Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

oscarBravo

gravehold wrote: »

Will gay married couples adopted kids be allowed to attend rc schools, I can't see why the schools would admit them it's against the ethos and this will lead to poorer education for many kids adopted by gay couples

Yet another compelling argument for getting religion out of our schools for good. That said, offering discrimination as an argument in favour of discrimination is... an interesting tactic.

gravehold

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yet another compelling argument for getting religion out of our schools for good. That said, offering discrimination as an argument in favour of discrimination is... an interesting tactic.

But can it happen? Could kids adopted by gay couples not be allowed into rc schools which lets face it are the good schools here

timetogo

gravehold wrote: »

But can it happen? Could kids adopted by gay couples not be allowed into rc schools which lets face it are the good schools here

I don't think so

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/going_to_primary_school/types_primary_school.html

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0007.html#partii-sec7

Why do you think it could?

For a yes voter you really seem to nitpick on every possible negative tangent no matter how irrelevant.

gravehold

timetogo wrote: »

I don't think so

citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/going_to_primary_school/types_primary_school.html[/url]

irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0007.html#partii-sec7[/url]

Why do you think it could?

For a yes voter you really seem to nitpick on every possible negative tangent no matter how irrelevant.

They have to follow the Catholic ethos and two married gays go against that so the adopted kid would also be not following the ethos.

Atm kids not following the ethos don't have to be accepted into the schools ie the unbaptised.

Theh can obviously still go to the non religious schools but most are worse and hard to find in the country

eviltwin

gravehold wrote: »

They have to follow the Catholic ethos and two married gays go against that so the adopted kid would also be not following the ethos.

Atm kids not following the ethos don't have to be accepted into the schools ie the unbaptised.

Theh can obviously still go to the non religious schools but most are worse and hard to find in the country

Where do the children of gay people go to school now?

Why do they accept children of divorced couples, cohabiting couples and single parents then? Schools won't deny a place to children of gay people.

gravehold

eviltwin wrote: »

Where do the children of gay people go to school now?

Why do they accept children of divorced couples, cohabiting couples and single parents then? Schools won't deny a place to children of gay people.

Yes but they have said if this passes they will be stronger against this kinda thing, they will stop civil marriage ceremonies. I can see then not want to support gay couples adopting kids.

They could take a stance on it like they have being hinting

timetogo

gravehold wrote: »

Theh can obviously still go to the non religious schools but most are worse and hard to find in the country

Thankfully that's being resolved slowly. Its only going to get better. I've a nephew going a brilliant educate together school. They seem to be getting more and more popular, so in the future parents won't have worry about religious ethos anymore.

Also the numbers will be so small it won't be that hard to find a better school if a child of gay people is discriminated against. Can't imagine schools getting great publicity out of that.

eviltwin

gravehold wrote: »

Yes but they have said if this passes they will be stronger against this kinda thing, they will stop civil marriage ceremonies. I can see then not want to support gay couples adopting kids.

They could take a stance on it like they have being hinting

Is this a reason to vote no?

I don't think even the church would be bad enough to deny a child an education for something his or her parents do.

gravehold

timetogo wrote: »

Thankfully that's being resoveld slowly. Its only going to get better. I've a nephew going a brilliant educate together school. They seem to be getting more and more popular, so in the future parents won't have worry about religious ethos anymore.

The local one here is full of Muslim kids even though the school is non religious, the kids not mudlim get flack I imagine a kid with gay parents would get huge bulling as muslims hate that kind of thing

timetogo

gravehold wrote: »

The local one here is full of Muslim kids even though the school is non religious, the kids not mudlim get flack I imagine a kid with gay parents would get huge bulling as muslims hate that kind of thing

Well let's educate the Muslims as well as the Catholics.
Bullying is nothing to do with school admission policies though and will obviously lessen as gay marriage becomes accepted.

I don't think we would have stopped discriminating against black people or women because some ill educated people bullied people about their race or gender which would have been happening in schools too.

I think this is getting a bit off topic

gravehold

timetogo wrote: »

Well let's educate the Muslims as well as the Catholics.
Bullying is nothing to do with school admission policies though.

Yes but the non rc one here is overrun with them and they hate gays so not a nice place for a kid with two gay parents

timetogo

gravehold wrote: »

Yes but the non rc one here is overrun with them and they hate gays so not a nice place for a kid with two gay parents

So lets discriminate more??????

eviltwin

gravehold wrote: »

The local one here is full of Muslim kids even though the school is non religious, the kids not mudlim get flack I imagine a kid with gay parents would get huge bulling as muslims hate that kind of thing

gravehold wrote: »

Yes but the non rc one here is overrun with them and they hate gays so not a nice place for a kid with two gay parents

So what do you suggest? Just segregate everything and everyone along religious lines?

