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…6970727475…327

Comments

  • #2132
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Stop talking utter bollox for at least one hour

    It is cheap and insulting to even compare a ban to marry because of sexaulity (still can marry) , such a ban that doesn't effectively ruin your right to equality in relation to the rest of the fundamental rights , a "right" that doesn't even exist

    Vs

    A community that had little or no Civil Rights at all, despite the Constitution , on papers saying everyone was free


    That muck does no favours for the Yes Side

    MOD
    As you are having difficulties remaining civil to others on this thread, and there have been planty of mod warnings about this already on thread, please do not post in this thread again.


  • #2133
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    I think I got another two votes last night. It started off with the usual crap about children. They were genuinely surprised when I pointed out that the 'Act' had nothing to do with the referendum.
    Personally, I am still worried about how little the average person knows about what they are voting for. The 'no' nonsense is having an impact. If you are told something often enough and you do not question it, it becomes the truth. 9 days to go.


  • #2134
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    galljga1 wrote: »
    I think I got another two votes last night. It started off with the usual crap about children. They were genuinely surprised when I pointed out that the 'Act' had nothing to do with the referendum.
    Personally, I am still worried about how little the average person knows about what they are voting for. The 'no' nonsense is having an impact. If you are told something often enough and you do not question it, it becomes the truth. 9 days to go.

    Thanks to sydthebeat:
    sydthebeat wrote: »
    so Justice Kevin Cross confirms today on newstalk:

    1. there is no changing of the definition of marriage in this referendum
    2. there is no changing of the definition of a family in this referendum
    3. there is no change to the right to adoption. No one has the right to adopt, everyone has the right to apply to adopt.
    4. there is no change to the right to surrogacy. Currently there are no rights to, or restictions from, surrogacy as there is a vacuum in the law on this issue.
    5. no child has a legal right to a mother and father, so that doesnt change with this referendum.

    the ONLY persons whos rights change in this referendum is a gay man or woman who want to marry, according to law.

    NO ONE ELSES RIGHTS CHANGE AT ALL


    http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.301/47027/0/


  • #2135
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,338 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    If Civil PArtnership came out in 2010 with everything, bells and whistles, it would likely not have got through the Oireachtas in one piece. This is Ireland , softly softly approach (not saying that is a good thing)

    The "two pieces of legislation", meaning, the Civil Partnership would included "new provision" (ie Section 6 now inserts "civil partner"), which in turn results in a word /phrase etc to be amended in the parent act (eg Family Home Protection Act 1976) to include gays partnerships

    Efficiency ? Dail Eireann?

    I agree with you about the Houses of the Oireachtas on efficiency, aka parish politics.

    Re the softly softly approach, that of gaining rights piece by piece, isn't that what first CP and now (years later) civil marriage is, the slow approach through the maze of gaining rights?

    Re the legislative route, the courts are there to check out cases of alleged unconstitutional bills of the Oireachtas, or lack of law covering the everyday lives of us. That's why us LGBT folk are seeking the right to civil marriage to be enshrined (the usual word) in the constitution.

    It seem's that you and sonic are well aware of the failings of legislation with regard to fathers and access to their children. This last piece of mine is not an idle comment, but a reading of what you both posted about that part of life. I think that what I've written in para's 1 and 2 rings true to you about what you mentioned about fathers rights. My best to you both as fellow human beings.


  • #2136
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    If the Referendum passes, I forsee a modernised version of "The Field" where the Yank seduces the Bull McCabe with an offer of marriage and better tax benefits, he gets the field, adopts Taidgh, and, well, I'm not sure how the Tinker's daughter fits in.


    It will never happen. He would simply use the bull grab, end of story.


  • Advertisement
  • #2137
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,084 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Personally, I am still worried about how little the average person knows about what they are voting for. The 'no' nonsense is having an impact. If you are told something often enough and you do not question it, it becomes the truth. 9 days to go.
    This times a hundred. People need to be told about items like this rather than the sly insinuations and asides from the No campaign. It's no longer good enough to say "equality" because we've convinced all those that we are going to with that line. It's now time to dismantle the myths.

    One of the big problems is the Yes side don't have the same sort of funding as the No side (odd as you'd think, being bullies, we would). We can't print out glossy leaflets or the like and it gives an advantage to the No side.


  • #2138
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Who said it would be "exactly the same"? I didn't.

    .................

    So despite implying they would eventually be equal after present and future legislation back here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95457196&postcount=2100

    you're now back saying they're unequal and should stay that way?


  • #2139
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Get Brennan gave a speech after winning the All-Ireland club championship where he thanked players girlfriends and boyfriends. He's the last person you could label homophobic.

