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
Good news everyone! The Boards.ie Subscription service is live. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

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

1160161163165166327

Comments

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


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

    Surrogacy is not related to marriage, a person does not have to be married to use a surrogate.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,169 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine



    Ah sure I saw this video of anarchists tearing down a No poster, that's far far worse!


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


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

    Why? So you and the rest of the No side could use it as another stick even though it has nothing to do with marriage? It's a very complicated area to legislate. So much so that many countries are finding it difficult. It's time consuming and the government are working on it I believe. In the mean time that does not stop asking people if the LGBT community should be treated as equals.


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


    Considering it has been made one of the arguments from the No side over the last couple of days, is it not relevant to clarify how it affects schools?

    No. The only involvement schools have in this referendum is that it is where the polling stations are.


    EDIT: The above looks very much like a comment from the Yes camp which it is not supposed to be. What I am conveying is that a discussion and details on intimate relations between concenting indiviuals is not relevant to this thread whether they are taught in schools, books, internet, bordellos, pubs, garden parties, etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,245 ✭✭✭myshirt


    CFUjxDgW8AAgc3f.png

    Here these guys are talking about Judgement Day, and I haven't even seen Terminator 1. Absolutely ruined it for me. I just bought the box set.


    Ok, on a serious note.... who are these people... this is insane... there seems to be an increased emergence of this quite sinister element of the debate raising its head, shouting a bit louder.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    bjork wrote: »
    As no one has answered my question about the saunas, I'm going to presume these "equal rights" we're all bleating about, aren't all that "equal" after all


    Equality for some, more for others

    Go ahead and have fun. :D


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


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

    Why? Not sure you understand the relationship between the constitution and legislation. Legislation is there to clarify the constitution (i.e., go into the nitty-gritty detail), not the other way round.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    myshirt wrote: »
    CFUjxDgW8AAgc3f.png

    Here these guys are talking about Judgement Day, and I haven't even seen Terminator 1. Absolutely ruined it for me. I just bought the box set.


    Ok, on a serious note.... who are these people... this is insane... there seems to be an increased emergence of this quite sinister element of the debate raising its head, shouting a bit louder.

    They really need to get some help with photoshop and their spelling is atrocious. I mean how the hell do they expect people to take them seriously :P

    I think the appropriate phrase is bat **** crazy. What sort of individual would email something like this to someone they don't know. Will the no campaign cheerleaders come out and condemn this kind of online abuse and bullying because in reality their lies have created the atmosphere for hate like to this to ferment in.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Surrogacy is not related to marriage, a person does not have to be married to use a surrogate.

    If one of the same sex couple wants a biological child and they are male, they will need a surrogate.
    It will be a case of needing three people in the marriage to have a child. The married couple and then the outside person of a different sex.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    traprunner wrote: »
    Go ahead and have fun. :D
    tigger123 wrote: »
    No one is stopping you.
    If you want to, I'm sure there's fook all stopping you.

    They run a discriminatory policy against me and my kind.


    Will this referendum be a two way street? Each side lessening their "discriminatory policies"


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭Muff Richardson


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Yes of course. Anal sex, oh wait, hetero couples do that......

    any chance you can have a word with my missus about this?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,881 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    late wrote: »
    Those on the yes side telling us that the marriage of a man to a man or the marriage of a women to a women can be same as marriage of a man and a women are deluded. Marriage between a man and a women is the real deal and the way nature intended. No matter how much these deluded politicians on the yes side tells us a same sex marriage is the same as a marriage between a man and a women, it is not or never can be or never will be seen equivalent, no matter how much we are been told it is.
    Also the people will have no say if the yes win, when it comes to our politicians ligistating for surrogacy, there will again be a huge campaign from the yes side looking to allow surrogacy for same sex couples as they cant produce babies themselves. I believe we should not deliberately set out to produce children to be brought up without a mother and a father. This is sure to happen down the road if we vote yes. In special circumstances some children are reared by same sex couples, but we should not deliberately set out to make this the norm. Also it will be illegal for a teacher to tell children that marriage between man and a women is the ideal. If this law comes in it will cause more confusion for little children. Please think of the children and vote NO and don't be fooled by our politicians or those on the yes side. I am not anti gay or anything like that but this is a step too far especially for children as I have said above, so I will be voting NO.
    The yes side also have a huge amount of money for their campaign, also apparently a huge amount of money coming in from the Sates etc. The no side have very little money. Where is the democracy in this?
    The yes side have the help also of a very biased media. No balance at all.

