Do you believe that civil gay unions should be legalised?

Tar.Aldarion

Of course they should be allowed to marry, this thread shows just how far humans have advanced since our barbaric ancestors...
The same people that say no here are no doubt the same who would have denied black people their rights back in the day and so on.
The goalposts just move.

williambonney

Hell and freezing over comes to mind when I think of the Irish public voting to change the constitution to allow homosexuals to marry.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Civil unions - Yes, of course. if it's put to vote no political party other than perhaps the Christian Solidarity Party would risk opposing it.

I don't think churches should have to accommodate them, and I quite frankly can't understand why homosexuals would want to get married in an establishment that puts them in the Hell category.

Adoption - I really don't know. My instinct is NO WAY. Though I don't really have any rational justification for an oppostion to it.

My argument would be children see their parents as role models & it's good to have a male & female. Though this sort of logic means we should take kids away from single parents.

My sympathy would also go out to a child adopted by a same sex couple. Gay was the ultimate insult in school, and that's never going to change.

togster

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Gay was the ultimate insult in school, and that's never going to change.

Of course it will. Sure single mothers were shunned for a long time. It will only changw if we facilatate the change by proclaiming that in fact it is ok to be gay and married and have children.

Tha Gopher

bluewolf wrote: »

+

And if one person is about to post "but the other kids at school...", don't bother

LOL Thats rather like George Bush agreeing to a debate on the Iraq war on live tv on the condition the audience do not mention civillian deaths or why there were no WMDs.

"yeah gays should adopt. Lets just leave it at that, we will cross the school bullying part when the time comes"

Care to justify this? Or do you just know that you are quite clearly wrong but refuse to admit it?

I think you will find a vast majority of people in this country (men anyway, not women) would have a very hostile attitude, and that anyone on boards who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world or simply plain telling porkies. ffs I wouldnt dare tell my friends I used to chat to a sound gay work colleague who used to work in my place (didnt even know he was until about 6 weeks in, not really camp or the like.). My work has alot of mainland Europeans, so therefore there wouldnt be a stigma associated with straight men even being friends with gay lads, but I doubt you would see the same in a majority Irish workplace. I have no gay friends. None of my male friends do. In work most gay lads seemed to generally hang around together. How many do you have? I was mates in school with a guy who was 100% straight (so i thought) but his Bebo is full of, ahem, odd messages and photos. If I ran into him now Id probably operate a dont ask dont tell thing tbh, none of the lads have seen him in years and I didnt mention what I saw on Bebo to them (none of our old crew are on his friends list)

And before the whole "not everyone is like the **** you go drinking with" Im talking broadly here, lads who are from rich and rough areas, who go to college or dropped out at 15, professions ranging from builders to trainee accountants, very few would approve. Even one girl I know who has a gay best mate (male) said that although she likes him and his personality and such she really cant stick seeing him kissing lads or whatever.

Thats Ireland. Some people seem to forget that it is, and that we are not living in San Francisco or Holland. That the majority of people simply are not that liberal. If you want a child with two dads to grow up in this environment go right ahead. Head, sand etc etc. :rolleyes:

AckwelFoley

Originally Posted by Bottle_of_Smoke
Gay was the ultimate insult in school, and that's never going to change.

It changes with age and maturity.
I wouldnt be offended if i was called gay.. yet when i was 10 i would.

Dudess

Tha Gopher wrote: »

fs I wouldnt dare tell my friends I used to chat to a sound gay work colleague who used to work in my place

I don't know who's more pathetic - you or your friends. I'm guessing your friends as I've seen other posts by you and you don't seem at all a knucklehead, but it's rather pitiful that you desperately seek the approval of your "friends". A hetero guy who doesn't give a fuk about a guy's sexuality and chats away to him or becomes mates with him and who doesn't feel the need to make homophobic remarks whenever there are gay guys on TV or whatever - he, to me, is far more of a man than any insecure, macho idiot.

ScumLord

Terry wrote: »

Of course that's the ideal, however it's not always the way things work out.
My mother died when I was seven. Would you have had me sent to a heterosexual couple to be brought up because I didn't have a mother?

What about the multitude of mothers out there who have been abandoned by the father of their child?
Is the child to be taken from them and given to a heterosexual married couple, because that's the ideal?

Of course not, I know plenty of single mothers that do a great job. They do a better job having the father not around because the father was an ass. But when it comes to the state picking guardians for a child they have to do whats best for the child if they had to go down a list of people that wanted to adopt, married heterosexual couples would be towards the top of the list because bar them being bad people they would more than likely be the better family unit to be growing up in. It's a tried and trusted family unit that does work. If a same sex couple looked like it would provide a much better home to the child than the heterosexual couples then the child should go to them.

Tha Gopher

snyper wrote: »

It changes with age and maturity.
I wouldnt be offended if i was called gay.. yet when i was 10 i would.

I think most people would tbh. Why do you think celebrities or politicians sue for libel if it is suggested/claimed?

tbh it is an insult to most straight men. I was in a nightclub one night when I ran into this short lad who i used to be in school with. Utter tosser, type who thought he was hard as nails, I floored him in school when we were 14/15 odd because he had the nerve to step up to me with his short man against the world crap (and Im not even tall).

Anyway, he gave cheek, he was with a girl and I basically gave a jolly "friendly" laugh and said "hey shes cute. Fair play mate, we all thought ya were gay back in school!"

She had to hold him back Told him to go fcuk himself or Id break his jaw, and went ahead and enjoyed my night. It IS a good put down, you must admit (and before you ask why I did this remember, he was drunk and started his old short man cheek again.). I said it infront of the girl to make him feel 2 ft high (well, he is only 5ft 3 odd high in reality ). You would be hard pressed to find any straight man who would not be at all preturbed if he gave off the impression he was gay.

Tha Gopher

Dudess wrote: »

I don't know who's more pathetic - you or your friends. I'm guessing your friends as I've seen other posts by you and you don't seem at all a knucklehead, but it's rather pitiful that you desperately seek the approval of your "friends". A hetero guy who doesn't give a fuk about a guy's sexuality and chats away to him or becomes mates with him and who doesn't feel the need to make homophobic remarks whenever there are gay guys on TV or whatever - he, to me, is far more of a man than any insecure, macho idiot.

Eh....thanks....sort of

Your mates are your mates. They are the people I get on with, the people I go on the piss with and, in the case of three of them, people I have been friends with since I was 5 years old. Do I seek their approval? Not exactly, however I do seek their acceptance. Do I approve of each and every opinion they hold? Of course not. ffs, some are Man Utd fans Anyone who wants friends must be accepted by others. If a friend of mine robbed an old woman, that would be something that wouldnt garner my acceptance or approval. Hence, so the rest of us dont regard them as utter scum and refuse to have dealings with them, none of my mates would do such a thing.

Hope that clarifies

Tar.Aldarion

Are you saying that if one of your friends robbed an old woman you would not be friends with them? And so you have no friends that would rob an old lady, as they would not be a friend of yours?
Your post is confusing, is this right?

If it is, then why would you condone your friends being homophobic etc?

Dudess

Still though, the fact you feel you can't even mention that you spoke to a guy at work who you then found out was gay - that's actually quite shocking. And I don't get a vibe of homophobe off you.
As for the libel thing - in media law it actually ISN'T considered defamatory.
Jason Donovan successfully sued The Face when it speculated that he was gay, but on the basis that the magazine claimed he had lied to his fans - that he was duplicitous - not because it had called him gay.

Tha Gopher

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Are you saying that if one of your friends robbed an old woman you would not be friends with them? And so you have no friends that would rob an old lady, as they would not be a friend of yours?
Your post is confusing, is this right?

If it is, then why would you condone your friends being homophobic etc?

When he was drunk a mate of mine stole a phone (non violently i add). I told him to drop it back on the quiet or else, and he did.

There is a difference between theft and someone thinking homosexuality is wrong. Likewise, if a mate of mine attacked a random gay person on the street, well, reporting them is a matter of deep thought im not going into, but Id certainly physically restrain them (tbh I dont think any of my friends would jump a randomer, they dont like them much but I really cant see that happen)

I wouldnt describe myself as homophobic as such. I can live with them, I just dont particularly want to see any of the physical business. Much like, as I said in another thread, I would also recoil in horror if I walked in on two elderly people at it. Or the way I cant watch porn that features men in their 70s with crackers in their 20s. Or the 4 Girls 1 Cup video........

ixoy

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Likewise, if a mate of mine attacked a random gay person on the street, well, reporting them is a matter of deep thought im not going into,

I'm hoping you'd adopt the same attitude if they attacked a straight person.

Care to explain why you wouldn't even acknowledge talking to a gay person? What rationale is behind that? Would your friends think you'd suddenly caught ghey if you did?

Sir Oxman

Manic Moran wrote: »

I voted 'no', on personal belief. However, I cannot think of any legal reason under equal protection of the law that a prohibition should be justified, so would not raise a stink should such legislation to permit gay unions be proposed and passed.

NTM

So, why did you vote no?
Not that that gives a fcuk to any human beings standing but imagine if there was a vote that actually affected people and you gave THAT as an excuse...

I have an opinion but that above is the worst I have ever heard in my whole life - it's cowardly, cowardly, cowardly.

At least the nutjobs that are homophobes have an excuse - they are nutjobs.

Sir Oxman

Terry wrote: »

Here's my two cents.
I don't believe two gay people should be allowed to be married in a church that forbids gay marriages. I don't believe that gay people should try to force their beliefs on any of those churches in the same way that those churches should not try to impose their beliefs on gay couples.
As for a state recognised union, I see no problem with that.

Regarding adoption; I don't think it should be prohibited for gay couples to adopt, but I do think there should be the same rules applied to them as there is to heterosexual couples. In fact, I think those rules should be more stringent than they currently are.

Agreed. And well said.

Tha Gopher

ixoy wrote: »

I'm hoping you'd adopt the same attitude if they attacked a straight person.

Care to explain why you wouldn't even acknowledge talking to a gay person? What rationale is behind that? Would your friends think you'd suddenly caught ghey if you did?

Of course Id have the same attitude. What I was basically saying was if we had a few beers and we walked by two lads holding hands and one of the lads decked them, I would be pissed. However, as said, I honestly dont think any of my mates would do this.

As for why I wouldnt mention it, if I did say it they would have an image in their heads of me hanging around work with some annoying ridicilously camp figure who says oh my god every two seconds, when in reality this guy spoke like everyone else (well, he was white South African, but mannerism wise etc). As for "catching ghey", not exactly. However, if i told the lads Im going for a few pints with two of the girls out of work and a gay fella in the George, they would, at the very least, think it was odd behaviour. Much like if I was going out two nights a week on the tear or to the cinema alone with a cracking female work colleague the bird I am seeing last few weeks would think it was odd/suspicious. In work there is one guy and a gorgeous foreign girl who are inseperable, go out all the time, take same breaks, both single until recently, yet they 100% insist there is nothing going on. I half believe them, though tbh if I was the guy I would be going mad from this set up, he told me that they get on like a house on fire and he thinks she is stunning but they just dont click that way. I cant really imagine going out with a girl this good looking purely as friends and never after a piece even though you find her attractive.Similiarly, if a straight guy was going on the lash with a gay lad in the gay bars his friends would think something is up.

Sir Oxman

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Gay was the ultimate insult in school, and that's never going to change.

This is true. Unfortunately.

As ever, starts with the parents...chundles on and on and on....

Sir Oxman

Varkov wrote: »

Human being evolved and developed in a certain way.

Man and woman conceive child. Man and woman raise said child. Civilization flourishes.

We've been doing it this way for 200,000 years, and it seems to have worked out so far.

Originally Posted by luckat View Post
As much as 10pc of the population may be gay - the numbers agreed vary.
Where did you pull that pile of steaming chocolate out of? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<you


Where did YOU pull that steaming pileof shít from, eh?
No fcuking room for anything else, neanderthal from 200,000yus ago?

AckwelFoley

Id love a gay friend.

I could get him to go cloths shopping for me.

Sir Oxman

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Of course Id have the same attitude. What I was basically saying was if we had a few beers and we walked by two lads holding hands and one of the lads decked them, I would be pissed. However, as said, I honestly dont think any of my mates would do this.

As for why I wouldnt mention it, if I did say it they would have an image in their heads of me hanging around work with some annoying ridicilously camp figure who says oh my god every two seconds, when in reality this guy spoke like everyone else (well, he was white South African, but mannerism wise etc). As for "catching ghey", not exactly. However, if i told the lads Im going for a few pints with two of the girls out of work and a gay fella in the George, they would, at the very least, think it was odd behaviour. Much like if I was going out two nights a week on the tear or to the cinema alone with a cracking female work colleague the bird I am seeing last few weeks would think it was odd/suspicious. In work there is one guy and a gorgeous foreign girl who are inseperable, go out all the time, take same breaks, both single until recently, yet they 100% insist there is nothing going on. I half believe them, though tbh if I was the guy I would be going mad from this set up, he told me that they get on like a house on fire and he thinks she is stunning but they just dont click that way. I cant really imagine going out with a girl this good looking purely as friends and never after a piece even though you find her attractive.Similiarly, if a straight guy was going on the lash with a gay lad in the gay bars his friends would think something is up.

Sorry pal, that's rubbish. I know. I am there. And have been there with the queer lad friend going on the lash with him.

See? It's all down to BULLSHíT.
Absolute bullshít.

Tha Gopher

delah wrote: »

Sorry pal, that's rubbish. I know. I am there. And have been there with the queer lad friend going on the lash with him.

See? It's all down to BULLSHíT.
Absolute bullshít.

Eh?

I have female friends that I would consider quite attractive but who I dont really intend on getting stuck into.

The girl mentioned in my example is single and looks like Maria out of Coronation Street.

[/endpoint]

Sir Oxman

snyper wrote: »

Id love a gay friend.

I could get him to go cloths shopping for me.

Has been done on this thread and much, much more humorous.

Sir Oxman

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Eh?

I have female friends that I would consider quite attractive but who I dont really intend on getting stuck into.

The girl mentioned in my example is single and looks like Maria out of Coronation Street.

[/endpoint]

Eh? But you think this guy (your guy) is a bit bent cos he doesn't bone this Maria out of Coronation fcuking Street, who for all you know, is his drinking buddy? <taking it that Maria out of Coronation Street is single, like? Who knows, read HEAT for that info. It's all blurrede this reality tv and actual reality...

Jebebus...

luckat

Slight thread creep here, but if you and your spouse and extended family were killed, and you had to choose (from beyond the grave) who would bring your children up, which would you prefer:

* A violent alcoholic heterosexual and his cowed, unloving wife

or

* Two loving people who are homosexual

Sir Oxman

luckat wrote: »

Slight thread creep here, but if you and your spouse and extended family were killed, and you had to choose (from beyond the grave) who would bring your children up, which would you prefer:

* A violent alcoholic heterosexual and his cowed, unloving wife

or

* Two loving people who are homosexual

I'd have to go for Option A.



LIKE FCUK I WOULD>

Nice end luckat.

Aard

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Similiarly, if a straight guy was going on the lash with a gay lad in the gay bars his friends would think something is up.

No. Nobody would think something is up. I've gone to gay bars with gay friends. I've gone to gay bars with straight friends. Nobody has ever thought that "something was up" with any of the straight guys. And if anybody said anything, they'd be the ones getting slagged for being so narrow minded.


Are you basing what you said on fact, or just what you think would happen? From some of your previous posts, I think you're a very insecure individual. "Gay" is only the ultimate slag for somebody who is uncomfortable with their masculinity.

randylonghorn

purplengold wrote: »

Yes indeed, times change. But can you see Fianna fail going all out to get their supporters to vote to change the constitution to allow same sex marriages? Or the conservative wing of Fine Gael for that matter? I don’t think thats about to happen any time soon.

No, they probably wouldn't ... but if the pressure came from Europe or whatever, and the referendum had to be held, I would guarantee you they wouldn't openly oppose it either.

is_that_so wrote: »

Articles 2 & 3 of the Constitution do not affect one's moral code in the same way as this question or the perennial abortion issues.

Moral code, perhaps not ... but I know a lot of staunch Republicans of the old school who would feel much more strongly about Articles 2 & 3.

luckat wrote: »

Slight thread creep here, but if you and your spouse and extended family were killed, and you had to choose (from beyond the grave) who would bring your children up, which would you prefer:

* A violent alcoholic heterosexual and his cowed, unloving wife

or

* Two loving people who are homosexual

The second option, obviously, given that I answered this question from the point of view of the child (= myself) in an earlier post last night.

Tha Gopher

Aard wrote: »

Are you basing what you said on fact, or just what you think would happen? From some of your previous posts, I think you're a very insecure individual. "Gay" is only the ultimate slag for somebody who is uncomfortable with their masculinity.

Is being called a twat the ultimate slag for people who secretly think they are a bit of a twat? I always thought dwarf man I mentioned might be hiding something (or maybe it was just his high pitched squeaky voice), so I therefore said the one thing I knew would completely set him off. To annoy him. Your point is laughable and a poor attempt to argue something you know is incorrect.

Aard wrote: »

No. Nobody would think something is up. I've gone to gay bars with gay friends. I've gone to gay bars with straight friends. Nobody has ever thought that "something was up" with any of the straight guys.

Yes, but you have gay friends. Nobody I know does (apart from girls, most have at least one), so the situation wouldnt arise. In work a few of the Irish lads reckon one of the lads is gay, primarily because his best mate is the campest guy in the building. Im not sure personally, I saw him with a girl at least once, but that is basically the general Irish mentality, and pretending it isnt is laughable.

delah wrote: »

Eh? But you think this guy (your guy) is a bit bent cos he doesn't bone this Maria out of Coronation fcuking Street, who for all you know, is his drinking buddy? <taking it that Maria out of Coronation Street is single, like? Who knows, read HEAT for that info. It's all blurrede this reality tv and actual reality...

Jebebus...

I didnt say he was gay. He is far from it. I said I didnt think he was telling the whole truth as it would be pretty hard for any straight man to be in such a position and not try for some or want some.

Manic Moran

delah wrote: »

So, why did you vote no?
Not that that gives a fcuk to any human beings standing but imagine if there was a vote that actually affected people and you gave THAT as an excuse...

Because I'm rather old-fashioned, and I don't like the concept.

This is a matter of personal opinion, not legal facility.

NTM

randylonghorn

In fairness, delah, I thought that comment was a bit harsh.

Manic is entitled to his own opinion, even if I think that opinion is ... well, a bit manic!

orestes

The constitution doesn't say family has to be a man/woman parent set-up, but it does recognise the special place of women in the home and their duties there, so we shouldn't be letting pairs of men raise kids cos then there would be no woman around to change the nappies and do the cleaning and other household duties. Can't be messing with these aul traditions now can we?

is_that_so

randylonghorn wrote: »

Moral code, perhaps not ... but I know a lot of staunch Republicans of the old school who would feel much more strongly about Articles 2 & 3.

Beyond that group very few would have the remotest interest in either Article. The question on this thread and Article 41 on the other hand would , raise a lot or moral question as we've already seen here.

Sir Oxman

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Is being called a twat the ultimate slag for people who secretly think they are a bit of a twat? I always thought dwarf man I mentioned might be hiding something (or maybe it was just his high pitched squeaky voice), so I therefore said the one thing I knew would completely set him off. To annoy him. Your point is laughable and a poor attempt to argue something you know is incorrect.



Yes, but you have gay friends. Nobody I know does (apart from girls, most have at least one), so the situation wouldnt arise. In work a few of the Irish lads reckon one of the lads is gay, primarily because his best mate is the campest guy in the building. Im not sure personally, I saw him with a girl at least once, but that is basically the general Irish mentality, and pretending it isnt is laughable.



I didnt say he was gay. He is far from it. I said I didnt think he was telling the whole truth as it would be pretty hard for any straight man to be in such a position and not try for some or want some.

The Gopher - I have nothing against you my fellow boardster but you must be very, very, very young.

Or a complete insular twatter. I HATE THIS BLOODY COUNTRY and its nosey fcuking chatter...except here

Good day

Tha Gopher

delah wrote: »

The Gopher - I have nothing against you my fellow boardster but you must be very, very, very young.

Or a complete insular twatter. I HATE THIS BLOODY COUNTRY and its nosey fcuking chatter...except here

Good day

I am 22. Most of my friends are aged 20-26 and from a wide variety of backgrounds and occupations. I would regard the opinions they state as almost universally common among men, and if you dont think they are you are burying your head in the sand and pretending Ireland is a country that is it not. As said, my straight foreign work colleagues (West European) of around the same age wouldnt think twice about someones orientation. Most of my male Irish colleagues would be somewhat wary.

Sir Oxman

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because I'm rather old-fashioned, and I don't like the concept.

This is a matter of personal opinion, not legal facility.

NTM

I have no problem with your opinion but your NO on an irrelevant internet forum may translate thank fcuk (not) as I hope you are in an overseas territory far, far a way from my living sapce.


Worse is your 'I don't really care but I'll vote no lark.'

This makes me sick.

randylonghorn

is_that_so wrote: »

Beyond that group very few would have the remotest interest in either Article. The question on this thread and Article 41 on the other hand would , raise a lot or moral question as we've already seen here.

Tbh, I think a high proportion of the younger generation would care equally little about either change (e.g. see poll results) ... and an awful lot of people would have have considered either change unthinkable 25 years ago. As I said, times change ...

Anyway, not trying to get into a tit-for-tat about it, our opinions obviously differ and sure isn't that what makes life (and boards) interesting ...

is_that_so

orestes wrote: »

The constitution doesn't say family has to be a man/woman parent set-up, but it does recognise the special place of women in the home and their duties there, so we shouldn't be letting pairs of men raise kids cos then there would be no woman around to change the nappies and do the cleaning and other household duties. Can't be messing with these aul traditions now can we?

Considering it was written in 1937 it is fairly safe to assume that it does and any challenge , such as the Canadians' challenge, will come up against that , i.e. where does it say you are right. Constitutional interpretation tends to be fairly narrowly focussed, hence the inevitable need for a referendum to "fix" it.

randylonghorn

delah wrote: »

Worse is your 'I don't really care but I'll vote no lark.'

This makes me sick.

Delah, he never said that ... go back and read his original post.

He said his gut instinct was against it, personally ... but as he couldn't see any good grounds for opposing it given modern equality legislation etc., he would simply vote "no" but would not try to campaign against it ...

Naos

Marraige & Adoption + 1

is_that_so

randylonghorn wrote: »

Tbh, I think a high proportion of the younger generation would care equally little about either change (e.g. see poll results) ... and an awful lot of people would have have considered either change unthinkable 25 years ago. As I said, times change ...

Anyway, not trying to get into a tit-for-tat about it, our opinions obviously differ and sure isn't that what makes life (and boards) interesting ...

I am not arguing my case, in fact in the main i agree with you. I am however stating what I see as the problem. We are socially conservative as a nation and considering condoms were still on prescription in the late 80s and there are still fights about the "morality" of abortion, the issue of same sex recognition under the constitution is likely to be fraught with the same difficulties.

You Suck!

Would it too much to ask for weed to be legalised along with gay marriage.......Seriously......The Gay/weed legalisation act of 2008. Would be a hoot in the dail debates

Sir Oxman

Tha Gopher wrote: »

I am 22. Most of my friends are aged 20-26 and from a wide variety of backgrounds and occupations. I would regard the opinions they state as almost universally common among men, and if you dont think they are you are burying your head in the sand and pretending Ireland is a country that is it not. As said, my straight foreign work colleagues (West European) of around the same age wouldnt think twice about someones orientation. Most of my male Irish colleagues would be somewhat wary.

