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

Fat Christy · 20-05-2015 04:52PM

cloud493 wrote: »

It is possible to be a christian and support same sex marriage. Like me

Yes.

Luke 6:31:
Do to others as you would have them do to you.

MessiHutz · 20-05-2015 04:52PM

seamus wrote: »

So person A is allowed to express an opinion, but person B is not allowed to express an opinion about their opinion?
No, just required to treat people equally and not refuse them business on the basis of sexuality. That seems fair doesn't it?

Besides, what has any of this got to do with the referendum? Are you trying to invoke some bizarre slippery slope argument?

They didn't refuse them on basis of sexuality they refused to bake a cake with a message supporting gay marriage so get your facts right.

SafeSurfer · 20-05-2015 04:52PM

Fat Christy wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, surrogacy in Ireland is not legal. Plus not all couples who marry have children.

This is about marriage, Ergo.

Surrogacy is unregulated in Ireland, which led to this discussion in the first place.

jobbridge4life · 20-05-2015 04:53PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Is surrogacy featuring in the discussion in the general public, in the media?
Why should it be forbidden from mention here?

Who will set the parameters for what can and cannot be discussed?

It may be but that is because of deception and obfuscation by duplicitous No campaigners who also lie about having supported decriminalisation of homosexual acts and lie about having supported civil partnerships.

I am asking you personally why when everyone from the Referendum Commission, to the former President Mary McAleese to countless other legal experts have clarified that it as entirely separate matter you continue to bring it up here.

If you want to rail against surrogacy then by all means do so and campaign against it but stop derailing this discussion.

Bannasidhe · 20-05-2015 04:53PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So you have no problem with, for example poor, illiterate Indian women being implanted with a fertilised egg to carry for a wealthy western couple, of whatever sexual preference?

Is there any potential for exploitation in this arrangement?

Is it ok for couples who can conceive to rent surrogate wombs to avoid stretch marks?

You say it's ok for consenting adults to offer their womb? Even if that consent is given for money?
Is prostitution ok because it is a business arrangement in which consent is purchased?
If the child born is handicapped is it a breach of contract and it's ok to return the child to the woman who gave birth to it?

"So what" just doesn't cut it.

Did you miss the words CONSENTING ADULTS?

Do you know what I have a problem with? I have a problem with faux concern about poor illiterate Indian women being surrogates but feck all concern about poor illiterate Indian women working for feck all pay in dangerous sweat shops so sanctimonious westerners can have cheap clothes/electrical goods.

I have a problem with people acting as if poor illiterate Indian women are stupid and need us in the West to decide what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Oh the arrogance of it.

It's ok to damage your health and risk your life making flip flops to earn a few rupees but not to decide to use you own body in a way some other people don't approve of while wearing those same flip flops.

Don't pretend you give a feck about poor illiterate Indian women - you just want to use them to score points while sitting on your comfortable Western European arse.

You do not get the right to tell other people how to use their own bodies - neither do Iona.

SafeSurfer · 20-05-2015 04:55PM

seamus wrote: »

Except we're not debating homosexuality. Homosexual couples exist and already have children. SSM does not change that.

You are right. But the children that homosexual couples already have are not the children of both partners in the couple.
Marriage would give added protection to those children once the referendum is passed.

jobbridge4life · 20-05-2015 04:55PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

They didn't refuse them on basis of sexuality they refused to bake a cake with a message supporting gay marriage so get your facts right.

Yes and this is in another jurisdiction which by the way prohibits discrimination on political basis. Something that we do not have here and there are no proposals to bring it in. So how about you get all your facts right not just those that seem to support your proposition.

Fat Christy · 20-05-2015 04:56PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Surrogacy is unregulated in Ireland, which led to this discussion in the first place.

I suppose there has never been a heterosexual couple in the history of man that has gone down the surrogacy route?

seamus · 20-05-2015 04:57PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

They didn't refuse them on basis of sexuality they refused to bake a cake with a message supporting gay marriage so get your facts right.

The court disagrees with you and found them guilty of discriminating on the basis of sexuality. That's the fact of the matter, whether you agree with it or not.

galljga1 · 20-05-2015 04:57PM

Fat Christy wrote: »

Yes.

Luke 6:31:
Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Arthur Daly
"Do unto others as they would do unto you...if you gave them the chance"

Bannasidhe · 20-05-2015 04:57PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are right. But the children that homosexual couples already have are not the children of both partners in the couple.
Marriage would give added protection to those children once the referendum is passed.

SO WHAT?

cloud493 · 20-05-2015 04:58PM

Fat Christy wrote: »

Yes.

Luke 6:31:
Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Simple logic innit. Should a person in 2015, be able to marry the person they love, regardless of gender or outdated beliefs? Yes. Simple.

seamus · 20-05-2015 04:58PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

SO WHAT?

Something something...uhh..surrogacy.

20-05-2015 04:58PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Surrogacy is unregulated in Ireland, which led to this discussion in the first place.

Even though its unregulated, there's already a clinic in Dublin isint there, they had a conference on parenting options for gay european men a while back.

Zubeneschamali · 20-05-2015 04:59PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

They didn't refuse them on basis of sexuality they refused to bake a cake with a message supporting gay marriage so get your facts right.

Tell it to the judge: I prefer the plaintiff’s submission that same-sex marriage is or should be regarded as a union between persons having a sexual orientation and that if a person refused to provide a service on that ground then they were discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation.

MessiHutz · 20-05-2015 04:59PM

seamus wrote: »

The court disagrees with you and found them guilty of discriminating on the basis of sexuality. That's the fact of the matter, whether you agree with it or not.

