you just popped into a thread about it?

    Yeah.


  • Advertisement
  • #2022
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    godwin wrote: »
    Yeah.

    Cool story brah.


  • #2023
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    if your children's mother became a lesbian, gave you the boot, and shacked up with another woman to raise your kids.

    This is really what you anti folks are afraid of, isn't it?


  • #2024
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    This is really what you anti folks are afraid of, isn't it?

    Its what we women aspire to. Be heterosexual, have babies, leave the poor man who fathered the babies, become homosexual, shack up with a woman, raise the babies all gay-like and be mean to the man when he calls in to see the babies.


  • #2025
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    My parents are two women, they raised me exactly the same as my cousins straight parents. Your opinion is, frankly and as politely as possible, wrong.

    This referendum does not change anything in terms of LGBT people having and raising children, but will give them the same rights of inheritence and tax that I have with my partner and my children.

    Now, say it with me. "This referendum has nothing to do with gay people raising children, because they already can and do."

    Marriage, as defined by our State, does -not- mean you have to have children, or even plan on it in the future. My best friend has been married for some 6 years now, and has no intention of having children.

    The Civil Partnership Act has started to provide probate rights and property rights. More can be done.If the referendum was to loose, government, assuming they really do care about gays, would quickly start amending legislation to cater for gay families

    Once that's achieved, there is no need for marriage. One more time, folks...

    Your friends choose not to have children. Majority of married couples have children, whether planned or not.marriage is defined in the way it is because of the abilities of a man and woman,should they choose. Marriage and it's protections seeks to promote a certain family unit, hence, even non married cohabitants with children are excluded from Article 41.


  • #2026
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    This is really what you anti folks are afraid of, isn't it?
    And as we all know it's impossible for the same situation to occur with a heterosexual step parent.


  • #2027
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    The Civil Partnership Act has started to provide probate rights and propert rights. More can be done.If the referendum was to loose, government, assuming they really do care about gays, would quickly start amending lrlegislation to cater for gay families

    Once that's achieved, there is no need for marriage. One more time, folks...

    Legislation will never be enough as civil partnership act does not have constitutional protection.

    Complete fallacy that marriage is about children, refuted dozens of times already, not worth wasting another word on.


  • #2028
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Interesting read... http://www.lawyers4yes.ie/pdf/Lawyers4Yes_Legal_Issues_Update.pdf


  • #2029
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,214 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Hammer Archer wrote: »
    Par for the course. Of course calling these people up on the plain nastiness they utter would be classed as bullying.

    I wonder if David Quinn has an alter ego on Boards. His Twitter feed is a masterclass in nastiness.


  • #2030
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Once that's achieved, there is no need for marriage. One more time, folks...

    Except, you know, the constitutional protection, as has been pointed out numerous times.
    Your friends choose not to have children. Majority of married couples have children, whether planned or not.marriage is defined in the way it is because of the abilities of a man and woman,should they choose.

    Any proof for that statement? Considering the constitution doesn't define marriage?


  • #2031
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Its what we women aspire to. Be heterosexual, have babies, leave the poor man who fathered the babies, become homosexual, shack up with a woman, raise the babies all gay-like and be mean to the man when he calls in to see the babies.

    It's actually quite amazingly sad how often I heard the above comment locally in relation to a bisexual woman who split up with her children's father (it happens - ordinary irreconcilable differences, ie. father had a massive drink problem) and years down the road, met and fell in love with a woman and they've since moved in together with the now teen children.

    When she first met her girlfriend, some men that I know, love and respect dearly (3, to my knowledge) instantly became insecure wrecks around their own partners and actually questioned them on their sexuality! - would/could this happen to them, etc.? The notional potential for their children's mothers "turning lesbian" seemed to be a much scarier prospect than the thought that they'd leave the father and hook up with another man.

    Honestly, some blokes have only themselves to blame for their insecurities. These of course would be the very same fellas who were thinking "Jaysus, she'd rather give up cock altogether than spend another minute in bed with him. How small is his mickey compared to mine?" - fully ignoring the fact that the irreconcilable differences had spelled the end of the relationship, not the hetero sex. You'd despair sometimes :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #2032
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Its what we women aspire to. Be heterosexual, have babies, leave the poor man who fathered the babies, become homosexual, shack up with a woman, raise the babies all gay-like and be mean to the man when he calls in to see the babies.

    Considering the legitimate concern of fathers, both married and non married, but in particular, non married fathers, who have limited rights, whether the mother is gay or straight, I wouldn't antagonise or be making any smart Alex quips there


  • #2033
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    The Civil Partnership Act has started to provide probate rights and propert rights. More can be done.

    A law making CP equal to marriage would be unconstitutional, and hence would require a referendum anyhow.


  • #2034
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Considering the legitimate concern of fathers, both married and non married, but in particular, non married fathers, who have limited rights, whether the mother is gay or straight, I wouldn't antagonise or be making any smart Alex quips there

    How insecure can a person be to utter such tripe?


  • #2035
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Considering the legitimate concern of fathers, both married and non married, but in particular, non married fathers, who have limited rights, whether the mother is gay or straight, I wouldn't antagonise or be making any smart Alex quips there
    So men who are concerned that the mothers of their children are secret lesbians plotting to run off with a female lover, have legitimate concerns?

    Spare me.


  • #2036
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    A law making CP equal to marriage would be unconstitutional, and hence would require a referendum anyhow.

    Good point.


  • #2037
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Considering the legitimate concern of fathers, both married and non married, but in particular, non married fathers, who have limited rights, whether the mother is gay or straight, I wouldn't antagonise or be making any smart Alex quips there

    "Waaah waah waaah fathers' rights". It's not like we're going to legislate for making fathers feel all warm and fuzzy inside.


  • #2038
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Except, you know, the constitutional protection, as has been pointed out numerous times.



    Any proof for that statement? Considering the constitution doesn't define marriage?

    And what Constitutional protection would that be, so? You have and will continue to have rights under Article 40 which sets out the majority of the fundamental rights. Your individual rights are protected

    Legislation will provide protection of the family in the event of death and relationship breakdown, legislation does provide for taxation assistance.there are some limited cases where a non property owning gay partner can be protected similar to the family home protection act. De facto couples don't get that kind of protection

    A number of new family law acts dealing specifically with childRen will also change some of the current legislation

    So, like the refusal (of others) to point out the 160 differences, we are getting more talk about Constitutional differences,

    Yet, if they look at the legislation now, and what could be done later, they will have very strong protections that will not prevent them from living their lives with worries they had 10 years ago.



    Marriage and Definition in the Constitution. For the one millionth time.

    Stop talking about the Constitution. You know little about the matter. Constitutional law is not just the text. It includes the case law. Without the case law, many of the modern rights now recognised probably would not have been accepted based on the text of the Constitution (or any Constitution)


    The Superior Courts of this Country, and even the ECtHR have acknowledged, that the definition of "marriage" is , what we traditionally know it to be, man + woman.

    Even a Labour Attorney General, has recognised that she can't ignore the Judicial Interpretation of the word marriage, hence the need for a referendum . You could bet your last euro that Labour would have guillotined new marriage laws where it not for the legal problem

    So, stop this nonsense that the Constitution does not define marriage. It is plainly moronic


  • #2039
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    This is really what you anti folks are afraid of, isn't it?
    Reminds me of the only explanation I've heard that makes sense to me about, specifically US Evangelists, preachers who rave about gay marriage spelling destroying traditional marriages: Why would someone be worried that if gay people can get married that straight marriages would break down? Why would someone worry about straight people suddenly deciding that they're gay and leaving their families unless that's what they would want to do themselves. And given the amount of 'fixing', 'praying the gay away', and 'conversion' therapy that is rife in ultra-religious settings due to the extreme stigma attached to homosexuality it becomes a case of 'Why should those men be able to marry who they want when I can't?'


  • #2040
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Legislation will never be enough as civil partnership act does not have constitutional protection.

    Complete fallacy that marriage is about children, refuted dozens of times already, not worth wasting another word on.

    Civil Partnership was brought into Law to deal with Gay Rights in areas where they have no business to be concerned with. This is being achieved and will continue to be achieved. Other family units have been ignored

    THe legislative reform puts a fallacy to the notion of second class citizens.It also exposes the group's ignorance as to what "equality" really means

    It is becoming more and more clear, what a self centred group the Yes Side are. Their refusal or inability to realise that children are very much extrinsically linked to Marriage, in light of the Constitutional's position of the family, just shows how unfit some of that side are to marriage.

    Oh, and, nothing has been refuted with regard to children and marriage. This will be tested for the first time by the People of Ireland, on May 22nd .


  • Advertisement
  • #2041
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    And what Constitutional protection would that be, so? You have and will continue to have rights under Article 40 which sets out the majority of the fundamental rights. Your individual rights are protected

    Legislation will provide protection of the family in the event of death and relationship breakdown, legislation does provide for taxation assistance.there are some limited cases where a non property owning gay partner can be protected similar to the family home protection act. De facto couples don't get that kind of protection

    A number of new family law acts dealing specifically with childRen will also change some of the current legislation

    So, like the refusal (of others) to point out the 160 differences, we are getting more talk about Constitutional differences,

    Yet, if they look at the legislation now, and what could be done later, they will have very strong protections that will not prevent them from living their lives with worries they had 10 years ago.

    Knock yourself out.
    http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement