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

RobertKK wrote: »

It was homosexual acts that was decriminalised, I doubt at 5 you were interested in homosexual acts.

I remember when it happened, I was much older than you, being homosexual was not a criminal offense, otherwise someone like David Norris would have been jailed in the 1970s.

Ah, that fine so. Just like the south in the US where they only used to lynch people for doing black things. Not because they were black.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You know exactly what the poster meant.

He spoke about himself, should we put interpretations in that are not given?
The post simply claimed being homosexual was a criminal offense, you are jumping to conclusions as he didn't say it was homosexual acts which were, and therefore as a 5 year old he was not treated like a criminal.

The No campaign's claims about Refcom 'agreeing' with them on surrogacy have been interesting - not least because they have changed their argument on that at least twice following Refcom interjections. What Refcom says is a far, far cry from where the No campaign started out on that issue.

As is, the No campaign complains that a yes vote may make it more difficult for us to discriminate around any surrogacy regulation between different sets of parents, because it would require a robust case for discrimination to be made in the courts. I guess I can see their problem - I'd be worried too about making their case in court, where they'd have to rely on fact-based evidence and logic rather than red herrings and emotive soundbites.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm not sure if you noticed this, but homosexuals tend to engage in homosexual acts.

This remark is both silly and sad at the same time..

A hetero couple loves one another (we hope/assume). They share their lives, responsibilities and are intimate(I would hope for them).

Guess what ..

A same-sex couple loves one another (we hope/assume). They share their lives, responsibilities and are intimate(I would hope for them).

What some don't seem to (want to) understand that whatever feelings you (as a hetero sexual person) may have for your partner, spouse, boy- or girlfriend.. It's the _exact_ same feelings a gay person has for theirs. There is no difference at all.

Being gay is not an illness, it's not taught and it can't be cured. You are gay like you have blue eyes or a dark skin. The law as it is does not need to stipulate that a black man can marry a white woman (or vv), it does not limit your rights, protection and options based on your eye colour. It does however exclude same-sex couples from marriage and thus from certain legal options which are not available in a civil partnership (CP).

Now, one can argue that CP should then be amended to include those, but that would, for all intents and purposes make it equal to marriage which would basically make it obsolete.

Many, many years ago it was normal for a man to take a very young (<13yr) girl as his wife and have children with her. We as human beings mostly have decided this was not right and so the law was changed. Now it is time to change the law again and allow gay people to enjoy the rights and take the responsibilities they should have.

Gay people are not worse or better parents, they are not more or less prone to cheat on their partner or be abusive. Any and all the arguments involving children being brought against a Yes vote are really generic issues not at all directly related, specific or more applicable towards same-sex couples.

I have not heard any relevant and valid arguments from any NO voter or organisation and I am willing to wager that all these organisations spending boatloads of your and my tax euros on a huge campaign of mis-information and diversion tactics will disappear as soon as they came up, probably having made a good bit of cash themselves from all this. None of them will be sticking around to bring what they believe in to bear towards their issues in relation to children as they do not care for anything but try and prevent the referendum from passing.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

So now you think you can tell me how I felt and when I felt it? Is there no limit to your insidious need to control what people feel and do?

They were Robert. I think I would know after all it is me. I remember as a child thinking Bart Simpson would be a great boyfriend. I remember when as a child me and my two neighbors (who were in my class in school) innocently stripped off as children behind a shed and being far more interested in my friend Phillip than my friend Ciara. I wouldn't understand for years fully why but that was it.

Are you really going to claim you wanted to have homosexual sex at five years of age?
I can believe curiosity at that age. I don't believe you wanted to have sex at 5 years of age.

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you really going to claim you wanted to have homosexual sex at five years of age?
I can believe curiosity at that age. I don't believe you wanted to have sex at 5 years of age.

Robert are you not displaying an unsavoury prurience in this line of thought ?

gandalf wrote: »

I can just picture how the Ideal family looks inside the mind of some of the no side.


An Wiona Instertute fairytail!!!!

When a financially secure middle class white Daddy hugs a Middle class non working virgin Mommy in a special procreational way and not for pleasure in any way cause that's a sin .........a beautiful heterosexual baby is created!

BABIES CANNOT BE CREATED ANY OTHER WAY !!!!!!

The End (of days!)

And other groups would be greatly offended by such stereotyping. Do you think that all yes voters are homosexual hairdressers who hang out in parks looking for casual sex? No, neither do I. Such stereotypes don't do either argument any credit.

RobertKK wrote: »

I can believe curiosity at that age.

Clearly has no children :P At 6 yrs old, a 9yr old girl showed me how to "rub" myself because it felt nice. We all played "doctors and nurses", "mammies and daddies" and "spin the bottle", which involved showing each other our tackle and making like we were grown ups. Perhaps one day there'll also be games like "daddy and daddy" and "girlfriend and girlfriend", which will be equally as innocent and explorative. We're human, and I suggest you get over it.

Shrap wrote: »

Clearly has no children :P At 6 yrs old, a 9yr old girl showed me how to "rub" myself because it felt nice. We all played "doctors and nurses", "mammies and daddies" and "spin the bottle", which involved showing each other our tackle and making like we were grown ups. Perhaps one day there'll also be games like "daddy and daddy" and "girlfriend and girlfriend", which will be equally as innocent and explorative. We're human, and I suggest you get over it.

Jan O' Sullivan was saying today it would be wrong to have a book for a child in school that displayed same sex relationships, as in having a fairytale story with a King and a king...she on the Yes side.

frostyjacks wrote: »

And when the referendum passes and gay couples start playing happy families, won't their children be second class citizens, being deliberately denied the love of a mother and a father?

Not unless people like you treat them as such, no. But this comment shows you for what you really are, i.e. the kind of person who would treat these families as second class citizens and actually feel you're justified in acting that way.

RobertKK wrote: »

Jan O' Sullivan was saying today it would be wrong to have a book for a child in school that displayed same sex relationships, as in having a fairytale story with a King and a king...she on the Yes side.

Ah, well in that case, everything she says is correct and every yes voter agrees with her. We decided this at the clubhouse last week.

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you really going to claim you wanted to have homosexual sex at five years of age?
I can believe curiosity at that age. I don't believe you wanted to have sex at 5 years of age.

Oh for fecks sake Robert! Did you never have a crush on a girl as a young child? A teacher? If yes, that mean you wanted to have heterosexual sex with them? I had my first crush on a boy in junior infants.

joe40 wrote: »

An argument i have heard put forward by the no side is that in the event of a yes vote same sex couples that get married would have a "right to procreate" and since this is not biologically possible, surrogacy would have to be granted to them. i think that is the gist of the argument if not I can be corrected.

My question for the NO side is this:

plenty of heterosexual couples are infertile for one reason or another therefore why have they not been demanding surrogacy as a matter of right for many years now.

I know it is not regulated so is actually happening at the moment. However as far as know the idea, that a married couple have a "right to procreate" is not been used by heterosexual married couples as a reason to demand surrogacy.

They've tried. Courts have said there isn't an implied right to anything more than natural procreation, have asked the government to legislate around surrogacy. As noted, gay couples would be no different a group in this regard - it's territory we've already tread through, a yes vote doesn't engage anything new here.

I have to say, though, if that argument is still 'going' it shows the power of an emotive red herring. Even Iona et al have backed off that argument some time ago, since Refcom outright refuted it. Proof that it's much, much easier for the no side to throw out misleading confusion than it is for the yes side to undo that.