How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

One eyed Jack

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Gays more suitable than mother and fathers now? Right, cute .

You do understand that gay and lesbian mothers and fathers already exist in Ireland, right?

Looking forward to the class actions the gays will bring , if there seems a "disproportionate" amount of adoptions favouring married hetrosexual couples.

There's no class action system in Ireland. Each case would be dealt with on an individual basis, and even then, I'm not sure how a civil suit would address any concerns about disproportionate amounts of adoptions favouring anyone? The criteria under which a couple, or even an individual are assessed for suitability for adoption are much broader and more in-depth than simply the person's gender, sex, or sexual orientation.

I am sure the argument about "more suitable people" will be ignored then.

The only people ignoring any criteria other than the person's gender, sex, or sexual orientation when discussing the issue of adoption. There are many more criteria on which a couple are assessed for their suitability to adopt children. As I have already pointed out previously, the 2010 legislation prohibited unmarried couples from applying as a couple regardless of their sex, gender or sexual orientation. They could always apply individually.

Maximus Alexander

gravehold wrote: »

New one is not in force yet that is current one and in the future the new one can be reverted.

Irrelevant.

It's been signed into law, so it will be in force shortly. No matter what, the new one can be altered in the future. I don't know why I'm bothering.

(I also don't know why we're making things giant)

Lt J.R. Bell

smash wrote: »

Again, this is untrue.

When you educate yourself with what Article 41 and 42 says, come back to us.

Of perhaps spell out what is "untrue". Saying something without standing your ground doesn't really wash

Children play a huge role in most Marriages. Children are indirectly an issue when we talk about marriage. There are rights that married couples have, regarding children, that unmarried couples, do not enjoy automatically

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

New one is not in force yet that is current one and in the future the new one can be reverted.

Oh for god sake, its been passed, it is going to be law.

Yes and in the future my aunty can have a sex change and be my uncle, but if you vote based on if's and maybe's you are a moron.

Zubeneschamali

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Why do gays, clearly feel that hetrosexual couples are not more suitable to raising children?

They believe the evidence, which says heterosexual couples are not more suitable to raising children.

humanji

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

This notion of second class citizens and being inferior is self inflicted

Same could be said about fathers and their rights. I mean, they're clearly not equal to women when raising children, right...?

Bannasidhe

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Face, it, even if they come out with an arguable case, which you won't agree with anyway, you are dying to shout; hater, homophobe etc and play the victim .

Ironic comment is ironic.

Since that was aimed at me either demonstrate where I have called someone 'hater, homophobe etc' or withdraw your insulting hyperbole.

You might also answer the question.

I'll even rephrase it to make it easier:

What harm do you believe only gay parents (adoptive or biological) will do to children that renders them, en mass, unsuitable?

jobbridge4life

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Why is there an obsession with refusing to accept that Gays are different to hetrosexaul couples, and they both play different roles in society? Why can't ye just accept that ? There is no shame in it. How is engineering society going to make them feel more warm and fuzzy inside? Why do gays, clearly feel that hetrosexual couples are not more suitable to raising children? This notion of second class citizens and being inferior is self inflicted

This paragraph does not make the remotest element of sense and contradicts itself. One the one hand you claim that the notion of second class citizen status/being inferior is self inflicted but in the preceding sentences you ask why can't gay people accept their different position in society and that heterosexual couples are superior in raising children (a completely unsubstantiated claim). You can't even make sense to yourself.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Let us face it, the minute anyone says that they really think (even if it actually undermines their arguments), they get banned from these sites. Free Speech is only allowed so long as it suits certain people's agendas


Face, it, even if they come out with an arguable case, which you won't agree with anyway, you are dying to shout; hater, homophobe etc and play the victim .

Says the individual who in the preceding paragraph claimed that they are being silenced by some conspiracy to prevent people from speaking. LoLgasm.

TwoShedsJackson

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What harm do you believe only gay parents (adoptive or biological) will do to children that renders them, en mass, unsuitable?

I don't think any of them are just going to come out with what's festering at the back of their minds: they think a gay couple are more likely to be paedophiles and/or will turn the child gay, as if that was even possible.

Come on, surely one of you can just come out and say it?

Zubeneschamali

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Saying something without standing your ground doesn't really wash

Interesting phrasing there:

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm afraid, standing back from the issue with a nice soundbite doesn't wash.

smash

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

When you educate yourself with what Article 41 and 42 says, come back to us.

I already have thanks.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Of perhaps spell out what is "untrue". Saying something without standing your ground doesn't really wash

your post is untrue "Some of the issues may not affect childless couples, but do affect those that do have children, the majority." that's a blatant lie.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Children play a huge role in most Marriages. Children are indirectly an issue when we talk about marriage.

Only an issue if they exist within a marriage.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

There are rights that married couples have, regarding children, that unmarried couples, do not enjoy automatically

So what's your point?

gravehold

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

I don't think any of them are just going to come out with what's festering at the back of their minds: they think a gay couple are more likely to be paedophiles and/or will turn the child gay, as if that was even possible.

Come on, surely one of you can just come out and say it?

I'll admit modern family has given me cause to think gay adoption might be bad, I know it's a show but shows a horrible place for a child to get adopted into I would hope real life gay couple wouldn't be anything like that.

Sofiztikated

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Why do gays, clearly feel that hetrosexual couples are not more suitable to raising children? This notion of second class citizens and being inferior is self inflicted

What exactly is it that you think a hetero couple does to a child, that a homo couple can do to a child?

And by the by, I can think of loads of hetero couples that, I think, should have no business having children, BUT, I wouldn't deny them A) the right to have children, and providing the same protection to them, under the constitution, if they are married.

Lt J.R. Bell

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You do understand that gay and lesbian mothers and fathers already exist in Ireland, right?

no **** sherlock , get away

From what I recall their children were born from a previous hetrosexual relationship.

Nice way to try and cause diversions. "mother and father" clearly meant as one unit

Don't think Tom and Harry could be considered "mother and father"

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's no class action system in Ireland. Each case would be dealt with on an individual basis,

I beg your pardon, you are right about "class action". What I should have said was a group of affected individuals (affected by decisions) pooling together resources and initiating a case together , fighting for their own "rights".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and even then, I'm not sure how a civil suit would address any concerns about disproportionate amounts of adoptions favouring anyone? The criteria under which a couple, or even an individual are assessed for suitability for adoption are much broader and more in-depth than simply the person's gender, sex, or sexual orientation.

Hey doesn't stop them classing themselves as Second Class Citizens :rolleyes:No doubt someone would try it

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The only people ignoring any criteria other than the person's gender, sex, or sexual orientation when discussing the issue of adoption. There are many more criteria on which a couple are assessed for their suitability to adopt children. As I have already pointed out previously, the 2010 legislation prohibited unmarried couples from applying as a couple regardless of their sex, gender or sexual orientation. They could always apply individually.

And, what are the results so far, which class of families are getting better results ?

Not a NSA agent

humanji wrote: »

Same could be said about fathers and their rights. I mean, they're clearly not equal to women when raising children, right...?

Fathers arent even mentioned, its all about the importance of mothers in the home. The men are there to just pay the bills. I would vote yes to changing the constitution to value both mothers and fathers but until some other group are sorted I will vote no. Cant have them skipping the queue can we.

Maximus Alexander

gravehold wrote: »

I'll admit modern family has given me cause to think gay adoption might be bad, I know it's a show but shows a horrible place for a child to get adopted into I would hope real life gay couple wouldn't be anything like that.

I know what you mean. I watched Breaking Bad and ever since I'm convinced that neither school teachers, nor cancer sufferers should be allowed to have kids.

eviltwin

gravehold wrote: »

I'll admit modern family has given me cause to think gay adoption might be bad, I know it's a show but shows a horrible place for a child to get adopted into I would hope real life gay couple wouldn't be anything like that.

All this because of a piece of fictional television?? Wow.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Interesting phrasing there:

If you're suggesting we're the same poster, I'm afraid that doesn't wash.

Lt J.R. Bell

Sofiztikated wrote: »

What exactly is it that you think a hetero couple does to a child, that a homo couple can do to a child?

And by the by, I can think of loads of hetero couples that, I think, should have no business having children, BUT, I wouldn't deny them A) the right to have children, and providing the same protection to them, under the constitution, if they are married.

Your "loads" of examples are without a shadow of a doubt a serious minority of cases. How does that in any way support the argument for gays. If a hetrosexual couple are unfit to raise their child, the State shall intervene. No reason that the child could not be given a adopted mother and father

Bannasidhe

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

no **** sherlock , get away

From what I recall their children were born from a previous hetrosexual relationship.

You recall incorrectly.

Never had a heterosexual relationship yet here I am, a biological mother and grandmother.

And I'm far from being the only one.

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you.


What harm do you believe only gay parents (adoptive or biological) will do to children that renders them, en mass, unsuitable?

gravehold

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I know what you mean. I watched Breaking Bad and ever since I'm convinced that neither school teachers, nor cancer sufferers should be allowed to have kids.

I am pretty sure breaking bad is not trying to paint the meth dealer in a good light as a parent. I said I know it's a show but it if this gay propaganda of a good outcome of a gay couple adopting it really gives me pause. I know I shouldn't let propaganda effect me but that family is so bad while it's meant to be a good thing

Ave Sodalis

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Your "loads" of examples are without a shadow of a doubt a serious minority of cases. How does that in any way support the argument for gays. If a hetrosexual couple are unfit to raise their child, the State shall intervene. No reason that the child could not be given a adopted mother and father

No reason that the child could not be given an adopted father and father, or mother and mother.

endacl

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Your "loads" of examples are without a shadow of a doubt a serious minority of cases. How does that in any way support the argument for gays. If a hetrosexual couple are unfit to raise their child, the State shall intervene. No reason that the child could not be given a adopted mother and father

OK.

And..... <ignore>.

There. That's better.

Lt J.R. Bell

Hyzepher wrote: »

Your issue has more to do with the spouse of a woman who has had a child with a man than it has to do whether that spouse is gay or not

Eh, no. The issue is the importance of the a child being raised by a hetrosexual couple , ideally the biological parent as oppose to new "father" . Now, even people of the same sex as the mother will be stepping ahead of the biological father , more people, more problems

Sofiztikated

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Your "loads" of examples are without a shadow of a doubt a serious minority of cases. How does that in any way support the argument for gays. If a hetrosexual couple are unfit to raise their child, the State shall intervene. No reason that the child could not be given a adopted mother and father

Do you have to buy special shoes for all that dodging?

Bannasidhe

gravehold wrote: »

I am pretty sure breaking bad is not trying to paint the meth dealer in a good light as a parent. I said I know it's a show but it if this gay propaganda of a good outcome of a gay couple adopting it really gives me pause. I know I shouldn't let propaganda effect me but that family is so bad while it's meant to be a good thing

Absolutely.

That old guy who used to sell shoes is a terrible step-father.
Ban old guys marrying younger women with children!

Lt J.R. Bell

endacl wrote: »

OK.

And..... <ignore>.

There. That's better.

Good Man, / Women incapable of facing facts . Put the hands over the eyes and ears and scream na na na na na

A bit like the gays argument for marriage , so

seamus

gravehold wrote: »

I said I know it's a show but it if this gay propaganda of a good outcome of a gay couple adopting it really gives me pause. I know I shouldn't let propaganda effect me but that family is so bad while it's meant to be a good thing

Why is it propaganda? It's a comedy show. And by design shows distorts everyday situations into farcical ones for comedic effect.

You may as well say that Friends makes you think about whether extra marital sex should really be legal at all.

Or that Father Ted provides evidence that religion should be outlawed.

Zubeneschamali

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If you're suggesting we're the same poster, I'm afraid that doesn't wash.

A non-denial denial.

Lt J.R. Bell

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Do you have to buy special shoes for all that dodging?

What dodging would that be?

Bannasidhe

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Eh, no. The issue is the importance of the a child being raised by a hetrosexual couple , ideally the biological parent as oppose to new "father" . Now, even people of the same sex as the mother will be stepping ahead of the biological father , more people, more problems

What harm do you believe only gay parents (adoptive or biological) will do to children that renders them, en mass, unsuitable?

jobbridge4life

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Good Man, / Women incapable of facing facts . Put the hands over the eyes and ears and scream na na na na na

A bit like the gays argument for marriage , so

'the gays'... You realise quite a number of those arguing for marriage access for same-sex couples are straight.

More utter nonsense.

Maximus Alexander

gravehold wrote: »

I am pretty sure breaking bad is not trying to paint the meth dealer in a good light as a parent. I said I know it's a show but it if this gay propaganda of a good outcome of a gay couple adopting it really gives me pause. I know I shouldn't let propaganda effect me but that family is so bad while it's meant to be a good thing

What are you talking about? Breaking Bad was blatant propaganda from the Terminal Cancer Schoolteacher Association of America. Their entire agenda was to try and paint themselves as people who would do anything to ensure the financial security of their families, but they ended up making themselves look like terrible parents in my view.

gravehold

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Absolutely.

That old guy who used to sell shoes is a terrible step-father.
Ban old guys marrying younger women with children!

Actually that family is prefectly good. Jay is a fine stepfather.

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What harm do you believe only gay parents (adoptive or biological) will do to children that renders them, en mass, unsuitable?

Show tunes. If we're talking 'en mass', then I have to pick a stereotype. Show tunes it is.

smash

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Good Man, / Women incapable of facing facts . Put the hands over the eyes and ears and scream na na na na na

You haven't brought facts to any argument. Just your twisted view of society and your made up interpretation of our constitution.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

A bit like the gays argument for marriage , so

I really wish you'd stop this...

Bannasidhe

gravehold wrote: »

Actually that family is prefectly good. Jay is a fine stepfather.

I disgree, AND why about Peggy and his other kids eh???
Dead beat Dad :mad:

Sofiztikated

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

What dodging would that be?

Sofiztikated wrote: »

What exactly is it that you think a hetero couple does to a child, that a homo couple can do to a child?

And by the by, I can think of loads of hetero couples that, I think, should have no business having children, BUT, I wouldn't deny them A) the right to have children, and providing the same protection to them, under the constitution, if they are married.

I neatly bolded the bits you dodged. Because you had difficulty.

Zubeneschamali

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

What are you talking about? Breaking Bad was blatant propaganda from the Terminal Cancer Schoolteacher Association of America.

Actually, I think it was deep cover propaganda for Obamacare.

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

There is no right to marry someone of the same sex.

@frostyjacks: Yes, you are correct in that assertion.

Like Tom for the NO Side mentioned at the Wynnes Hotel debate last week about marriage rights, there was an international meeting in Paris in 1948 about human rights, the international Human Rights Act of the United Nations. Tom mentioned it in how existing rights came about; debate and decision making. Peculiarly enough, what he apparently failed to see was that while the meeting was about extending existing rights, and laying down new rights and the laws/rules about recognizing all of them, IT WAS ALSO THAT THE RIGHTS WOULD BE OPEN TO ALL THE PEOPLE.

Without that debate, the UN Declaration on Human Rights would not have decided upon and put out as the standard we all should judge ourselves by. There would have been NO extension of basic human rights.

This debate ongoing here, and elsewhere, in our country, is about extending existing civil marriage rights here to a part of our society presently disbarred from those marriage rights. If you vote no, while you are using your vote franchise the way you choose to, you are continuing the denial of an existing civil right to a part of the society you live in.

Let anyone who think's civil marriage is NOT a basic civil right step forward and make a coherent case for their point of view, and not merely write "because it say's so in our constitution". The argument of the Vote Yes side is that the right to civilly marry here should be extended to same sex couples as an Irish civil right. That in itself (IMO) is a self sufficient case in itself.

Look at the person beside you and ask yourself this - Do I have a human right to say to that person "no, you are not entitled to the same civil right to marry that other people here have, that of a free choice to whom you can civilly marry". That (IMO) is what you will do if you vote NO on the 22nd. Regardless of how you see the result of your No vote, that is the end result of your vote.

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

I am pretty sure breaking bad is not trying to paint the meth dealer in a good light as a parent. I said I know it's a show but it if this gay propaganda of a good outcome of a gay couple adopting it really gives me pause. I know I shouldn't let propaganda effect me but that family is so bad while it's meant to be a good thing

You dont understand Breaking Bad at all. The original point is that Walt was trying to be a good parent and father by preventing his wife and children from being left crippled with medical bills debt after his death. He got into it FOR his family.

The heterosexual couples in modern family are hardly good role models either. But this is all completely irrelevant to a real life Irish referendum.

endacl

smash wrote: »

I really wish you'd stop this...

Hit the ignore button. Just in case stupid is contagious.

gravehold

seamus wrote: »

Why is it propaganda? It's a comedy show. And by design shows distorts everyday situations into farcical ones for comedic effect.

You may as well say that Friends makes you think about whether extra marital sex should really be legal at all.

Or that Father Ted provides evidence that religion should be outlawed.

Are you saying the cast of friends where sluts there wasn't a huge amount of sex on that show. And modern family whole premise is propaganda that the normal family is not needed but that gay family is god awful, why do the other families on the show come out ok

Lt J.R. Bell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Interesting phrasing there:

A bit like saying "gays are second class citizens because they can't marry"

Unless you can prove (should not be hard actually) the insinuation that you are making, I suggest to stop and get back to the issues

Bannasidhe

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

A bit like saying "gays are second class citizens because they can't marry"

Unless you can prove (should not be hard actually) the insinuation that you are making, I suggest to stop and get back to the issues

What harm do you believe only gay parents (adoptive or biological) will do to children that renders them, en mass, unsuitable?

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

Are you saying the cast of friends where sluts there wasn't a huge amount of sex on that show. And modern family whole premise is propaganda that the normal family is not needed but that gay family is god awful, why do the other families on the show come out ok

What harm do you believe only gay parents (adoptive or biological) will do to children that renders them, en mass, unsuitable?

Lt J.R. Bell

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What harm do you believe only gay parents (adoptive or biological) will do to children that renders them, en mass, unsuitable?

A child's best interest , when available, is to have the care and company of a mother and a father, who are perfectly capable of providing the love etc required

seamus

gravehold wrote: »

Are you saying the cast of friends where sluts there wasn't a huge amount of sex on that show.

:eek:

Isn't it funny how you only see what you want to see?

MrWalsh

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

A child's best interest , when available, is to have the care and company of a mother and a father, who are perfectly capable of providing the love etc required

That doesnt answer the question.

What harm do you believe only gay parents (adoptive or biological) will do to children that renders them, en mass, unsuitable?

seamus

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

A child's best interest , when available, is to have the care and company of a mother and a father, who are perfectly capable of providing the love etc required

Prove it.