You are 22?
That's an excuse for being an arse? (mind you it's as good as any)

Honestly, I have not got one clue what you are on about...all I have got is you are 22, a big boy, your mates wouldn't do this and that, the SA bloke you know in work must be bent cos he gets on with a fcuking roide and doesn't roide her (as far as you know, boy) like you would Mary out of Corryrealitygetalife Street? ...what else are you saying?
The WEST European shúít is awful.
Clean youirself up man.

Is this all there bloody is? To anything?

randylonghorn

is_that_so wrote: »

I am not arguing my case, in fact in the main i agree with you. I am however stating what I see as the problem. We are socially conservative as a nation and considering condoms were still on prescription in the late 80s and there are still fights about the "morality" of abortion, the issue of same sex recognition under the constitution is likely to be fraught with the same difficulties.

Oh, ok ... I do agree that there's likely to be the usual auld fuss from the usual suspects ... I suppose I would just be optimistic that there might be a positive outcome (assuming the 18-35+ generation get up off their arses and go out and vote).

I actually think a lot of people would have reasons of principle for wanting to change the relevant bits of the C. apart from the subject under discussion in this thread, so a lot might be down to the actual changes proposed ...

Sir Oxman

randylonghorn wrote: »

Delah, he never said that ... go back and read his original post.

He said his gut instinct was against it, personally ... but as he couldn't see any good grounds for opposing it given modern equality legislation etc., he would simply vote "no" but would not try to campaign against it ...

So, his vote would be no. In a ballot. How do you think that affects stuff if there was say, a REAL LIFE ballot? Okay, tell us if you would vote YES if it was real life?

He doesn't mind actually, but oh, he'll vote to deny perfectly decent people equal civil rights.

Nice.

And yes, he did say that.
It makes me sick.

Sir Oxman

randylonghorn wrote: »

In fairness, delah, I thought that comment was a bit harsh.

Manic is entitled to his own opinion, even if I think that opinion is ... well, a bit manic!

How?

Dord

I voted yes. I think that every couple should have the choice regardless of genders.

randylonghorn

delah wrote: »

So, his vote would be no. In a ballot. How do you think that affects stuff if there was say, a REAL LIFE ballot? Okay, tell us if you would vote YES if it was real life?

He doesn't mind actually, but oh, he'll vote to deny perfectly decent people equal civil rights.

Nice.

And yes, he did say that.
It makes me sick.

He DOES mind, he has a strong personal opinion, he would vote accordingly ...

I have a strong personal opinion, which I have outlined in this thread, I would vote accordingly ... so yes, I would vote YES in a real life ballot.

Both Manic and I are being perfectly consistent, even if we disagree.

Oh, nvm ... why am I defending Manic anyway, we're not even on the same side!

Sir Oxman

randylonghorn wrote: »

He DOES mind, he has a strong personal opinion, he would vote accordingly ...

I have a strong personal opinion, which I have outlined in this thread, I would vote accordingly ... so yes, I would vote YES in a real life ballot.

Both Manic and I are being perfectly consistent, even if we disagree.

Oh, nvm ... why am I defending Manic anyway, we're not even on the same side!

I have no problem the man/woman having an opinion, expressing it and acting on it but he/she clearly said they voted NO in an irrelevant board poll and by proxy would do the same in a real life vote (affecting people) but finds no problem with it.<<<-spot the prick?

It is absolutely awful and incomprehensible to me.
Simply fcuking awful that kind of thinking - cowardly I call it and I stand by it.

randylonghorn

delah wrote: »

I have no problem the man/woman having an opinion, expressing it and acting on it but he/she clearly said they voted NO in an irrelevant board poll and by proxy would do the same in a real life vote (affecting people) but finds no problem with it.

[MyLastWordOnTheSubject] NO ... he did NOT say that! He said that given the trend of modern equality legislation etc., he knew that his personal opinion was out of sync with the trend, and that he would find his case difficult to argue ... so would simply cast his personal vote according to his conscience rather than actively engaging / campaigning on the subject ... [/MyLastWordOnTheSubject]