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

dvdman1 wrote: »

Not exclusively

Neither do homosexuals

Ah lads, I can see this being very close now. I just cannot trust the polls. Nothing wrong with their statistics, but due to the nature of the referendum I think there really is a large proportion of 'closet' No's. The amount we are being bombarded with media relating to this, I can see a lot not bothering to vote and just assuming it will pass.

I changed my vote and the council put me down as a British citizen. They are not getting off that easily :mad:

Also, where is everyone getting all the Yes pins? I want one but can't bloody find one anywhere!

dvdman1 wrote: »

Will they be teaching gay sex as part of school sex education if its yes?

They don't teach hetero sex at the moment. They teach procreation and that's it. It's not like we were all taught about hetero foreplay and where the G spot was or anything like that.

VinLieger wrote: »

Neither do homosexuals

True but surely consummation of a marriage isn't just kissing bj etc

molloyjh wrote: »

They don't teach hetero sex at the moment. They teach procreation and that's it. It's not like we were all taught about hetero foreplay and where the G spot was or anything like that.

Yeah - at least, in my case, it was heavily focused on the biological process of reproduction rather than marital sex in the general case. With a small side order of the flip side of that, in contraception. I mean, there were trimmings about 'love' etc. but it was very orientated around 'this is how a baby happens'.

And as always, these things - even in that - were dependent on school ethos and individual parental consent. Even 20 years ago there were 'levels' of discussion on these things a child could opt in and out of, with parental consent.

I don't see that changing just because there are a small amount more married couples doing 'the sex' while not making a baby. In the end, the overriding principle is that whatever kids are taught, it's dependent on the school ethos and the parent.

kunst nugget wrote: »

No, they don't have to. I think they might have to recognise the existence of same sex couples, along with other contentious topics like divorce, in Civics classes

Yes, in civics classes there's an obligation to educate people about the law, and that's were a change would have to be reflected. That's not sex education, however. And religious classes can teach whatever they want about marriage, no more or less than they already do.

kunst nugget wrote: »

There is a common RSE programme for all students, but schools can tweak it depending on their ethos.

That's insane! Is there any other subject that could be taught like that?

Teacher: Now, in todays Maths class, we're going to learn about how 2 + 2 = 1987762904.z.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There are 600+ rules in Leviticus, still followed by strict orthodox jews (although without the stonings and executions for rule-breakers, obviously). For no textual reason whatever, Christians pick out the anti-gay rule, and ignore the vast majority.

Jim Jeffries has a great comedy bit where he's pretending he's God talking about gay people. "It's in my book. I fcuking hate f@ggots. It's in there twice. I also mentioned that I hate shellfish 7 times, but you seem to like shellfish so I've forgotten about that one" (Paraphrased a little bit)

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well why are they taking a viewpoint on it? If it's a fact, just state it as a fact. No wonder the no camp are making the most of this.

It's stated as their view as the impartial body.

Just because you've gotten the wrong end of the stick doesn't make it the wrong stick.

John Mcguinness is voting no, as will other members in FF which is against the party's official position.
In the by election, Bobby Aylward says he is voting yes but is unconvincing. But when you are power hungry, you do what the party tells you.

There hasn't been any canvassing where I live on any of the referendums, but there has with the by election.

MrWalsh wrote: »

Surrogacy isnt legislated for at all in this country so any issues that exist for same sex marriage also exist for opposite sex marriage.

I cant see how it can ever be legislated for in Ireland as long as we have enforced pregnancies.

It needs to be, this should really all be done first before altering marriage. Should be last not first.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well why are they taking a viewpoint on it? If it's a fact, just state it as a fact. No wonder the no camp are making the most of this.

The No camp are making the most of it because they're grasping at straws. No other arguments that make any sense so they'll grab at anything.