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

suicide_circus · 19-05-2015 06:09PM

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

She should have shown the signature, you own your own words and all that.

Honestly I'd imagine that they didn't publish the names as there is a good chance the author is not of sound mind and,to use that popular term, "vulnerable."

frostyjacks · 19-05-2015 06:09PM

seamus wrote: »

She gave an interview about the fact that she was recently diagnosed with cancer.

Probably the same nutjob that wrote to the Donegal footballer. Who even writes letters these days?

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 06:11PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

So if they refused to make a gay wedding cake or a wedding cake for a gay wedding you would accept that was discrimination?

Yes I would

traprunner · 19-05-2015 06:11PM

HIB wrote: »

There's no right maybe, but surely they could ( and I'm not saying they should!!!!), phrase the legislation I'm such a way as to exclude couples who are not married e,g.

'A child born to a surrogate mother can only be adopted by a married couple'

This would exclude homosexual couples.

Or am I missing something obvious here?

Or they could smoke a few joints and say that it's open to rabbits and foxes only. Yes I can speculate too.

HIB · 19-05-2015 06:12PM

seamus wrote: »

Yes, but legislation could also be framed to say that only a male and female married couple may avail of surrogacy services.

Provided there was good reason for excluding homsexual married couples, it would be perfectly constitutional.

True also.

niallo27 · 19-05-2015 06:12PM

Anyone else think this letter was sent from the Yes side. The black thing was a bit too much and made it sound a bit fake and obvious. If you vote no your a racist now as well.

HIB · 19-05-2015 06:15PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Explaining why homosexual couples should be excluded.

I think peoples main concern here is that they think kids of himosexual couples will suffer from bullying more.
And they feel its unfair to put a child in that situation.

Ironé · 19-05-2015 06:16PM

niallo27 wrote: »

Anyone else think this letter was sent from the Yes side. The black thing was a bit too much and made it sound a bit fake and obvious. If you vote no your a racist now as well.

Unlikely that they would be so cruel to someone who has been a great spokesperson for their cause and is going through such a tough time in their personal life.

There are nut jobs out there.

HIB · 19-05-2015 06:18PM

traprunner wrote: »

Or they could smoke a few joints and say that it's open to rabbits and foxes only. Yes I can speculate too.

Thanks to Seamus for making this point in a far less smug manner.

Not a NSA agent · 19-05-2015 06:20PM

niallo27 wrote: »

Anyone else think this letter was sent from the Yes side. The black thing was a bit too much and made it sound a bit fake and obvious. If you vote no your a racist now as well.

Its as likely as the people who are "bullying" the no supporters being themselves to gain sympathy.

Ironé · 19-05-2015 06:20PM

HIB wrote: »

I think peoples main concern here is that they think kids of himosexual couples will suffer from bullying more.
And they feel its unfair to put a child in that situation.

So we should be accommodating homophobic bullies and not let same sex people become parents?

What will we do with the Same Sex families that already exist? They don't deserve the same rights as other families because they might get bullied?

niallo27 · 19-05-2015 06:20PM

Ironé wrote: »

Unlikely that they would be so cruel to someone who has been a great spokesperson for their cause and is going through such a tough time in their personal life.

There are nut jobs out there.

There are nut jobs on both sides who will do anything to get their way and don't care who they **** over. Was just a bit too obvious for me.

HIB · 19-05-2015 06:20PM

molloyjh wrote: »

"Gay adoption" is currently legal and nothing will change as a result of this referendum. Why are we talking about it?

Why? Because we're on boards.ie killing time with half a dozen other unemployed/bored/curious people.

Jesus. I only made a comment like!!!

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 06:22PM

niallo27 wrote: »

Anyone else think this letter was sent from the Yes side. The black thing was a bit too much and made it sound a bit fake and obvious. If you vote no your a racist now as well.

And the No side tore down their own posters.

Ironé · 19-05-2015 06:23PM

HIB wrote: »

Why? Because we're on boards.ie killing time with half a dozen other unemployed/bored/curious people.

Jesus. I only made a comment like!!!

Your on a board talking about the marriage equality referendum. Adoption is not impacted by this referendum. I think that was his point.

HIB · 19-05-2015 06:23PM

Ironé wrote: »

So we should be accommodating homophobic bullies and not let same sex people become parents?

What will we do with the Same Sex families that already exist? They don't deserve the same rights as other families because they might get bullied?

Not sure what you mean by that?
If accommodating them is listening to them, well then I will and I do. Because they're my friends, neighbours, family. I tend not to get into serious rows unless I have to.

niallo27 · 19-05-2015 06:24PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And the No side tore down their own posters.

I am only giving my opinion.

traprunner · 19-05-2015 06:25PM

HIB wrote: »

Thanks to Seamus for making this point in a far less smug manner.

Sorry I didn't mean to be smug. I just wanted to highlight that what ifs are pointless to talk about. What if it rains tomorrow? I'd still have to go to work. So what I'm saying is that draft legislation will appear at some stage. It will be debated and then probably altered and enacted at some stage. We can't predict what will be in it.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 06:26PM

HIB wrote: »

I think peoples main concern here is that they think kids of himosexual couples will suffer from bullying more.
And they feel its unfair to put a child in that situation.

Like feck it is.

If it was they would listen to the experience of people who grew up with same-sex parents who say they were not bullied - or they would create a whole list of people who shouldn't have children in case those children get bullied.

Ban Mixed race couples shall we? Nowt like having darker skin than the average pasty white Irish child to attract bullies.