    I'm pretty certain that women can. And the chances of two lesbians being infertile are very small. Going to outlaw women getting a sperm donation? Maybe outlaw IVF. Or how about if one of them times it precisely and has an au-natural donation from a guy. Going to ban one night stands? What part of sex will you allow? Because 22 years ago the people campaigning for a no vote now were the people trying to stop homosexual sex being legalized. Would you like that too? I mean if you're going to stop them from getting married because it's "Unnatural" then maybe you should outlaw actually being gay.


    btw, the reported money that the yes side have received from the states apparently comes from Chuck Feeney. He's Irish. He has Irish citizenship.

    Meanwhile the Iona Institute have been reported to be receiving funds from the US for years.

    As for media bias... why the hell is Breda O'Brien still trotting out her garbage in the Irish times. How come RTE paid money when someone who's homophobic was called a homophobe.


    The simple facts are this. If you're saying that every child needs a biological mother and father than you are automatically saying that single parents, widowed people, gay people, divorced/separated people and anyone who's adopted is a lesser person. Also if you want to outlaw gay people having children because they won't have parents of both genders, are you going to try and criminalise women who have a child and bring it up alone? There's only one gender there and so it's just as "Bad" as gay parenting. If you want to be consistent you need to outlaw both. (Here's a suggestion. I'm not sure how new it is. Take the child away from the mother and give it to a good catholic heterosexual family. If you can't find one in Ireland you might find one in the US. And you can make the harlot, who thought she could have a child, work off the extra money it cost. Maybe she could do laundry or something. I'm sure some nice nuns would volunteer to be administrators)

    Sarcasm aside, you do realise that when factors such as income etc are removed from the equation there is no difference between straight, gay or single parent families. The children are all equally loved and are just as well developed. Many, many studies have shown this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,451 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    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.

    The word 'ethos' is code word for intolerant comservative ideology and the 'right' for the school to discriminate against children and teachers.

    Apart from the religious instruction, Catholic 'ethos' is no different to humanist 'ethos' except when it comes to
    1. Homosexuality is a sin (and teachers should not be gay)
    2. Abortion (and no teacher should ever have an abortion)
    3. Divorce is wrong (and teachers should not be divorced)
    4. Contraception is wrong (teachers should never publically support reproductive rights even outside of the school)
    5. Any sex outside of marriage is wrong (and teachers should not be in extra marital relationships)


    Strip these elements out of 'catholic ethos' teaching, and you have a curriculum that would have no conflict with any humanist/secular ideology

    I don't know why we should be so keen to preserve the 'catholic ethos' in our schools when even the majority of catholics don't believe in these things anymore.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,881 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    RobertKK wrote: »
    If one of the same sex couple wants a biological child and they are male, they will need a surrogate.
    It will be a case of needing three people in the marriage to have a child. The married couple and then the outside person of a different sex.

    I, as a single straight male, can hire a surrogate. It is not linked to being gay.

    It's like saying that coffee is drunk by some gay people, therefore coffee is a gay issue.


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


    RobertKK wrote: »
    If one of the same sex couple wants a biological child and they are male, they will need a surrogate.
    It will be a case of needing three people in the marriage to have a child. The married couple and then the outside person of a different sex.
    Ony two people can get married. And this is still irrelevant.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,355 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    SireOfSeth wrote: »
    Why? Not sure you understand the relationship between the constitution and legislation. Legislation is there to clarify the constitution (i.e., go into the nitty-gritty detail), not the other way round.

    Then why do we need a change in the constitution to allow same sex marriage? Marriage is undefined in the constitution. Surely legislation could clarify that marriage can be between consenting adults regardless of sex.

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



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


    RobertKK wrote: »
    If one of the same sex couple wants a biological child and they are male, they will need a surrogate.
    It will be a case of needing three people in the marriage to have a child. The married couple and then the outside person of a different sex.

    Technically won't they need 2 additional women? One as an egg donor and the other as the surrogate.

    Alternatively for an all female couple, technically they will require a male for sperm and a female for surrogate.

    So the whole issue of surrogacy looks even more ridiculous and is still totally irrelevant to the referendum.


