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/

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

1…140141143145146…327

Comments

  • #4262
    An Ciarraioch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,806 ✭✭✭An Ciarraioch


    ixoy wrote: »
    Of course they do. I do believe though that some of them would genuinely believe it - the more Left leaning anyway (Sinn Fein) for example.

    Certainly the further left-leaning would such as the SWP. I got a leaflet in from the Anti-Austerity Alliance who had a piece on it and cutting off the ties to the church. I do believe they support it truly.

    After reading a piece in the Examiner, FF seem deeply divided on the issue - both their Árd Fheis and Ógra FF are in favour, but the TDs are reluctant to canvas on it, in case it costs them Carlow-Kilkenny! The attitude seems to be "We're in favour in principle, but our elderly support base don't want to hear it."


  • #4263
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,650 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    His responsibility is health, not gay marriage. The time he spent penning that drivel would have been better spent on sorting out the many problems in his dept.

    Couldn't agree more. This issue should be the sole preserve of the Minister for Gay Marriage and no politician - either in government or opposition - should express an opinion in relation to the matter - EVER!!!:confused:

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • #4264
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    zerks wrote: »
    A leaflet on behalf of Iona/No campaign arrived in my letterbox this morning,pretty insulting to single parents never mind same sex couples.They seem to be missing the whole point of the referendum.

    That may be so (insulting to single parents), but, like same sex couples, single parents may not be included during Family Article 41 either ("may not", well it depends on whether they were married and now widowed) If there referendum was on single parents or non married couples (ie to allow them to be included in family, Article 41) Iona would probably say something similar ...

    What did the leaflet say ?


  • #4265
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    That may be so (insulting to single parents), but, like same sex couples, single parents may not be included during Family Article 41 either ("may not", well it depends on whether they were married and now widowed) If there referendum was on single parents or non married couples (ie to allow them to be included in family, Article 41) Iona would probably say something similar ...

    What did the leaflet say ?

    It said the jews monopolised the holocaust... thoughts?:rolleyes:


  • #4266
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    What is this garbage I'm reading about children and parenting?

    This referendum is no more about kids than it is about legalising cocaine


  • Advertisement
  • #4267
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Two separate issues but personally I am voting yes in both.
    I have read comments which say 21 it too young but seem to ignore that 21 would be the minimum age - why should a 33 year old be barred?

    Some people think no-one under 35 would have the gravitas, knowledge and necessary experience necessary - well, I seem to remember Dana and Sean Gallagher running the last time - one wanted to bring religion back and the other promised jobs. Both seemed confused as to what the President does...
    Plus Micheal Collins died when he was 32... I may not agree with all of his politics but in terms of gravatis, knowledge and experience he nailed it.

    Lack of knowledge of the Constitution is also mooted as a reason to vote no - seem to recall Dana saying she wouldn't sign any legislation that conflicted with her religious belief - can't top that for lack of knowledge.

    Annnnd... Jesus died before age 35 and look what he accomplished :pac:


    But....but....but....Jedward!


  • #4268
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Two separate issues but personally I am voting yes in both.
    I have read comments which say 21 it too young but seem to ignore that 21 would be the minimum age - why should a 33 year old be barred?

    Some people think no-one under 35 would have the gravitas, knowledge and necessary experience necessary - well, I seem to remember Dana and Sean Gallagher running the last time - one wanted to bring religion back and the other promised jobs. Both seemed confused as to what the President does...
    Plus Micheal Collins died when he was 32... I may not agree with all of his politics but in terms of gravatis, knowledge and experience he nailed it.

    Lack of knowledge of the Constitution is also mooted as a reason to vote no - seem to recall Dana saying she wouldn't sign any legislation that conflicted with her religious belief - can't top that for lack of knowledge.

    Annnnd... Jesus died before age 35 and look what he accomplished :pac:
    Kids of those days had to grow up very early. Kids went to war at 16 (Lemass), Kids were bread winners at 11


    Kids of today, however, hell, some haven't a proper job until they are 30. They are pampered. If they really have talent shouldn't they be running for the Dail and ultimately Taoiseach? Or even, Mastering the Business World (or even some state funded NGO lovely dovey money racket)

    Did Dana even get her deposit back ?