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/sexuality-no-issue-as-brennan-bemused-at-feedback-to-speech-265365.html

    I'm labeling the prejudgment of gay parents as homophobic. It is an irrational fear based on the homosexuality of the parental unit.

    Saying something nice about gay people does not mean anything else you might ever say cannot be homophobic.

    Similarly, saying a view is homophobic does not mean one thinks the person expressing it is a neanderthal who goes around bashing gays at the weekend or who absolutely hates gay people and is completely intolerant of them.

    I also do not think using the word 'homophobic' is or should be a debate stopper, I'm not wielding it as an ad hominem or as a way to silence anyone. We can certainly go beyond that to discuss why it is or isn't rational or why it is or isn't fear based.

    edit - Sorry, I see my point was already covered...


  • #2140
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,497 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Get Brennan gave a speech after winning the All-Ireland club championship where he thanked players girlfriends and boyfriends. He's the last person you could label homophobic.

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/sexuality-no-issue-as-brennan-bemused-at-feedback-to-speech-265365.html

    Thats the equivalent of saying "im not racist cus i have loads of black friends BUT........."


  • #2141
    Bridge93
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,018 ✭✭✭Bridge93


    Ger Brennan is a religion teacher and deeply religious himself. On that basis it's not surprising he would hold a similar view to Iona etc


  • Advertisement
  • #2142
    Duggy747
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    Yup, pretty much everyone I know who are voting No (I said earlier, I know far more voting No than Yes) are saying the exact same kind of stuff as Ger Brennan; being silenced by the Yes side and media / children, children, children / Man & Woman & children are what makes a marriage / If this passes gay step-parents will steal children / etc.

    Basically, a general confusion from a lot of them of the Children & Family Relationships Act with this referendum thanks to people muddying the waters and the act of retaliating to being "bullied".

    Even so far that I heard one person I know say to a Yes canvasser "Would you trust your kids with them?" (Gay adopters)


  • #2143
    iDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,750 ✭✭✭iDave


    Have all the worst case scenarios dreamt up by the No side happened in other jurisdictions that have legalised gay marriage? Its been in place in the Netherlands for over a decade.


  • #2144
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    gRBBp_V6yrdRwO57QMDgZtmx7ac_6QXJEVF0iHwXmlbt4WOMOWckV_4gexZcKbq1qAbmAccRyxNM6zG8ULnTiC-VuN3JqXKwMZaTyJ5lBQaGfhZq7cG5Mf-LhXwyH33kLsavIKgOe4mBI5DFbKQd7KqHjVsISNo3dGN5vNRZZy7aYapsdgc3BW9Wxlb4OvPWaUcjDFNx32oIwDaJeucqDca2zIL.jpg

    fear mongering at its best

    Thanks for posting that one. Hopefully, people are more informed and not believing in that rubbish. Though, now, I'm even more depressed about the amount of nonsense out there :(


  • #2145
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    Sour Lemonz wrote: »
    The following is on this utter tripe of a site

    "Reason 5: Keep Ideology Out of Schools
    If we pass this referendum, pressure will be placed on schools to teach that same-sex relationships are no different from the relationship between a man and a woman. Already in the UK, primary school text-books promote same-sex relationships regardless of the wishes of parents.

    The Taoiseach has recently stated that Catholic schools will be expected to teach children about the right to same-sex marriage if the referendum passes.

    Parents who sincerely believe that there is a "distiction" will find it difficult to ensure that their values are respected in their child's classroom. A leading Irish gay rights activist has already argued that under-fives should be taught about gay relationships in crèches.

    In North America where c.1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay some schools have been asked to stop celebrating Mother's Day on the basis that it discriminates against those children brought up in a same-sex headed household."

    This is total rubbish, if they want to claim this stance they can also vote for religion to be banned in schools.

    Good idea.


  • #2146
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    A LOT of people got sent to the gas chambers. Jews, Cripples, Gypsies, Gays..........

    Just, you would swear that Jews have patented that term, exclusively, for themselves

    SO let me get this straight: when you said:
    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 ?

    What you meant was "Gosh, these gays are already comparing themselves to the civil rights movement, what is next, they will claim the holocaust was exclusively about them when there were in fact also other people involved, just like the Jews keep banging on as if the holocaust was all about them?"

    Because not only is that very different from what you wrote, it also kind of constitutes shooting yourself in the foot where the context is concerned.


  • #2147
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    SO let me get this straight: when you said:



    What you meant was "Gosh, these gays are already comparing themselves to the civil rights movement, what is next, they will claim the holocaust was exclusively about them when there were in fact also other people involved, just like the Jews keep banging on as if the holocaust was all about them?"

    Because not only is that very different from what you wrote, it also kind of constitutes shooting yourself in the foot where the context is concerned.

    He can't reply anymore due to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95457953&postcount=2148


  • #2148
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    VinLieger wrote: »
    It was illegal for a black person to marry a white person in 16 states in the US until 1967

    But hey - that did not make them second class citizens. After all, white people could also not marry black people, and neither could marry their cousins. See? Totally equal.


  • #2149
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    traprunner wrote: »
    He can't reply anymore due to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95457953&postcount=2148

    Busted! I was too lazy to read all posts in between before I post responses. mea culpa.


  • #2150
    Gingervitis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 690 ✭✭✭Gingervitis


    While I understand why it's not useful to bring children into arguments as this referendum is only about civil marriage, people should use hard empirical facts to refute claims about the capacity (or lack thereof), of LGBT couples to raise
    children appropriately.
    If you want to disregard evidence from the largest professional society of psychologists in the United States, also endorsed by the Australian Psychologist Society and the PSI here in Ireland, then in my mind, that is analogous to climate change denial or creationism. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

    http://www.apa.org/about/policy/same-sex.aspx
    https://www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/lgbt/marriage-equality.pdf


  • #2151
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,013 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    Duggy747 wrote: »
    Yup, pretty much everyone I know who are voting No (I said earlier, I know far more voting No than Yes) are saying the exact same kind of stuff as Ger Brennan; being silenced by the Yes side and media / children, children, children / Man & Woman & children are what makes a marriage / If this passes gay step-parents will steal children / etc.

    Basically, a general confusion from a lot of them of the Children & Family Relationships Act with this referendum thanks to people muddying the waters and the act of retaliating to being "bullied".

    Even so far that I heard one person I know say to a Yes canvasser "Would you trust your kids with them?" (Gay adopters)
    That's surprising to hear.

    If you don't mind me asking, where are these people from? I'm from a small town in Cork but living in Dublin and I can only name two people from either of these places that are voting no.


  • Advertisement
  • #2152
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    Bridge93 wrote: »
    Ger Brennan is a religion teacher and deeply religious himself. On that basis it's not surprising he would hold a similar view to Iona etc

    Religiousness is not a valid excuse for bigotry IMO.

    The fact that he didn't bother to educate himself on the referendum mean his opinion counts for nothing.


  • #2153
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    Religiousness is not a valid excuse for bigotry IMO.

    The fact that he didn't bother to educate himself on the referendum mean his opinion counts for nothing.

    I thought it was.


  • #2154
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    galljga1 wrote: »
    I thought it was.

    A lot of people act like it is.

    If religion is his reason for voting No, I'd ask him if he eats bacon. Book of Leviticus bans it in the same breath as homosexual acts.

    Religious cherry pickers are despicable.


  • #2155
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,497 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    A lot of people act like it is.

    If religion is his reason for voting No, I'd ask him if he eats bacon. Book of Leviticus bans it in the same breath as homosexual acts.

    Religious cherry pickers are despicable.

    GAA jersey'a are woven from two different fabrics I think too


  • #2156
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    VinLieger wrote: »
    GAA jersey'a are woven from two different fabrics I think too

    The typical GAA player is clean shaven, that's right out.


  • #2157
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    The typical GAA player is clean shaven, that's right out.

    And no prawn sandwiches.


  • #2158
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,084 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    It's clear that a lot of No people won't educate themselves, and read the evidence available, on the issue but take the claims they hear on TV, media etc because it reinforces their original opinion. So we can point to studies or legal discussion on it and the thinking will be "Okay but..". Their opinion will triumph the experts, heart over mind. It's difficult to address because cold facts are just that.


  • #2159
    mickstupp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,764 ✭✭✭mickstupp


    galljga1 wrote: »
    I thought it was.
    Plenty in my family are religious and yet are somehow magically not bigots, and will all be voting yes. Fanatics give normal religious people a bad name, as do those who tar all religious people with the same brush.


  • #2160
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    Religiousness is not a valid excuse for bigotry IMO.

    The fact that he didn't bother to educate himself on the referendum mean his opinion counts for nothing.

    Really? Seems to be getting a lot of attention for something that counts for nothing. And can you point out the religious parts in his article? I must have missed them.


  • Advertisement
  • #2161
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Now,

    Stop dodging the question that I have put up several times (What 160 differences), and the argument made by others that "there is no difference between Civil Partnership and Marriage"

    For a group that is so quick to dismiss legitimate concerns of the No side about children, and quick to scream 2nd Class Citizens and "inequality" and posting up a report done years ago, it's awfully strange that they refuse to actually go into detail, when called on, about that report, which they rely upon

    Mr Justice Kevin Cross, the head of the Referendum Commission, says married couples have Constitutional and legal protection - whereas civil partners have legal protection only.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement