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

kunst nugget wrote: »

Well, this is me convinced…

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/05/19/well-thats-nice-2/

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

myshirt wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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?

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.