Red haired people - Carrot topped kids - it's a bully beacon.

Ironé · 19-05-2015 06:28PM

HIB wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by that?
If accommodating them is listening to them, well then I will and I do. Because they're my friends, neighbours, family. I tend not to get into serious rows unless I have to.

I was making the point that we should be not be accommodating homophobic bullies. Talk to someone who's parents are SS and see if they agree with you.

Anita Blow · 19-05-2015 06:30PM

HIB wrote: »

Is this one?

Surrogacy has not yet been legislated for. If the lawmakers want to deny homosexual couples the right to adopt through surrogacy, then under the current constituition, one way to do this is to state that only married couples can adopt through surrogacy. If we vote yes, it would be impossible to deny homosexual couples equal treatment to heterosexual couples in relation to surrogacy.

And before everyone jumps down my throat, I actually am not against surrogate adoption by gay couples.

But if you are against it, then shouldn't you be voting no?

HIB wrote: »

There's no right maybe, but surely they could ( and I'm not saying they should!!!!), phrase the legislation I'm such a way as to exclude couples who are not married e,g.

'A child born to a surrogate mother can only be adopted by a married couple'

This would exclude homosexual couples.

Or am I missing something obvious here?

Wait, hold on. The entire No side argument re: surrogacy is that no child should be deliberately denied access to their biological parents. If this is what they truly believe, then it shouldn't matter what orientation the prospective parents are, because either way it's being taken away from it's biological parents deliberately. But you're saying it's ok as long as they go to a heterosexual couple?

Does that not perfectly show that the no side argument isn't actually about caring for a child's link with it's biological parents, but rather just making sure homosexual couples don't get access to equal privileges?

StewartGriffin · 19-05-2015 06:33PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I visited Robben Island, where Nelson Mandela was imprisoned while on honeymoon.
I learned that the island used to be a leper colony before it was a prison. The lepers were cared for by an order of Irish nuns.

When AIDS first came to the fore in the 1980s the disease was shrouded in fear and ignorance. Individuals dying from AIDS were often abandoned by their partners, their friends, even their family. In many cases it was dedicated members of religious orders, notably the Sisters of Charity who cared for these people in their dying days.

How would these deeply religious and devoted people vote on Friday? I find it hard to believe that they would vote to exclude, vote to deny.
They would be generous, they would be caring, they would be inclusive.

Sorry to intrude on your moment there SafeSurfer, but I'd be willing to bet, as compassionate and wonderful as those ladies undoubtedly were, they would be voting No on Friday. Nuns y'see.

osarusan wrote: »

I'd be more interested in hearing how to get that letter to Mullally publicised as much as possible.

You're compassion for the injured party is touching.

niallo27 wrote: »

Anyone else think this letter was sent from the Yes side. The black thing was a bit too much and made it sound a bit fake and obvious. If you vote no your a racist now as well.

Horrible sentiments, but it does have a bit of parody about it. Expect they wouldn't publish the name for fear it might be a set up.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 06:36PM

HIB wrote: »

I think peoples main concern here is that they think kids of himosexual couples will suffer from bullying more.
And they feel its unfair to put a child in that situation.

That will only happen so long as people still view same sex couples as inferior. Which is exactly the sort of thing we're trying to do away with.

And same sex couples can still adopt etc so why exactly are we having this conversation?

Pherekydes · 19-05-2015 06:39PM

niallo27 wrote: »

Anyone else think this letter was sent from the Yes side. The black thing was a bit too much and made it sound a bit fake and obvious. If you vote no your a racist now as well.

The spelling, grammar and punctuation are a bit of a giveaway.

traprunner · 19-05-2015 06:40PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Sorry to intrude on your moment there SafeSurfer, but I'd be willing to bet, as compassionate and wonderful as those ladies undoubtedly were, they would be voting No on Friday. Nuns y'see.

Many nuns are more in touch with reality than you. The very well respected Sister Stanislaus Kennedy firmly nailed her Yes vote down.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 06:41PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Sorry to intrude on your moment there SafeSurfer, but I'd be willing to bet, as compassionate and wonderful as those ladies undoubtedly were, they would be voting No on Friday. Nuns y'see.

Nuns - like Sr Stan? http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sr-stan-to-vote-in-favour-of-same-sex-marriage-1.2207761

Or Sr Farley? http://www.irishcentral.com/news/top-catholic-nun-continues-support-for-gay-marriage-despite-vatican-censorship-224382951-237777421.html

Or Sr Harper? http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=9080

or these nuns? http://www.christianpost.com/news/radical-nuns-supporting-abortion-gay-marriage-meet-with-us-bishops-84887/

You really should do some research before jumping in with your blanket comments.

StewartGriffin · 19-05-2015 06:44PM

traprunner wrote: »

Many nuns are more in touch with reality than you.

OOoohh, that really hurts. Great point though.

StewartGriffin · 19-05-2015 06:45PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You really should do some research before jumping in with your blanket comments.

Said I'd be willing to bet. Hardly a blanket comment.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 06:53PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Said I'd be willing to bet. Hardly a blanket comment.

You lose.

and the 'nuns y'see' made it a blanket comment by implying all nuns are the same.

CiDeRmAn · 19-05-2015 06:56PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You lose.

and the 'nuns y'see' made it a blanket comment by implying all nuns are the same.

You mean, under their habits they are all different?
Some research needed.
You can reach me for the results at my new address, in Mountjoy....

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

Comments