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


    bjork wrote: »
    Will this give me equal rights to hang out in the "gay sauna"?
    You already have equal rights to hang out in a gay sauna if you wish. It has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

    Who is stopping you from hanging out in gay saunas?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    RobertKK wrote: »
    If one of the same sex couple wants a biological child and they are male, they will need a surrogate.
    It will be a case of needing three people in the marriage to have a child. The married couple and then the outside person of a different sex.
    So if a hetero couple can't have children and hire a surrogate, does that make one a lesbian and the other an adulterer?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,287 ✭✭✭✭DARK-KNIGHT


    Icannot wait to make history on Thursday and show out lgbt brothers and sisters they are equal to us in absolutely every way......

    no campaigners calling into estate last night local people I told them to go and keep going lol


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    bjork wrote: »
    They run a discriminatory policy against me and my kind.


    Will this referendum be a two way street? Each side lessening their "discriminatory policies"

    How do you know when you haven't tried?

    Either way it's totally irrelevant to this referendum.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 512 ✭✭✭dvdman1


    Hermy wrote: »
    And what harm if they do?
    Sometimes not talking about things creates more problems than talking about them does.

    Why would you actively teach the riskiest form of sexual activity to a child?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Cuban Pete


    bjork wrote: »
    They run a discriminatory policy against me and my kind.


    Will this referendum be a two way street? Each side lessening their "discriminatory policies"

    Isn't this a bit like Reg asking for the right to have babies? What would you even do if you entered one?


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


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Then why do we need a change in the constitution to allow same sex marriage? Marriage is undefined in the constitution. Surely legislation could clarify that marriage can be between consenting adults regardless of sex.

    The supreme court ruled a referndum was required to make it as iron clad as possible and avoid any future legal action by Iona et al which would have definitely happened if the change was made through legislation


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


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Then why do we need a change in the constitution to allow same sex marriage? Marriage is undefined in the constitution. Surely legislation could clarify that marriage can be between consenting adults regardless of sex.

    It has already been explained to you. You are choosing to ignore the answer people have given you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,605 ✭✭✭tigger123


    bjork wrote: »
    They run a discriminatory policy against me and my kind.


    Will this referendum be a two way street? Each side lessening their "discriminatory policies"

    The ironing here is delicious.

    That's exactly what this referendum is about. Straight people can get married. So the fairest thing to do is allow gay people to get married too.

    Like a two way street.


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


    HIB wrote: »
    This addresses the point raised by spook.
    The other post just said 'it has nothing to do with adoption, etc etc'

    By the way, where can you find this bill. I searched a few dasys ago and could only find a draft bill, which included surrogacy.....did that even end up in the final bill?

    Here. (It's an act now, not a bill anymore)


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


    dvdman1 wrote: »
    Why would you actively teach the riskiest form of sexual activity to a child?

    You don't want them to practice safe sex?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Cuban Pete wrote: »
    Isn't this a bit like Reg asking for the right to have babies? What would you even do if you entered one?
    I could ask the same about homosexuals and marriage?


    tigger123 wrote: »
    The ironing here is delicious.

    That's exactly what this referendum is about. Straight people can get married. So the fairest thing to do is allow gay people to get married too.

    Like a two way street.




    Everyone has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Grayson wrote: »
    I, as a single straight male, can hire a surrogate. It is not linked to being gay.

    It's like saying that coffee is drunk by some gay people, therefore coffee is a gay issue.
    seamus wrote: »
    Ony two people can get married. And this is still irrelevant.
    traprunner wrote: »
    Technically won't they need 2 additional women? One as an egg donor and the other as the surrogate.

    Alternatively for an all female couple, technically they will require a male for sperm and a female for surrogate.

    So the whole issue of surrogacy looks even more ridiculous and is still totally irrelevant to the referendum.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So if a hetero couple can't have children and hire a surrogate, does that make one a lesbian and the other an adulterer?

    You see this is why the Yes side have not swept the surrogacy argument away. They think it is about the gay person, rather than it being about the child, as one is intentionally creating a child that will have no mother if it is surrogacy and no father if it is sperm donation.
    One of the natural biological parents will intentionally not be in their lives, as the child is for the couple, and it is about the couple not the child that he/she(the child) will be created.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement