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

eviltwin · 08-05-2015 9:40pm

silverfeather wrote: »

I wonder do the NO camp live in a different world were they have no gay friends etc in their circle or something. From the way they view the world it seems like they do. It's an Ivory tower.

I wonder that too. Life must be hard when your a self appointed moral guardian. They seem to live in a very bland grey world.

1hnr79jr65 · 08-05-2015 9:44pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by engineerbrah View Post
Oh aren't you the righteous individual just looking out for everyone's well being. Anyways I personally believe a gay household isn't a suitable place to raise kids in. If it was, nature would have let it happen.

And you seemed to have missed the memo that nature allows for straight parents to have gay children. As you probably have never lived in a gay household as you put it, how can you gauge such a family is not suitable using facts and not conjecture ?

traprunner · 08-05-2015 9:57pm

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

So, the poster that you referred to ,is miserable, because

he expressed an opinion different to yours, about a situation that maybe no more than hypothetical , and remote. Who knows, attitudes might even change after realising but getting on with the disappointment of not seeing grand children from the said child...etc

What do you know about him? He might be far from miserable

On the other hand, some gays talk about being miserable and suicidal and not coming to terms with themselves and how society treats them (hey straight people have issues too)

Whose's shoes would you rather be in?

Funny, if anyone made such a comment as you have to another, there would be an notice from the mods telling them that they are being threatened with a ban or actually would be banned , for being "uncivil" etc

Keep that stuff up. No doubt it will remove doubt about gay marriage for those who are not sure how to vote.

Being disappointed in your kids obviously would make a person miserable to some degree. Obviously disappointment does not make one run around celebrating. So what do you know about him/her to know that they are not miserable??

So I get special treatment from the mods? Hahahaha

Maybe I should also have put a

after my post since it is after hours??? Or maybe is should get a list of your requirements to ensure that my posts are up to your high virtual back seat modding standards.

Anyway back to the topic....who are any of us to dictate to the minority what makes them happy?

engineerbrah · 08-05-2015 9:58pm

El Weirdo wrote: »

So you must be against infertile couples adopting then, because nature dictates that they can't have children?

No I'm not against that, that problem is out of the couples control and they should not be punished for it. A fertile person who enters a same sex marriage obviously doesn't want to procreate, because marriage is meant to be for life. I don't see why they would want to adopt a child.

El Weirdo wrote: »

Yes, and I'd like the environment where my children grow up is one where all different types of families are "normal" and kids aren't bullied because they've been taught that there's something wrong with having two mums or two dads.

It's a shame that kids from gay parents will get bullied but it's still gonna happen.
And like I said you can't claim this is the right thing to do because you are not a beacon of true wisdom, you believe it because TV and your peers tell you it is right. What's socially acceptable is based on the opinion of "intellectuals" & subjective research.

Zubeneschamali · 08-05-2015 9:59pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's not the natural atomic family unit so I don't agree with it.

I used to like the Jetsons, but they weren't as good as the Flintstones.

So Cretaceous families are better than Atomic ones.

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 10:00pm

engineerbrah wrote: »

No I'm not against that, that problem is out of the couples control and they should not be punished for it. A fertile person who enters a same sex marriage obviously doesn't want to procreate, because marriage is meant to be for life. I don't see why they would want to adopt a child.

It's a shame that kids from gay parents will get bullied but it's still gonna happen.
And like I said you can't claim this is the right thing to do because you are not a beacon of true wisdom, you believe it because TV and your peers tell you it is right. What's socially acceptable is based on the opinion of "intellectuals" & subjective research.

And research says there's nothing wrong with same sex couples as parents.

Regardless, the referendum has nothing to do with children or adoption.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 08-05-2015 10:00pm

engineerbrah wrote: »

No I'm not against that, that problem is out of the couples control and they should not be punished for it. A fertile person who enters a same sex marriage obviously doesn't want to procreate, because marriage is meant to be for life. I don't see why they would want to adopt a child.

It's a shame that kids from gay parents will get bullied but it's still gonna happen.
And like I said you can't claim this is the right thing to do because you are not a beacon of true wisdom, you believe it because TV and your peers tell you it is right. What's socially acceptable is based on the opinion of "intellectuals" & subjective research.

Please think about that sentence for a couple of minutes.

Zubeneschamali · 08-05-2015 10:03pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No but it depends on what rights you mean. I want the right to do and have lots of things. Doesn't mean i'm going to get it.

Hardly releveant to this Referendum, since gays are going to get the right to marry in less than a month.

Sofiztikated · 08-05-2015 10:03pm

engineerbrah wrote: »

Oh aren't you the righteous individual just looking out for everyone's well being. Anyways I personally believe a gay household isn't a suitable place to raise kids in. If it was, nature would have let it happen.

What exactly happens in a gay household that isn't suitable? Is it the show tunes, or the rampant and multiple orgies?

In 100 years time they may look back at this and think we were crazy, who knows.

People are looking at you now, and thinking you are crazy, no need to wait 100 years.

1hnr79jr65 · 08-05-2015 10:04pm

engineerbrah wrote: »

No I'm not against that, that problem is out of the couples control and they should not be punished for it. A fertile person who enters a same sex marriage obviously doesn't want to procreate, because marriage is meant to be for life. I don't see why they would want to adopt a child.

It's a shame that kids from gay parents will get bullied but it's still gonna happen.
And like I said you can't claim this is the right thing to do because you are not a beacon of true wisdom, you believe it because TV and your peers tell you it is right. What's socially acceptable is based on the opinion of "intellectuals" & subjective research.

Obviously you don't read the news where parents of a child who is gay were attacked by a bunch of teens, the parents are straight. Bullying happens regardless for all variations of families, sexual orientations and race so your statement nonsense.

Zubeneschamali · 08-05-2015 10:06pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They should not have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples.

The Constitution already disagrees with you:

1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

N.B. This is a trick post. Go on, I dare you.

Zubeneschamali · 08-05-2015 10:07pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If I had kids

Thank goodness.

swampgas · 08-05-2015 10:09pm

engineerbrah wrote: »

It's a shame that kids from gay parents will get bullied but it's still gonna happen.

But if the kids are going to get bullied anyway, as you suggest, why object to their (same sex) parents getting married?

The kids are already out there, blocking marriage equality won't make them disappear. And allowing their parents to get married will give them extra protection under the law.

Zubeneschamali · 08-05-2015 10:10pm

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

I do not think anyone would stop or try to stop a gay person from raising or playing a role in the life of their own flesh and blood.

By stopping them getting married, for example?

08-05-2015 10:11pm

engineerbrah wrote: »

For all those having a go at me:

We are talking about school children here, they do not have the maturity to 'respect' SSM. Having a male & female role model is ideal for every child and you know it. Kids adopted into gay 'families' will be teased and no amount of 'acceptance' lectures for 10 years old will change that.

Think long & hard what you are voting for instead of jumping on the bandwagon.

Gay couples already have children ... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
omg understand this, they can adopt as individuals!

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 10:13pm

222233 wrote: »

Gay couples already have children ... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
omg understand this, they can adopt as individuals!

And from next week, as a couple

1hnr79jr65 · 08-05-2015 10:15pm

sup_dude wrote: »

And from next week, as a couple

And as straight man decent human being i will be voting yes to support this.

Zubeneschamali · 08-05-2015 10:17pm

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

You know that if anyone answered that properly, they would be banned from this site.

A bit like my old great aunt, who could never say it straight out, but everyone understood her. When Shirley Bassey was on TV: "Doesn't she have a wonderful voice? Pity, all the same."

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 10:18pm

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

And as straight man decent human being i will be voting yes to support this.

That's what's being said though, the adoption doesn't need support. It's a Bill, it's already written into law and we don't have a choice in it. The referendum will have no influence on it. It's the referendum that needs supporting :P

1hnr79jr65 · 08-05-2015 10:19pm

sup_dude wrote: »

That's what's being said though, the adoption doesn't need support. It's a Bill, it's already written into law and we don't have a choice in it. The referendum will have no influence on it. It's the referendum that needs supporting :P

Shoulda clarified im supporting the SSM part, but hey ho ill support anything that goes for equality.:pac:

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 10:21pm

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

Shoulda clarified im supporting the SSM part, but hey ho ill support anything that goes for equality.:pac:

No, sorry, it was just because the post you quoted was on about adoption so I wasn't sure which you were talking about then

1hnr79jr65 · 08-05-2015 10:24pm

sup_dude wrote: »

No, sorry, it was just because the post you quoted was on about adoption so I wasn't sure which you were talking about then

Ah this grand, we can all contribute by being part of the fabric in the referendum bra that supports the right thing.

Zubeneschamali · 08-05-2015 10:29pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Most children are far more accepting of diversity and difference than your hidebound post would suggest you are

I have 3 kids myself - eldest is in college, and registered just to vote Yes in this.

Next lad is 14, and when we were talking about this, said he didn't see why gays shouldn't get married if they want, fairs fair.

Youngest is only 10, and was not very interested.

thegreatescape · 08-05-2015 10:31pm

engineerbrah wrote: »

No I'm not against that, that problem is out of the couples control and they should not be punished for it. A fertile person who enters a same sex marriage obviously doesn't want to procreate, because marriage is meant to be for life. I don't see why they would want to adopt a child.

It's a shame that kids from gay parents will get bullied but it's still gonna happen.
And like I said you can't claim this is the right thing to do because you are not a beacon of true wisdom, you believe it because TV and your peers tell you it is right. What's socially acceptable is based on the opinion of "intellectuals" & subjective research.

Any informed person believes in marriage equality because that what it is, equality. Extending the same rights as couples in marriage that all straight couples receive to same sex couples too. That's all that's being asked upon in this referendum. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get gay married. But who are you to say that your neighbour, cousin, or friend shouldn't get married when you're not directly involved?

How would you respond if your child told you that they were gay, and asked how you voted in the referendum that meant they couldn't be as happy as any other couple purely because of the sex of their partner? I don't know how anyone thinks voting against equal rights for all in any capacity. It's absolutely baffling.

bodice ripper · 08-05-2015 10:34pm

Lols at the "my kid is an asshole, and I can't control him, so no to SSM to prevent bullying" argument...

Slicemeister · 08-05-2015 10:34pm

Has anyone's voting cards arrived yet?

marienbad · 08-05-2015 11:07pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No but it depends on what rights you mean. I want the right to do and have lots of things. Doesn't mean i'm going to get it.

Would you have a problem though if your neighbour's son got it and your didn't ?

Zen65 · 08-05-2015 11:09pm

engineerbrah wrote: »

Oh aren't you the righteous individual just looking out for everyone's well being. Anyways I personally believe a gay household isn't a suitable place to raise kids in. If it was, nature would have let it happen.

An operating theatre is a good place to have a heart transplant, but none of that is provided by nature either.

Sometimes as humans we have to find our own ways of making the world a better place!

Anita Blow · 08-05-2015 11:14pm

Slicemeister wrote: »

Has anyone's voting cards arrived yet?

My friend's arrived yesterday and mine arrived today so I'd imagine people will be receiving them over the next couple days!

Zen65 · 08-05-2015 11:14pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

When Shirley Bassey was on TV: "Doesn't she have a wonderful voice? Pity, all the same."

Shirley is lesbian? I never knew! She DOES have a great voice, loved her in the '60's and '70's. I'm sure she'd want us to vote yes too

aloyisious · 08-05-2015 11:25pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They could suffer in many ways - i'd be most concerned about their peers in their personal lives. I can see many a kid getting a really hard time in this sort of family.

It's not the natural atomic family unit so I don't agree with it.

I'd also be concerned about the peers (of gay kids) born into the natural atomic family, as they are still giving gay kids born into natural atomic families a really hard time to this day. I'd be afraid that the peers may grow up to be adult homophobes, due to lack of parental moral education and control.

Zen65 · 08-05-2015 11:40pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's not the natural atomic family unit so I don't agree with it.

It seems that many posters here (not necessarily kermit) hold the opinion that same-sex couples would see a change in the referendum as a motivation to have children. The logic that they apply to the issue is that SSM = gay couples having children because they can adopt as a couple.

There's many flaws in that logic, but the most obvious is that those children in Same-Sex relationships are already here. Right now, there are LGBT couples raising kids, usually the natural child of one of the couple, and by-and-large doing a damn fine job of it. Iona and others like to pretend that such abnormalities will only become a reality if the referendum is passed. More deviously, they like to pretend that by voting NO there will be fewer (or none) kids being raised by same-sex guardians / parents.

Passing the referendum will not increase the number of kids raised in SS relationships. All it will do is provide constitutional protection for the existing kids (of which there's only a couple of hundred at most) if their current guardians decide to get married. People don't choose to have children because some law changed which offers greater protection; more importantly they do not decide NOT to have children because the constitution isn't supporting them. They just raise the kids in less ideal situations.

aloyisious · 08-05-2015 11:40pm

Slicemeister wrote: »

Has anyone's voting cards arrived yet?

Now that's one of the most sensible questions posed to the floor tonight

silverfeather · 08-05-2015 11:41pm

Slicemeister wrote: »

Has anyone's voting cards arrived yet?

None to this house yet. I imagine in a day or two.

Anita Blow · 08-05-2015 11:46pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Now that's one of the most sensible questions posed to the floor tonight

silverfeather wrote: »

None to this house yet. I imagine in a day or two.

Anita Blow wrote: »

My friend's arrived yesterday and mine arrived today so I'd imagine people will be receiving them over the next couple days!

I'm being silenced

aloyisious · 09-05-2015 1:32am

Anita Blow wrote: »

I'm being silenced

But but, but........ you've got two thumbs-up in your appreciation space.

Please do be discerning about whom you choose to wave at/off when the canvassers arrive on your doorstep, you wouldn't want to be called a bi^*+.

drunkmonkey · 09-05-2015 2:06am

Can we have a new poll seen as its a new thread and nobody that voted in the last thread is allowed vote in this one.

Doctor Jimbob · 09-05-2015 2:14am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Can we have a new poll seen as its a new thread and nobody that voted in the last thread is allowed vote in this one.

There's a boardswide poll on the front page AFAIK.

drunkmonkey · 09-05-2015 2:24am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

There's a boardswide poll on the front page AFAIK.

It's not fresh, we need one that excludes people who already voted as the current poll has no bearing on reality, there's not going to be a 75% majority, so let's see what way everyone else is voting. The sexual preference on boards never reflected real life so once those votes have been spent we might get a better reflection of what way the average person is going to vote.

Doctor Jimbob · 09-05-2015 2:25am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's not fresh, we need one that excludes people who already voted as the current poll has no bearing on reality, there's not going to be a 75% majority, so let's see what way everyone else is voting. The sexual preference on boards never reflected real life so once those votes have been spent we might get a better reflection of what wat the average person is going to vote.

You wot m8?

sjb25 · 09-05-2015 8:29am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's not fresh, we need one that excludes people who already voted as the current poll has no bearing on reality, there's not going to be a 75% majority, so let's see what way everyone else is voting. The sexual preference on boards never reflected real life so once those votes have been spent we might get a better reflection of what way the average person is going to vote.

So....... That poll is wrong cause all the gays of boards voted on it lol!!!!!! I voted yes on that poll I will be voting yes on the 22nd I'm not gay I'm getting married soon iv a child so I'm not what you call "an average person" because I don't agree with what you want
so let's have a poll that only people that agree with you can vote is that what you want????

El_Duderino 09 · 09-05-2015 9:10am

You know the way this referendum is about gay marriage and the no side wants to talk about adoption and raising children? And we're all blue in the face telling the likes of John waters that it's not about adoption? If the referendum passes, can we consider it an acceptance of gay adoption and gay parenting I'm general?

How long will it take the no side to say 'it was never about gay adoption or parenting. It was only ever about gay marriage'

Vivisectus · 09-05-2015 9:35am

EVEN if there was some effect on child-rearing, which I do not accept...

Should we not level the playing field first, and then focus on whatever it is we want to protect children from so we protect all children? Surely single people can currently avail of surrogacy, IVF, sperm donorship, adoption and the rest?

If we deny gay people the right to marry, because a result of this would be that they then could also receive the right to put children in single-gender families just like straight people currently have already then it becomes very hard indeed to deny that this is a bigoted position: we are clearly singling out gay people for this kind of treatment based solely on the fact they are gay. If you take such a position you are not trying to stop children from ending up in families where only one gender is represented among the parent(s): you are trying to stop children from ending up in such families only where the parents have a same-sex relationship.

So if you feel children have a right to a mother and father - excellent. Go campaign for it. I look forward to the debates. But if you try to make marriage equality about families and gender roles, then you must also accept that you are singling out gay people for this, and that your position is inherently bigoted.

Vivisectus · 09-05-2015 9:48am

engineerbrah wrote:

I personally believe a gay household isn't a suitable place to raise kids in. If it was, nature would have let it happen.

Yeah nature is great like that. That is why nature prevents incest and child pregnancy. Oh, wait! It doesn't. So I guess the "nature does not let things happen that are not suitable for children" thing only applies when you want it to?

upinthesky · 09-05-2015 10:06am

I don't like the fact that some things were left out in regards to the booklet i received,they didn't put in the part about the mothers, can someone tell me why?

gravehold · 09-05-2015 10:09am

lisar816 wrote: »

I don't like the fact that some things were left out in regards to the booklet i received,they didn't put in the part about the mothers, can someone tell me why?

refcom2015.ie/marriage/

Here is the governments "unbiased" site start here. Just be informed the government are pushing yes as I have seen yes posters up from FG.

upinthesky · 09-05-2015 10:09am

ARTICLE 41

1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –

i at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the previous five years,

ii there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,

iii such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and

iv any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.

I'm missing this bit?

gravehold · 09-05-2015 10:12am

lisar816 wrote: »

ARTICLE 41

1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –

i at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the previous five years,

ii there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,

iii such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and

iv any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.

I'm missing this bit?

That's is in the goverments site I posted above, was the flyer you got the government one or one from the yes side pushing the agenda and lying by omission again?

upinthesky · 09-05-2015 10:18am

it's the booklet for the referendum they post in your door, half is in irish.

Vivisectus · 09-05-2015 10:20am

I am rather shocked that something as sexist as that is still in the Irish constitution.

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

Comments