  • #4269
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Just curious about voting intentions in the presidential age referendum.
    Will pro SSM voters tend to favour a yes vote in the presedential age referendum and no voters also be opposed to the reduction in age or is their any correlation between the 2?

    I doubt there's a correlation. There was never a doubt in my mind about the SSM vote, but I had to think about the Presidential age vote. My thinking is that 21 is too young to be president, but it was a bit wooly-headed considering that we'll all get to vote on the candidates and so it doesn't mean a president is going to be 21.

    Also for the reasoning Bann listed above. There have been some extraordinary people who I'd rate as having been presidential material when they were under 35, so no need for me to be prejudiced/ageist based on the 21 yr olds I know at the moment!


  • #4270
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    His responsibility is health, not gay marriage. The time he spent penning that drivel would have been better spent on sorting out the many problems in his dept.

    You're entirely right. The hour or two that he spent writing a surprisingly insightful and incisive argument for the Yes side would have been all that would have been needed to solve the budgeting problems, the trolley crisis and chronic waiting lists that bedevil the HSE. We're doomed now, though…


  • #4271
    CiDeRmAn
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,811 CMod ✭✭✭✭CiDeRmAn


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    What is this garbage I'm reading about children and parenting?

    This referendum is no more about kids than it is about legalising cocaine

    Woohoo, yes for coke!
    Oh, wait, let me read that post again....


  • Advertisement
  • #4272
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    CiDeRmAn wrote: »
    Woohoo, yes for coke!
    Oh, wait, let me read that post again....

    God damn it! Think of the children.


  • #4273
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    His responsibility is health, not gay marriage. The time he spent penning that drivel would have been better spent on sorting out the many problems in his dept.

    In light of Iona's whinging in recent days, I really hope you're aware of the irony of calling for Leo Varadkar to shut up and not express his opinion.


  • #4274
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,195 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    George hook debate on it from 4.30 on newstalk, I'm not sure what way he's voting now but he seemed to stand up for the no side since the Vincent brown show. He's going to be towing the party line saying yes but listening to him on the radio since he seems to have a lot of sympathy with what's happened the no side.


  • #4275
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    His responsibility is health, not gay marriage. The time he spent penning that drivel would have been better spent on sorting out the many problems in his dept.

    And the likes of Iona's time would be better spent focusing on children who are actually suffering. But then thats assuming they care about children rather than preventing gay people being treated the same as them.


  • #4276
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    George hook debate on it from 4.30 on newstalk, I'm not sure what way he's voting now but he seemed to stand up for the no side since the Vincent brown show. He's going to be towing the party line saying yes but listening to him on the radio since he seems to have a lot of sympathy with what's happened the no side.

    Ha!

    Sympathy and the no side.

    Those words said in conjunction. ****ing hilarious!


  • #4277
    nokiatom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 477 ✭✭nokiatom


    nature demonstrates to us that all offspring have a mother and father and its only natural that a child growing up learns from both.


  • #4278
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,046 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    Not a NSA agent wrote: »
    And the likes of Iona's time would be better spent focusing on children who are actually suffering. But then thats assuming they care about children rather than preventing gay people being treated the same as them.
    Given they're so very concerned, did Iona actively campaign for the Children's Referendum? I don't recall seeing a picture of happy children and "Vote Yes!" from them.


  • #4279
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    It said the jews monopolised the holocaust... thoughts?:rolleyes:

    You looking to be sued for defamation of your last statement, which you did not retract or apologise for? . You can't hide behind the Internet, you know.


  • #4280
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Kids of those days had to grow up very early. Kids went to war at 16 (Lemass), Kids were bread winners at 11


    Kids of today, however, hell, some haven't a proper job until they are 30. They are pampered. If they really have talent shouldn't they be running for the Dail and ultimately Taoiseach? Or even, Mastering the Business World (or even some state funded NGO lovely dovey money racket)

    Did Dana even get her deposit back ?

    No intention of getting into a discussion with you.


  • #4281
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    ixoy wrote: »
    Given they're so very concerned, did Iona actively campaign for the Children's Referendum? I don't recall seeing a picture of happy children and "Vote Yes!" from them.

