Claire Byrne Live (RTE1)

United Chester Men

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Are you for real.

A few studies - change our constitution.
Every study - has another study to disprove a study.

The yes side hasn't explained what is wrong with a civil partnership with any rights they want.

I feel they are just trying to make a point - and in doing so, undermining their cause.

Total daftness to try achieve equality in the traditional family definition.

They think they can change everything for their cause - and have exposed themselves as snooty - contemptuous and demanding and very intolerant to challenge.

I've lost a lot of respect for the movement. But - it doesn't matter , they don't care about anyone or their views as anyone else is , "old fashioned" "bigoted" "intellectually weak".

A strange gang.

This post ends any more debate with you for me! If you honestly think that this legal milestone is about "making a point".... and you think it is daft that society and the meaning of a family has changed since a hastily drafted document 100 years ago was enacted into law and that their is no difference between a civil partnership and marriage I can't contend with it any more.

Go out Vote No. And we, the strange gang will try our earnest not to change the way you want to live by voting Yes.

And yes, the traditional family mantra is old fashioned because, hey, society has changed and a family is anything from a single mum with her kids, to an unmarried couple with (or without kids) to a same sex couple, to a single father to a same sex couple with kids from former marriages to a foster family. But these are all inclusive to and have taken nothing away from your traditional family arrangement of MAN and WOMAN and CHILD.

So yeah, it is old fashioned because it is old fashioned. Fashion changes. So does society. Live with it.

FixdePitchmark

efb wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

FixdePitchmark

United Chester Men wrote: »

This post ends any more debate with you for me! If you honestly think that this legal milestone is about "making a point".... and you think it is daft that society and the meaning of a family has changed since a hastily drafted document 100 years ago was enacted into law and that their is no difference between a civil partnership and marriage I can't contend with it any more.

Go out Vote No. And we, the strange gang will try our earnest not to change the way you want to live by voting Yes.

And yes, the traditional family mantra is old fashioned because, hey, society has changed and a family is anything from a single mum with her kids, to an unmarried couple with (or without kids) to a same sex couple, to a single father to a same sex couple with kids from former marriages to a foster family. But these are all inclusive to and have taken nothing away from your traditional family arrangement of MAN and WOMAN and CHILD.

So yeah, it is old fashioned because it is old fashioned. Fashion changes. So does society. Live with it.

Yes well live with the fact - we all don't have to change everything for a fad.

efb

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

this certainly isn't getting old, but if it was you might prefer it

Mr.Nice Guy

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

But - don't try redefine marriage - family - procreation - sacraments - society.

Crazy stuff.

Why is it crazy? What exactly are you afraid might happen?

FixdePitchmark

efb wrote: »

this certainly isn't getting old, but if it was you might prefer it

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You started with it

efb

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You started with it

Oh, reminds me or a discussion with my 4 year old nephew...

FixdePitchmark

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Why is it crazy? What exactly are you afraid might happen?

A flawed inclusion into a countries constitution.

It is not about "love".

It is not a reason to include a flawed modification.

FixdePitchmark

efb wrote: »

Oh, reminds me or a discussion with my 4 year old nephew...

Well don't use :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

In future so.

United Chester Men

efb wrote: »

Oh, reminds me or a discussion with my 4 year old nephew...

Those damn YES advocates, always bring the children into it ye do........................

efb

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Well don't use :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

In future so.

Your argument was beyond ridiculous. It summed it up perfectly for me.

efb

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

A flawed inclusion into a countries constitution.

It is not about "love".

It is not a reason to include a flawed modification.

in your opinion.

FixdePitchmark

Anyway - goodnight.

Yes gang deserve a good kicking after such a campaign.

But - ignorance of what this flawed amendment is about will result in a yes.

"love is all you need" - non bigoted idiots.

FixdePitchmark

efb wrote: »

Your argument was beyond ridiculous. It summed it up perfectly for me.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

efb

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Yes well live with the fact - we all don't have to change everything for a fad.

This homosexual "fad" predates Christianity

efb

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Anyway - goodnight.

Yes gang deserve a good kicking after such a campaign.

But - ignorance of what this flawed amendment is about will result in a yes.

"love is all you need" - non bigoted idiots.

are you threatening violence???? or endorsing it?

FixdePitchmark

efb wrote: »

This homosexual "fad" predates Christianity

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

efb

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes it does. :eek:

FixdePitchmark

efb wrote: »

Yes it does. :eek:

Jaysus - 27,000 posts , your still using rolleyes.

If you can't debate - head off.

Then your going on about violence :eek:

All about the love.

Mr.Nice Guy

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

A flawed inclusion into a countries constitution.

It is not about "love".

It is not a reason to include a flawed modification.

They seem to be rather hollow reasons to vote against allowing gay people the right to get married like their fellow citizens.

You are entitled to your view but I hope you reconsider. Ask yourself how you'd feel if one day you had a son or daughter who was gay and wanted to get married. Remember there are real people involved in this and counting on the outcome.

efb

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Jaysus - 27,000 posts , your still using rolleyes.

If you can't debate - head off.

Then your going on about violence :eek:

All about the love.

If I can't debate, what does it say for you bringing in non sequiturs such as sacraments into Civil Marriage discussion...

And referring to homosexual unions as a "fad"

United Chester Men

Christ, and here was I thinking the No advocates weren't that endearing................. "all about the love"?????, "sacraments", "housing lists", "traditional family", "wanting everything".................... Heard it all tonight! And then questioning other peoples debate methods............. If it wasn't such a serious topic it would be funny

efb

United Chester Men wrote: »

Christ, and here was I thinking the No advocates weren't that endearing................. "all about the love"?????, "sacraments", "housing lists", "traditional family", "wanting everything".................... Heard it all tonight! And then questioning other peoples debate methods............. If it wasn't such a serious topic it would be funny

His argument was so ridiculous I thought he was attempting at humour!

efb

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Jaysus - 27,000 posts , your still using rolleyes.

If you can't debate - head off.

Then your going on about violence :eek:

All about the love.

I genuinely can't remember the time previous to that I used it, but that post's sheer ridiculousness called for them!

Mr.Nice Guy

I'm worried about this referendum passing tbh. I think there will be a lot of people who will tell the pollsters one thing but do something very different inside the polling booth.

FixdePitchmark

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

They seem to be rather hollow reasons to vote against allowing gay people the right to get married like their fellow citizens.

You are entitled to your view but I hope you reconsider. Ask yourself how you'd feel if one day you had a son or daughter who was gay and wanted to get married. Remember there are real people involved in this and counting on the outcome.

I'd say - Son , don't give into popular flawed fads. Be right when you are right - stay by what is right.

you came from a Mum and Dad, don't worry, it was the norm once. We decided to form a family and made every sacrifice possible for you, when family was considered uncool and a bit bigoted and un-intellectual and weak.

There is a civil partnership - I fought for that to be equal to marriage - but (cough cough ) we all know two men can't have kids. I know in 2015 they tried to say they could - "I know""you know - the bad days", you know, it was a daft moment that undermined the true needs and put the movement back 20 years,

Son - " what were they thinking".
Dad - " I guess if you are repressed for too long, you lose sight of - of what do we want, we want to be the same"
Son " But - Dad, we have a great family - I know me and Leo can't have kids - we love each other as much as you and Ma, you two love us , but - we are not the same as the family we had"
Dad " I know - this family is different, but we support you in everything you do"
Son " Thanks Dad"
Son " You know we are applying for adoption"
Dad " Lucky little ****er - you'll make great parents" - " Well your ma will help with the girl stuff"
Son " Dad I ****ing love you"
Dad " **** off you queer - lol"
Son " You biggot "
Dad " Don't bleeding start"


Anyway - this idea we can be all equal is daft.

But we can still treat people equally.

efb

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I'm worried about this referendum passing tbh. I think there will be a lot of people who will tell the pollsters one thing but do something very different inside the polling booth.

The only poll that matters is on May 22

United Chester Men

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I'd say - Son , don't give into popular flawed fads. Be right when you are right - stay by what is right.

you came from a Mum and Dad, don't worry, it was the norm once. We decided to form a family and made every sacrifice possible for you, when family was considered uncool and a bit bigoted and un-intellectual and weak.

There is a civil partnership - I fought for that to be equal to marriage - but (cough cough ) we all know two men can't have kids. I know in 2015 they tried to say they could - "I know""you know - the bad days", you know, it was a daft moment that undermined the true needs and put the movement back 20 years,

Dad - " what were they thinking".
Me - " I guess if you are repressed for too long, you lose sight of - of what do we want, we want to be the same"
Son " But - Dad we have a great family - I know me and leo can't have kids - we love each other , you love us , but we are not the same as the family you had"
Dad " I know - this family is different, but we support you in everything you do"
Son " Thanks Dad"
Son " You know we are applying for adoption"
Dad " Lucky little ****er - you'll make great parents" - " Well your ma will help with the girl stuff"
Son " Dad I ****ing love you"
Dad " **** off you queer - lol"
Son " You biggot "
Dad " Don't bleeding start"


Anyway - this idea we can be all equal is daft.

But we can still treat people equally.

You are one of these people who laughs at his own attempts at "jokes" it would appear. A great spokesman for whatever exactly you believe in..............

efb

United Chester Men wrote: »

You are one of these people who laughs at his own attempts at "jokes" it would appear. A great spokesman for whatever exactly you believe in..............

tldr- what was the jist?

United Chester Men

efb wrote: »

tldr- what was the jist?

I genuinely haven't a clue. I actually think the guy is trolling at this stage t get a reaction.