Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

lazygal

AnonoBoy wrote: »

And men will want to marry their brothers right?

And cats will marry dogs. Where will it end?!

I don't normally vote! But I think for the lads I can make an exception!
ðŸ˜

AnonoBoy

golfball37 wrote: »

I personally don't believe the sexual act between SSC's is natural. Nothing to do with God. Man and woman were created so they could procreate by sharing themselves. Its at odds with nature for same sex couples to make love imo.

Who cares?

Are you that worried about 'natural'?

Have you ever used contraception? That's not natural.

Have you got an issue with contraception too?

Also - this vote has nothing to do with gay sex. Lads are going to continue to shag lads and girls are going to continue to shag girls no matter what the result of this vote.

floggg

Daith wrote: »

I love the fact the Yes side have to be so careful with words because "I'm def going to vote no now" but throwing around words like child abuse is like yeah ok.

We get called bullies for calling out prejudice.

The no side spread lies, demean and insult us, and utterly disrespect out relationships and call for legal discrimination against us. And yet somehow they are apparently the victims.

Daith

floggg wrote: »

We get called bullies for calling out prejudice.

The no side spread lies, demean and insult us, and utterly disrespect out relationships and call for legal discrimination against us. And yet somehow they are apparently the victims.

Only homophobes can use the word homophobic

golfball37 wrote: »

Its at odds with nature for same sex couples to make love imo.

Yet gay people still exist. We aren't born in a lab. So nature must be allowing homosexuals to exist for how many years?

eviltwin

golfball37 wrote: »

I personally don't believe the sexual act between SSC's is natural. Nothing to do with God. Man and woman were created so they could procreate by sharing themselves. Its at odds with nature for same sex couples to make love imo.

Call me what you want but thats my opinion.

You can be uncomfortable with the idea of gay sex while at the same time being cognisant of their rights. There are lots of things I don't agree with but I wouldn't stop other people doing them.

Flem31

kylith wrote: »

Good Catholics may vote no, but good people will vote yes.

So if I vote no that would make me a bad person.......not a great fan of water charges so have the unreasonable label also.

I wonder how many negative labels I could accumulate by the end of December.


Re Yes or No.......it is an individual's choice and labelling one side or the other doesn't help matters

kunst nugget

lazygal wrote: »

Irish mammie are great. Imagine how amazing TWO Irish mammies would be. You'd have a non stop supply of flat seven up and toast when you're sick.

Society would fall apart as a generation becomes incapable of doing anything for themselves because of having double the Irish mammy effect forced on them by the gay agenda. 'Tis too horrible…

endacl

1123heavy wrote: »

Endacl - if you think i'm talking **** then you go stand on O'connel street, set up a little table and talk to the public about it. You will soon find out you're talking absolute crap as you try justifying two mothers to a happy normal family.

Annoy the public on O'Connell Street? Oh. You're one of those...

floggg

1123heavy wrote: »

So we have gotten to the stage at which people think it is perfectly normal and reasonable to have 2 mothers or 2 fathers !?!?!?!?!?!? I despair !

Due to a child's very nature, they need both a father AND a mother to carry out the upbringing, they each bring two different thigs to the child's development that no other combination of SSC could bring. I can go on all day about how the mother and father's roll differs and how they are both equally important. What you people who support all this carry on want is to change nature, well we are humans and our needs for a proper upbringing won't change whether you like it or not !

I have nothing personal against gay people, my manager at work is gay and i know of other gays in and around college. I do not support homosexuality, however I do put up with it for the sake of society.

You can have all the wonderful modern ideas in the world, but we are humans and need a mother and a father.

I despair to think of what'll be next, people wanting laws passed to marry sheep ? cars ? ... TV's ? I certainly wouldn't put it past you people.

Anything which proves this apparent need?

And which contradicts the ever increasing body of research saying children raised by same sex parents do just as well as those raised by opposite sex parents.

There has been same sex adoption for years now in many jurisdictions. If it was proving harmful tobyhe child, we would have pretty firm evidence of that by now.

We don't.

Duggy747

golfball37 wrote: »

Its at odds with nature for same sex couples to make love imo.

Call me what you want but thats my opinion.

It's your opinion but it's an utter shíte one because it shows a brutal lack of knowledge on nature to come out with that statement.

1123heavy

Endacl if you're trying to suggest i'm someone who goes and screams off the top of my voice in public you are sorrily mistaken, rather you reminded me of the type that do so i suggested it as a viable option for you.

AnonoBoy

1123heavy wrote: »

Endacl if you're trying to suggest i'm someone who goes and screams off the top of my voice in public you are sorrily mistaken, rather you reminded me of the type that do so i suggested it as a viable option for you.

You should learn how to quote lad.

RobertKK

Nomis21 wrote: »

If it would be promoted as "Anti-Religion" I think there would be an even larger "Yes" vote

So you are saying the Yes side would get higher yes vote based on something not related to the issue we will be voting on.

People who are bringing religion into this are shooting themselves in the foot, that doesn't mean different areas of society cannot give their opinion whether for or against it.

Pherekydes

AH answer: I'll vote because it affects me. If marriage equality comes in I can marry my pet dog (bitch) and adopt straight kids and turn them gay.

Serious answer: I'll vote to extend a right that most people already have to everyone.

My kids are voting yes, too, the pinko-commie-liberal studenty types.

endacl

1123heavy wrote: »

Endacl if you're trying to suggest i'm someone who goes and screams off the top of my voice in public you are sorrily mistaken, rather you reminded me of the type that do so i suggested it as a viable option for you.

And .......

Ignore.

There. That's better. Time for a cuppa.

AnonoBoy

Nomis21 wrote: »

If it would be promoted as "Anti-Religion" I think there would be an even larger "Yes" vote

No it shouldn't because it's not anti-religion.

floggg

golfball37 wrote: »

I personally don't believe the sexual act between SSC's is natural. Nothing to do with God. Man and woman were created so they could procreate by sharing themselves. Its at odds with nature for same sex couples to make love imo.

Call me what you want but thats my opinion.

If two men weren't meant to ****, why did God put the prostate up there?

Also, if gay sex is unnatural, so too is oral sex. Are you telling me you don't like to receive oral sex, or think it should be banned or discouraged?

kylith

golfball37 wrote: »

I personally don't believe the sexual act between SSC's is natural. Nothing to do with God. Man and woman were created so they could procreate by sharing themselves. Its at odds with nature for same sex couples to make love imo.

Call me what you want but thats my opinion.

If it's nothing to do with gods then where's the 'created' coming from? If it's unnatural then why were so many homosexual humans, cattle, sheep, dolphins etc. created?

I mean, either sexuality evolved over millennia and there are evolutionary benefits to having homosexuals in your social group, or there's at least one god who either a) made gay people specifically to mistreat them or b) is really crappy at what they do and keep accidentally making gay people.

1123heavy

Anonoboy- Thank you for your concern. I am perfectly capable of quoting, I have this high tech device called a laptop that enables me to move a mouse and click on all sorts of things, however I use it as I will and do not always use all functions available. I wasn't aware I had to answer to you about such small issues.

eviltwin

golfball37 wrote: »

I personally don't believe the sexual act between SSC's is natural. Nothing to do with God. Man and woman were created so they could procreate by sharing themselves. Its at odds with nature for same sex couples to make love imo.

Call me what you want but thats my opinion.

What about all the straight people who enjoy anal sex? What about threesomes, bdsm etc? Are they equally unnatural?

People really need to stop obsessing about what other people do in the bedroom!! Its none of your business.

Shiraz 4.99

Unfortunately the polls are so skewed towards the Yes side the No campaign will have to go for shock, awe & bollox to have a hope of swinging this one.

Expect to see abortion brought into the debate for absolutely no real reason bar stirring.
Expect the bishops to reference some outline white paper first draft which discusses refusing communion to those who vote Yes. This will then be hastily denied.
Expect stupid See No Evil / Hear No Evil type posters.
Expect public spats with the referendum commission over equal time being afforded then a legal challenge being threatened after the result.

Luckily the Yes campaign need do nothing bar let the anti-brigade have all the air time.
One radio show listening to the Iona Institute or Mothers United Against something or other will have my Yes vote locked in.

c_man

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Voting Yes, of course. Only imbeciles aren't voting, or voting no.

there is actually not a single valid reason for voting no on this issue, or not voting at all.

"It doesn't affect me" is not a valid reason.

Oh for gods sake. It's exactly this type of attitude that pisses me, and lots of others, off and I'm on the same side as you! Name calling and dismissing any argument against yours, yeah democracy is great...

If I'm in Ireland at the time, I'll vote in favour of it. But tbh, I don't think it's that big of an issue. Plenty more pressing things to be sorted imo but fair play to the community for getting this into the mainstream after years of campaigning, and one thing at a time I suppose.

kylith

Flem31 wrote: »

So if I vote no that would make me a bad person.......not a great fan of water charges so have the unreasonable label also.

I wonder how many negative labels I could accumulate by the end of December.


Re Yes or No.......it is an individual's choice and labelling one side or the other doesn't help matters

If you vote to deny people equal rights because of their sexuality then yes; in my opinion you are a bad person in that respect.

Why you're bringing up the water charges I have no idea. Is someone trying to get a licence to marry their meter?

AnonoBoy

1123heavy wrote: »

Anonoboy- Thank you for your concern. I am perfectly capable of quoting, I have this high tech device called a laptop that enables me to move a mouse and click on all sorts of things, however I use it as I will and do not always use all functions available. I wasn't aware I had to answer to you about such small issues.

No worries mate. You don't have to answer to me but since you were making such terrible points I thought I'd help you out and at least by quoting people would see that you were responding to them.

Good luck with your silly little table on O'Connell St.

elefant

Zemuppet wrote: »

The main 'issue' some have over gay couples adopting or having kids is that they would be bullied because of it. Tbh kids get bullied for a lot less i.e weight, glasses, intelligence, etc and this is before you could include race, religion or ethnic status. I don't think anyone can give a proper reason as to why SSCs couples can't marry.

I used to think like this in my early teenage years. For shame.

I matured and realised that for people to just accept that bullying happens and not try to change that instead of affording basic civil rights to a large part of the population is some twisted mental gymnastics.

floggg

c_man wrote: »

Oh for gods sake. It's exactly this type of attitude that pisses me, and lots of others, off and I'm on the same side as you! Name calling and dismissing any argument against yours, yeah democracy is great...

If I'm in Ireland at the time, I'll vote in favour of it. But tbh, I don't think it's that big of an issue. Plenty more pressing things to be sorted imo but fair play to the community for getting this into the mainstream after years of campaigning, and one thing at a time I suppose.

I agree you catch more honey with flies so we should all try to be more patient and persausive when discussing the issue.

However, I also believe in calling a spade a spade. Nobody has been able to come up with one argument against marriage equality that isn't rooted in religion, prejudice or stupidity.

While its obviously in our interests to sweet talk undecided voters, it gets annoying when we have to pretend that the other sides argument is in any way credible or deserving of respect - particularly when it's often grounded in hate or the idea that either myself or my relationship aren't worthy of respect.

Manach

I'll be voting No.

Both in defence of the traditional norms of marriage and to show there are some cultural legacies that cannot be changed, especially if this spikes this government moves to appease the PC brigade.

kunst nugget

c_man wrote: »

If I'm in Ireland at the time, I'll vote in favour of it. But tbh, I don't think it's that big of an issue. Plenty more pressing things to be sorted imo but fair play to the community for getting this into the mainstream after years of campaigning, and one thing at a time I suppose.

Tbf, it might not be a big issue for you but it is to those it affects. If the vote goes against marriage equality it could be years, even decades before there may be a vote on it again. I'll be voting yes and encouraging everyone I know to do the same. I've tried to be pragmatic and see the opposing point of view on this and the merit in it but I can't see anything valid to the opposing arguments to same sex marriage and to allow people to lose the chance of equality over having an indifferent attitude to voting in this referendum is deeply unfair imo.

Pherekydes

kylith wrote: »

Why you're bringing up the water charges I have no idea. Is someone trying to get a licence to marry their meter?

It's the brilliant and very sane logic of "If we let gay people marry, they'll start marrying anything. Maybe they'll want to marry their favourite bush (presumably flaming) in their garden."

Timberrrrrrrr

Manach wrote: »

I'll be voting No.

Both in defence of the traditional norms of marriage and to show there are some cultural legacies that cannot be changed, especially if this spikes this government moves to appease the PC brigade.

It's the cultural legacy in Afghanistan for women to be stoned to death, do you think this cultural legacy should be done away with?

FutureGuy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think it is in May.

I won't because it does not affect me. If they get it passed fair play but I doubt i'm in a minority when I say I have little interest in it.

I think this apathy might be the biggest risk to the referendum and also the appeal of giving the government a harmless (in my view) kicking.

Anyone feel the same way about it? I just could not be bothered. I think it will be like the children's referendum. Very low turnout.

One of the reasons I despise much of modern Ireland. This exact attitude.

Doesn't affect me personally so I won't bother about it. But take a few quid out my pocket for water charges - streets are full of protesters. "No way, we won't pay!"

But when it comes to giving an unfairly treated group in society the same rights as others, some people can't be arsed.

If I told you that you couldn't have your commitment to your partner recognised by the law because your boards user name starts with "K", you'd hope to fcuk that others would see how utterly moronic the decision was and that they would vote to abolish it.

I was in Barcelona on holidays when we noted a protest. 60000 people marching because the government were mulling over something like a 10% cut in funding to trainee nurses in a particular hospital. I wonder how many were actually affected by the decision - a miniscule fraction I would think, but they were not protesting because of some selfish reason, they were protesting because it was a just cause.

It's hilarious that people will happily turn out to vote in a bunch of hapless morons to run a government because they are unhappy about the current bunch of hapless morons, but when its a vote to ensure people have the same rights as others, people aren't bothered.

I'm not going to even comment on the whole "lets teach the government a lesson by not caring about it". Shur it's only affecting the happiness of 10% of the country.

Personally speaking, I will be out at the ****ing crack of dawn to vote yes.

Penny Tration

c_man wrote: »

Oh for gods sake. It's exactly this type of attitude that pisses me, and lots of others, off and I'm on the same side as you! Name calling and dismissing any argument against yours, yeah democracy is great...

Did you miss the part where a no vote campaigner called same sex parents child abusers?

fran17

I will be voting and it will be a no.I'm sick and tired of the Catholic Church bashing and this is just more of the same.Homosexuals already have a union thats recognised legally,marriage is a religious ceremony.They have an extreme intolerance for religion,which is very clearly visible here by the postings of the pro gay union people,but want a religious ceremony!Make up your minds.

AnonoBoy

elefant wrote: »

I used to think like this in my early teenage years. For shame.

I'm sure the same argument was one of those used to oppose mix-raced marriages in the past too.

endacl

kylith wrote: »

Why you're bringing up the water charges I have no idea. Is someone trying to get a licence to marry their meter?

Only if we let the quares get married. And it'll be quare water meters after that.

Slippery feckin' slope...

eviltwin

fran17 wrote: »

I will be voting and it will be a no.I'm sick and tired of the Catholic Church bashing and this is just more of the same.Homosexuals already have a union thats recognised legally,marriage is a religious ceremony.They have an extreme intolerance for religion,which is very clearly visible here by the postings of the pro gay union people,but want a religious ceremony!Make up your minds.

Marriage is not a religious ceremony. Its a secular one.

Penny Tration

fran17 wrote: »

I will be voting and it will be a no.I'm sick and tired of the Catholic Church bashing and this is just more of the same.Homosexuals already have a union thats recognised legally,marriage is a religious ceremony.They have an extreme intolerance for religion,which is very clearly visible here by the postings of the pro gay union people,but want a religious ceremony!Make up your minds.

That's simply not true. Marriage is a legal contract. I'm straight and if/when I get married, it won't be a religious ceremony, it'll be in a registry office. Does that mean I won't actually be married?

rainbow kirby

fran17 wrote: »

marriage is a religious ceremony.

Civil marriage is not a religious ceremony, which is what is in question here. Nobody is forcing churches to do anything here.

AnonoBoy

fran17 wrote: »

I will be voting and it will be a no.I'm sick and tired of the Catholic Church bashing and this is just more of the same.Homosexuals already have a union thats recognised legally,marriage is a religious ceremony.They have an extreme intolerance for religion,which is very clearly visible here by the postings of the pro gay union people,but want a religious ceremony!Make up your minds.

No it's not. Tons of people get married in this country without any church having anything to do with it.

It's nothing to do with the Catholic church - no church will be forced to allow same-sex marriage.

UncleChael

I will be voting yes, I will be very embarrassed if we vote No. I really hope the young people come out and vote in this referendum, we can not leave this one to the old people of this country like we do general elections.

mrsbyrne

eviltwin wrote: »

The Church will have a campaign urging people to vote No. They did it with divorce, they did it with abortion. I was at a wedding in the lead up to the last election where the priest used his position to remind everyone that if they voted for a pro-choice candidate it was a sin. There are plenty of "good Catholics" who support SSM but equally there are people on the fence who will be hearing all sorts of rubbish in mass that could influence their vote.

Thing is this, whether you like it or not the Church , any church, or any organisation for that matter, is entitled to advise its members on how they should vote. That's it. No point in complaining about it or railing about it. Thank God this is not N Korea. You'll agree i'm sure that we don't want to change that.
What the LGBT organisations can change however is how they respond to different organisations stance on the proposal.
They should stop the angry finger pointing and the tearful remonstrations and present a positive non-threatening manifesto for voting yes.
I don't see much hope for that on this thread though.
Too many too willing here to feed an obvious troll.

Pherekydes

Manach wrote: »

I'll be voting No.

Both in defence of the traditional norms of marriage and to show there are some cultural legacies that cannot be changed, especially if this spikes this government moves to appease the PC brigade.

You probably voted against divorce too. I'm divorced and remarried and my kids are law-abiding, upstanding citizens. Plus, my wife and I haven't reproduced since we got married. Ergo, our marriage must be invalid.

I think "Tradition" is going to be my favourite angle of the anti-equality side. Especially when people like Cora Sherlock mention the word. Shouldn't she be at home peeling sprouts and keeping her mouth shut, as tradition demands?

I also like the mention of the word 'appease' and the term 'PC brigade'.

The government should appease the 20% instead, eh Manach?

kunst nugget

fran17 wrote: »

I will be voting and it will be a no.I'm sick and tired of the Catholic Church bashing and this is just more of the same.Homosexuals already have a union thats recognised legally,marriage is a religious ceremony.They have an extreme intolerance for religion,which is very clearly visible here by the postings of the pro gay union people,but want a religious ceremony!Make up your minds.

Actually nobody is suggesting that churches should be forced to participate in gay marriage but the civil partnership does not afford same sex couples the same rights as a marriage - which is a legally binding agreement adjacent to the religious ceremony that takes part in a church, mosque, etc. If you voted yes, it would have no day to day effect on your church-going lifestyle or your religion.

FutureGuy

Manach wrote: »

I'll be voting No.

Both in defence of the traditional norms of marriage and to show there are some cultural legacies that cannot be changed, especially if this spikes this government moves to appease the PC brigade.

You see, there's the point. They can be changed.

There are a number of cultural legacies I hope we change in the next few decades, with religon being the big one. "Don't treat people fairly because it's that's what you should do based on what someone may or may not have said thousands of years before you were born."

Nothing to do with the government, nothing to do with the PC brigade, everything to do with a the happiness of our fellow human beings.

Newsflash. Homosexuality and bisexuality is perfectly normal. Perfectly normal.

endacl

Manach wrote: »

I'll be voting No.

Both in defence of the traditional norms of marriage and to show there are some cultural legacies that cannot be changed, especially if this spikes this government moves to appease the PC brigade.

Which traditional norm?

Grayson

frankeee wrote: »

Yes, but not really an avid reader of the parochial newspapers. But from speaking to actual people who would be considered god botherers I genuinely don't know anyone who would be in the no camp (no pun intended). Similarly the CC is against sex before marriage, but don't know anyone who agrees with it. Are they hypocrites for not leaving the church? Possibly. But to each their own.

the Irish times survey a few months ago had something like 80 percent in favour of gay marriage. So I have no doubt that the vast majority of catholics are in favour of it.

That doesn't mean that there aren't God botherers. there's the actual catholic church. They released a statement last week about definitions and stuff like that. Then there's the nutjob I posted.

There's also the definitely-not-filled-with-homophobes-and-please-don't-sue-boards Iona institute.

In this situation Ireland might not have a preponderance of god botherers but there's still enough loud ones left.

c_man

floggg wrote: »

However, I also believe in calling a spade a spade. Nobody has been able to come up with one arguenbts against marriage equality that isn't rooted in religion, prejudice or stupidity.

Fair enough.It will be interesting to see what arguments the Referendum Commission come with against the proposal (as they're legally bound to do so)

kunst nugget wrote: »

Tbf, it might not be a big issue for you but it is to those it affects.

I don't think this is as big as abortion, euthanasia etc. all of which don't affect me personally at the mo but I really think we need to sort out. But hell, the date is almost set for this one so lets have at it.

Jingle_Balls wrote:

Did you miss the part where a no vote campaigner called same sex parents child abusers?

I did actually. Absolute bollox imo.

Shiraz 4.99

My only qualm is we're getting nothing out of the gays for all these concessions, it's all take take take with them & nothing back.

Surely we could look for a nice musical for free or something more akin to there skill set.


This is a massive wind up btw, I love gays really

nozzferrahhtoo

fran17 wrote: »

marriage is a religious ceremony.

That is simply entirely false.

fran17 wrote: »

They have an extreme intolerance for religion

Show me one part of any argument I have made on this thread so far which displayed an intolerance for religion.

When you fail to do so, perhaps an honest move would be to retract your claim that the "pro gay union" are displaying it with their postings here.