    I think they talked about it, they were complaining about state power or something but did little. Of course once gay people are involved its time to roll up the sleeves and get to work.


  • Advertisement
  • #4282
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    galljga1 wrote: »
    But....but....but....Jedward!

    I would put a wager on their vote count in the Eurovision being higher than one they could achieve in any presidential election (*)



    (*) unless they up against someone like Dana - then all bets are off :D


  • #4283
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    George hook debate on it from 4.30 on newstalk, I'm not sure what way he's voting now but he seemed to stand up for the no side since the Vincent brown show. He's going to be towing the party line saying yes but listening to him on the radio since he seems to have a lot of sympathy with what's happened the no side.

    What happened to the no side?


  • #4284
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,084 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    nokiatom wrote: »
    nature demonstrates to us that all offspring have a mother and father and its only natural that a child growing up learns from both.

    So we remove children from single parent families as they aren't natural?


  • #4285
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,084 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    What happened to the no side?

    The yes side are being mean to them by using logic, facts and verifiable scientific studies to reduce their arguments to dust


  • #4286
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,167 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    @RobertKK and other Pro-No posters here: Do you believe that marriage within the constraints of religion must absolutely define what Civil Marriage is written into our constitution as?


  • #4287
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    An Ciarraioch wrote: »
    After reading a piece in the Examiner, FF seem deeply divided on the issue - both their Árd Fheis and Ógra FF are in favour, but the TDs are reluctant to canvas on it, in case it costs them Carlow-Kilkenny! The attitude seems to be "We're in favour in principle, but our elderly support base don't want to hear it."

    The sad thing is that FF are the one party who needed to come out strong on this and show that they were changing as a party - that they were willing to take a stand for the common good and to do what was right, even if it cost them votes.

    Instead, they have shown they are still motivated by the same short term view and self preservation that got us all into trouble the last time they were in government.

    But while the country has learned their lessons from that disastrous period, FF hasn't.

    So while I would have been open minded towards FF in the next election if they showed they had changed and learned lessons, it's clear that they haven't at all.

    Much like the republican parties approach to immigration reform in the U.S., their short term approach and desire for self preservation is ultimately self defeating though.

    They have allowed FG, who were the last party to actually endorse marriage equality, to lead the charge and position themselves as less socially conservative than FF.

    Given the lack of trust they have on economic issues, they ceded the one area they could have to sell themselves on.


  • #4288
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    aloyisious wrote: »
    @RobertKK and other Pro-No posters here: Do you believe that marriage within the constraints of religion must absolutely define what Civil Marriage is written into our constitution as?

    Religious marriage isn't legally recognised in Ireland. Whether one marries in a church or registry office only the state has the power to legally recognise marriage.
    Civil marriage is not defined in the constitution.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #4289
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    nokiatom wrote: »
    nature demonstrates to us that all offspring have a mother and father and its only natural that a child growing up learns from both.

    Have you anything to say that is relevant to the upcoming referendum?


  • #4290
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    You looking to be sued for defamation of your last statement, which you did not retract or apologise for? . You can't hide behind the Internet, you know.
    Pathetic. Take your threats elsewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • #4291
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    floggg wrote: »
    The sad thing is that FF are the one party who needed to come out strong on this and show that they were changing as a party - that they were willing to take a stand for the common good and to do what was right, even if it cost them votes.

    Instead, they have shown they are still motivated by the same short term view and self preservation that got us all into trouble the last time they were in government.

    But while the country has learned their lessons from that disastrous period, FF hasn't.

    So while I would have been open minded towards FF in the next election if they showed they had changed and learned lessons, it's clear that they haven't at all.

    Much like the republican parties approach to immigration reform in the U.S., their short term approach and desire for self preservation is ultimately self defeating though.

    They have allowed FG, who were the last party to actually endorse marriage equality, to lead the charge and position themselves as less socially conservative than FF.

    Given the lack of trust they have on economic issues, they ceded the one area they could have to sell themselves on.

    I think the truth is that is that many members of FF, FG and SF have reservations about changing the constitution. Just because the leadership of an organisation are in favour of something doesnt mean that all the members of that organisation are also in favour of it.
    Its similar with a number of members of LGBT groups who are campaigning against the referendum.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement