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

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 03:39PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Yeah the entire history of the human race backs me up, a mother and father is obviously ideal I really don't get anyone how anyone could think otherwise but fair enough

You sooooooo don't want to go there.

traprunner · 19-05-2015 03:40PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

A Yes vote would make it difficult for a government to put in legislation that makes a man and a woman favorable to a same sex couple in adopting a child, which I think is much fairer on children.

See...there you go with your blatant discrimination again. Also, you should read up on adoption....the laws are there already. Everyone including single people have a right to APPLY to adopt. It does not mean that they are the best people to have a child put into their care.

SafeSurfer · 19-05-2015 03:40PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

I love this one. Vote no so we can discriminate against gay people based on prejudice that they would be worse parents.

I think the adoption authority know better than both of us.

Why have gender quotas on state boards and in candidate selection for elections? Its because of equality and the acknowledgement that different genders bring different strengths, viewpoints etc.

Should children be afforded the right to gender balance of parental roles?

I don't know. Lots of same sex couples make exceptional parents and lots of mothers and fathers are terrible parents who should not be allowed near kids.

I wholeheartedly support gay adoption. I have reservations about surrogacy regardless of the gender of the parents. I don't think commercial surrogacy should be allowed as there is too much potential for exploitation.

SireOfSeth · 19-05-2015 03:40PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Yeah the entire history of the human race backs me up, a mother and father is obviously ideal I really don't get anyone how anyone could think otherwise but fair enough

Well science doesn't it seems.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 03:41PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Must have imagined this referendum on Friday so

No you've just imagined a load of nonsense reasons to vote No. Although I will give you the religious belief one. If someone feels same sex marriage is fundamentally opposed by their religion then fair enough. Religion in many cases is a moral guide for people.

Although they need to think long and hard about whatever else that same religion accepts or condemns. Like I said the Bible says slavery is allowed. I'm pretty sure nobody is pushing for that to be legalised. Lies are totally against their religion too so they need to make sure they never have and never will lie.

And you see there-in lies the problem of using religion in these kinds of situations. If you follow it through to it's logical conclusion it makes all sorts of demands and statements that simply don't fit the modern world or that vast majority of people in it. If you're using that as your guide then you need to go all in, otherwise you're using it as a crutch to excuse behaviour you can't any other way.

So you can't be anti marriage equality because of your religion and anti-slavery. Because the two are, religiously, mutually exclusive.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 03:42PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Yeah the entire history of the human race backs me up, a mother and father is obviously ideal I really don't get anyone how anyone could think otherwise but fair enough

That is total rubbish. Human history backs you up because it was never allowed to be any other way, not because that way is inherently better. On that note I'm going to leave you with this link:

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/mum-let-men-use-child-3160618

EDIT: It's also totally and utterly irrelevant to this debate as this has nothing to do with parenting at all. Not that this hasn't been spelled out enough at this stage.

Hyzepher · 19-05-2015 03:42PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Yeah the entire history of the human race backs me up, a mother and father is obviously ideal I really don't get anyone how anyone could think otherwise but fair enough

wow entire history of the human race.

Except when fathers weren't expected to raise their children and left that to the women.
Except when marriage wasn't a thing and women were left to raise the kids alone
Except in places were procreating was more important than nurturing - way back in time

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 03:42PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Should children be afforded the right to gender balance of parental roles?

.

We should take the children off single parents and try and make sure they are all adopted by a man and a woman couple.

Excellent Idea.

What could possibly go wrong....

_Redzer_ · 19-05-2015 03:42PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Yeah the entire history of the human race backs me up, a mother and father is obviously ideal I really don't get anyone how anyone could think otherwise but fair enough

My science says otherwise. Come at me brah

Vivisectus · 19-05-2015 03:43PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

A Yes vote would make it difficult for a government to put in legislation that makes a man and a woman favorable to a same sex couple in adopting a child, which I think is much fairer on children.

Don't worry - even if we vote yes, the government could STILL implement laws that discriminate against gay people, in adoption and otherwise.

Currently we do not discriminate against gay people when it comes to adoption. If you want the government to start doing so, you should campaign for it!

But it is not within the scope of this referendum.

gandalf · 19-05-2015 03:43PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Lies are totally against their religion too so they need to make sure they never have and never will lie.