Well it's a bull**** decision and it should frighten anyone who believes in religious freedom.

SafeSurfer · 20-05-2015 04:59PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did you miss the words CONSENTING ADULTS?

Do you know what I have a problem with? I have a problem with faux concern about poor illiterate Indian women being surrogates but feck all concern about poor illiterate Indian women working for feck all pay in dangerous sweat shops so sanctimonious westerners can have cheap clothes/electrical goods.

I have a problem with people acting as if poor illiterate Indian women are stupid and need us in the West to decide what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Oh the arrogance of it.

It's ok to damage your health and risk your life making flip flops to earn a few rupees but not to decide to use you own body in a way some other people don't approve of while wearing those same flip flops.

Don't pretend you give a feck about poor illiterate Indian women - you just want to use them to score points while sitting on your comfortable Western European arse.

You do not get the right to tell other people how to use their own bodies - neither do Iona.

So hiring your womb out is just work is it?
You equate working in a factory making goods destined for the west with gestating babies destined for the west?

You are so intolerant you believe that exploitation to serve your beliefs is ok and concern for this exploitation is designed to impinge on your freedoms. It's all me me me.

Kiwi in IE · 20-05-2015 05:00PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

It's not really the result, it's the campaign where religious people have been demonised for holding their beliefs. I suppose it would be unfair of me to take that out on gay people

Yeah it really would be unfair.

Some people on the no side have used their religion to say things that are hurtful and prejudice toward LGBT people. Religious people in general are not being demonised for being homophobic, but it has happened that some have used their religion as an excuse to say things which are homophobic. Perhaps ordinary religious people should be calling such people out for portraying their religion in a bad light, instead of worrying about the response from the opposition.

SafeSurfer · 20-05-2015 05:01PM

Fat Christy wrote: »

I suppose there has never been a heterosexual couple in the history of man that has gone down the surrogacy route?

There was a documentary on one on RTE just recently if you are interested. point?

jobbridge4life · 20-05-2015 05:01PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So hiring your womb out is just work is it?
You equate working in a factory making goods destined for the west with gestating babies destined for the west?

You are so intolerant you believe that exploitation to serve your beliefs is ok and concern for this exploitation is designed to impinge on your freedoms. It's all me me me.

Referendum referendum referendum

Bannasidhe · 20-05-2015 05:02PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So hiring your womb out is just work is it?
You equate working in a factory making goods destined for the west with gestating babies destined for the west?

You are so intolerant you believe that exploitation to serve your beliefs is ok and concern for this exploitation is designed to impinge on your freedoms. It's all me me me.

You aren't worth getting banned for so I'm going to go feed my dogs now while you can continue to feel smug in your ignorance.

Kiwi in IE · 20-05-2015 05:03PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So hiring your womb out is just work is it?
You equate working in a factory making goods destined for the west with gestating babies destined for the west?

You are so intolerant you believe that exploitation to serve your beliefs is ok and concern for this exploitation is designed to impinge on your freedoms. It's all me me me.

Perhaps one day medical technology will advance to allow Alpacas to act as surrogates for humans.

Protect Alpacas from exploitation. Vote NO!

galljga1 · 20-05-2015 05:04PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Well it's a bull**** decision and it should frighten anyone who believes in religious freedom.

When religious freedom vs anti discrimination laws, I vote for anti discrimination laws.

jooksavage · 20-05-2015 05:06PM

Jesus I can't wait until this referendum is done and dusted. Then we can go back to CONSTANTLY TALKING ABOUT SURROGACY without somehow conflating it with same-sex marriage.

Seriously, I know surrogacy was always a contentious issue, but I don't remember it being top of the agenda until the prospect of gay marriage became a reality

MessiHutz · 20-05-2015 05:06PM

galljga1 wrote: »

When religious freedom vs anti discrimination laws, I vote for anti discrimination laws.

Would you see the case the same if a gay couple owned a bakery and refused to bake a cake with "Every child deserves a mother and father, vote no" on it?

marienbad · 20-05-2015 05:06PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Well it's a bull**** decision and it should frighten anyone who believes in religious freedom.

Not at all , if anything it protects religious freedom and any other freedoms by reinforcing that all business's must conform to the law.

molloyjh · 20-05-2015 05:08PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

They didn't refuse them on basis of sexuality they refused to bake a cake with a message supporting gay marriage so get your facts right.

Yeah, gawd. They didn't refuse them because of their sexuality. They refused them because of the sexuality of the message that they wanted on the cake. Because that's soooo different.

jobbridge4life · 20-05-2015 05:08PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Would you see the case the same if a gay couple owned a bakery and refused to bake a cake with "Every child deserves a mother and father, vote no" on it?

but you don't believe in religious freedom. You believe in religious freedom when you agree with it and it suits. As evidenced by your own words

MessiHutz wrote: »

Sorry replies are coming very fast! I don't know what religion supports gay marriage but if yours does vote yes on religious grounds if you wish, but people should also be entitled to vote no on religious grounds as well as say no to supporting a cause on religious grounds.

either the you support the state guaranteeing to protect all peoples religious freedom and immediately permits gay marriages or your just a hypocrite. Now which is it?

Anita Blow · 20-05-2015 05:10PM

The thread has descended into gay cakes in a different country and wombs for hire. lol

MessiHutz · 20-05-2015 05:10PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Yeah, gawd. They didn't refuse them because of their sexuality. They refused them because of the sexuality of the message that they wanted on the cake. Because that's soooo different.

It is is "soooo" different. If we all have to agree and comply with yes to gay marriage than why are we having a referendum

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

Comments