No apparently some lies are ok judging from the posters, arguments of the no side and some of the recent no vote "converts" who have popped in here the last few days.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 03:44PM

molloyjh wrote: »

That is total rubbish. Human history backs you up because it was never allowed to be any other way, not because that way is inherently better. On that note I'm going to leave you with this link:

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/mum-let-men-use-child-3160618

More to the point it's historically inaccurate.

:mad:

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 03:44PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We should take the children off single parents and try and make sure they are all adopted by a man and a woman couple.

Excellent Idea.

What could possibly go wrong....

Their mother won't be there though and nothing can replace a mothers love. Even when that mother is selling the child as a sex slave.

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 03:45PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Everyone remember when MessiHutz arrived in here announcing that she had changed her voting intentions because of the Asher case and yet now we are all taking a spin on the oh to familiar Vote No excuse roulette table? Kind of like when SafeSurfer arrived announcing her devotion to equality before taking us on the same roulette table. Its exhausting.

Delighted to have come across as female (nothing can replace a mother's love) but Im a dude.
Jokes aside I stand by what I said at start, I said that people don't listen to No points and was asked to give one which was worth listening to and I did. It's a lot more exhausting to try debate 10 people rather than one by the way so cry me a river.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 03:45PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why have gender quotas on state boards and in candidate selection for elections? Its because of equality and the acknowledgement that different genders bring different strengths, viewpoints etc.

Should children be afforded the right to gender balance of parental roles?

I don't know. Lots of same sex couples make exceptional parents and lots of mothers and fathers are terrible parents who should not be allowed near kids.

I wholeheartedly support gay adoption. I have reservations about surrogacy regardless of the gender of the parents. I don't think commercial surrogacy should be allowed as there is too much potential for exploitation.

This is all great, but TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Vivisectus · 19-05-2015 03:46PM

Yeah the entire history of the human race backs me up, a mother and father is obviously ideal I really don't get anyone how anyone could think otherwise but fair enough

For much of human history, a wife was pretty much a husbands property too: wives could not vote, and could not own property. There was no such thing as marital rape either: even a wife's body was not totally her own.

That was obviously ideal, because it was around for a long time. The entire history of the human race backs me up there and a situation where a wife is obligated to shut up and get her ass into the kitchen is obviously ideal. I don't understand how anyone could think otherwise.

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 03:47PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Well science doesn't it seems.

Go on then don't just leave me with that cliffhanger what's your point.

Not a NSA agent · 19-05-2015 03:47PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why have gender quotas on state boards and in candidate selection for elections? Its because of equality and the acknowledgement that different genders bring different strengths, viewpoints etc.

Should children be afforded the right to gender balance of parental roles?

I don't know. Lots of same sex couples make exceptional parents and lots of mothers and fathers are terrible parents who should not be allowed near kids.

I wholeheartedly support gay adoption. I have reservations about surrogacy regardless of the gender of the parents. I don't think commercial surrogacy should be allowed as there is too much potential for exploitation.

I have yet to see anyone detail what the differences a mother and father bring, why the other cant provide them and how lacking them would affect children. The same thing could be said about race or even one set of grandparents being a same sex couple while the other being opposite sex couple.

When it comes to adoption it should just be taken on a case by case basis which it already is.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 03:47PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Delighted to have come across as female (nothing can replace a mother's love) but Im a dude.
Jokes aside I stand by what I said at start, I said that people don't listen to No points and was asked to give one which was worth listening to and I did. It's a lot more exhausting to try debate 10 people rather than one by the way so cry me a river.

You've been talking about children in the last few pages. A topic that is utterly irrelevant to same sex marriage. And has been exposed as being irrelevant countless times. So that is certainly not worth listening to.

freshpopcorn · 19-05-2015 03:47PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Surely a reason to vote yes?

thegreatescape wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're joking or?

joe40 wrote: »

I say this respectfully but I mean it. I'm glad my children are not in your class. for what it's worth I am also a teacher working in a catholic secondary school.

gandalf wrote: »

http://www.badcontroller.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/joker_notsureifserious.jpg

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I'm trying very hard to stick to the charter and not say what I'm thinking.

You and your ilk are what kept Ireland in the Dark Ages up until the 1980s. The Catholic Church have done infinitely more damage to our country than good. They shouldn't have any say in our laws or schools.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Just so we are on equal footing, what school do you teach at so I know where not to send my children...

ffs i'm getting Poe'd a lot in this referendum.

walkingshadow wrote: »

I hope this guy is a comedian.

I'm now being bullied by yes voters for stating my opinion even tough it has more holes in it than a sieve.
Ye do know I'm only messing and will be voting Yes. I'm also not a teacher so ye're kids are safe.

smash · 19-05-2015 03:47PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I said that people don't listen to No points and was asked to give one which was worth listening to and I did.

But you didn't

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 03:48PM

Vivisectus wrote: »

For much of human history, a wife was pretty much a husbands property too: wives could not vote, and could not own property. There was no such thing as marital rape either: even a wife's body was not totally her own.

That was obviously ideal, because it was around for a long time. The entire history of the human race backs me up there and a situation where a wife is obligated to shut up and get her ass into the kitchen is obviously ideal. I don't understand how anyone could think otherwise.

Fair point I'll give you that

TwoShedsJackson · 19-05-2015 03:49PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Delighted to have come across as female (nothing can replace a mother's love) but Im a dude.
Jokes aside I stand by what I said at start, I said that people don't listen to No points and was asked to give one which was worth listening to and I did. It's a lot more exhausting to try debate 10 people rather than one by the way so cry me a river.

If your reason is religious belief, do you follow all the other tenets of your religion? If not, how do you pick and choose which ones to follow?

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 03:49PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Go on then don't just leave me with that cliffhanger what's your point.

Can we not engage this please. It's totally irrelevant to the referendum on Friday so talking about it is just muddying the waters when we should be trying to clear them up.

seamus · 19-05-2015 03:50PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

If this referendum passes, what the fúck will Iona have left to do?

They will continue bleating on about the rights of children and the welfare of children, while not actually doing a single fvcking thing for children.

I mean, go look at what they do. They talk all the time about children's welfare yet have never once worked with or provided any funds to any kind of child welfare organisation.

The Iona institute has never helped a single child in this country. They have bleated on and on about imaginary scenarios that they claim will hurt children, and yet on the topic of actual things that happened, such as child sex abuse in the priesthood and the Magdalene laundries, they have kept completely quiet.

It is very clear whose side Iona are on, and it's not the side of the children.

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 03:51PM

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

If your reason is religious belief, do you follow all the other tenets of your religion? If not, how do you pick and choose which ones to follow?

It isn't as I have said three times already

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 03:52PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

It isn't as I have said three times already

So what is it on? Adoption/surrogacy/parenting. Because that's irrelevant. The NI bakery case? Because that's irrelevant. The actions of a view Yes voters who are acting the eejit? Because that too is irrelevant and not limited to the Yes side.

So if it's not any of those and it's not religion, then what is it? Unless of course it is one of those and you are voting on Friday for reasons unrelated to what you are voting on.

traprunner · 19-05-2015 03:52PM

I wonder how many are Iona member or trainees (i.e. M+FM members). They debate like them and cry foul when their so called 'valid point's are shown up for their fallacies.

Every single argument for No has been blown out of the water. So much so there is no fun debate.

_Redzer_ · 19-05-2015 03:53PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

It isn't as I have said three times already

Ok, if missed it before, apologies, but could you outline your reasoning for voting no one last time, or at least link to the post in which you did?

aloyisious · 19-05-2015 03:54PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Delighted to have come across as female (nothing can replace a mother's love) but Im a dude.
Jokes aside I stand by what I said at start, I said that people don't listen to No points and was asked to give one which was worth listening to and I did. It's a lot more exhausting to try debate 10 people rather than one by the way so cry me a river.

What's you thoughts on this parent's points, do you think they are valid or sympathy-vote seeking?

Addressing a Yes campaign event in Dublin this morning, Mrs McAleese said no parent brings their child into the world to be treated as a second class citizen.

“I am grateful that my gay son grew up in a gay-friendly household. But we were not able to protect him from hostility outside our home and like so many parents of gay children we were worried sick about the man-made barriers we knew he would encounter, including the Constitutional barrier that would never let him marry the person he loved.

“Ironically he is a twin and his heterosexual twin faces no such barrier.

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

Comments