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

Yes but the non rc one here is overrun with them and they hate gays so not a nice place for a kid with two gay parents

Schooling has nothing to do with this referendum. Stop trying to relate separate issues! If I had kids I'd have the exact same issues as gay couples due to me allowing any future children to make up their own mind about religion and not forcing it upon them through baptism.

gravehold

traprunner wrote: »

Schooling has nothing to do with this referendum. Stop trying to relate separate issues! If I had kids I'd have the exact same issues as gay couples due to me allowing any future children to make up their own mind about religion and not forcing it upon them through baptism.

But it's a repocussion of a yes vote, we should be looking at all the things that might change when altering the constitution.

The referendum has larger ramifications then just to people having a wedding party

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

But it's a repocussion of a yes vote, we should be looking at all the things that might change when altering the constitution.

The referendum has larger ramifications then just to people having a wedding party

It is not a repercussion of a yes vote. Your reasoning defies logic. It's already an issue so it can't be a repercussion.

gravehold

traprunner wrote: »

It is not a repercussion of a yes vote. Your reasoning defies logic. It's already an issue so it can't be a repercussion.

Gay couple cannot adopt a kid atm so it's a repercussion will come once a yes passes, it won't be there if the no place passes

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

Gay couple cannot adopt a kid atm so it's a repercussion will come once a yes passes, it won't be there if the no place passes

Gay individuals can so your point is baseless.

As I already stated it will possibly be an issue for me in future. Why aren't you fighting for any potential children I have in the future. Remove your blinkers and look at the real issue. It's only one thing....allowing gay people the same right as the rest of us.

gravehold

traprunner wrote: »

Gay individuals can so your point is baseless.

As I already stated it will possibly be an issue for me in future. Why aren't you fighting for any potential children I have in the future. Remove your blinkers and look at the real issue. It's only one thing....allowing gay people the same right as the rest of us.

That doesn't matter as it's not about the referendum, we are discussing effects of a yes vote

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

That doesn't matter as it's not about the referendum, we are discussing effects of a yes vote

Then please discuss the referendum because schooling is nothing to do with it. Schooling is already an issue for many straight and gay couples.

gravehold

traprunner wrote: »

Then please discuss the referendum because schooling is nothing to do with it.

But the ramifications of a yes vote do

timetogo

Bleedin hell this has gotten pointless (which I think is the aim of some posters). Time for me to unsubscribe from this thread.

traprunner

gravehold wrote: »

But the ramifications of a yes vote do

Nope. Sorry but they don't. It's currently an issue for many straight parents and gay parents. It will not be impacted by a yes vote.

gravehold

MrWalsh wrote: »

Gravehold your horrific homophobia has seen you trying to link a variety of unrelated issues to same sex marriage repeatedly over the past week or so, in a deliberate attempt to inflame, using badly written posts and a kind of fascinating woodpecker type repetition where you simply repeat the same horse **** over and over like you're writing lines for homework or something.

It baffles me that you haven't been banned for trolling or hate speech yet, despite dozens of solid examples in recent posts.

I genuinely believe at this point that you need to see a professional because the obsessive repetitive nature of your hate filled posts suggest an individual who is not in control of any kind of rational thought.

Seek help.

My opinions havn't broke any rules.

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

My opinions havn't broke any rules.

They aren't your opinions though. They're other people's opinions and you just jumped on the bandwagon

Huntergonzo

After weeks of reading this and talking to people locally it very simply comes down to this = vote Yes if you gave a conscious, vote No if you're gullible enough to believe the lies of the Iona or Catholic institutions and or you're really just homophobic.

The vast majority of No voters I've talked to made an attempt to sound worried about children if Yes wins but when pushed most reverted to their senseless hatred of homosexuals, not all now but the vast majority did.

gravehold

sup_dude wrote: »

They aren't your opinions though. They're other people's opinions and you just jumped on the bandwagon

No rules have been broken and I am not the one attacking the poster which I think is against the rules

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

No rules have been broken and I am not the one attacking the poster which I think is against the rules

Neither am I

gravehold

sup_dude wrote: »

Neither am I

Not you the person that personally attack me not my posts

ByfocalPhoto

Huntergonzo wrote: »

After weeks of reading this and talking to people locally it very simply comes down to this = vote Yes if you gave a conscious, vote No if you're gullible enough to believe the lies of the Iona or Catholic institutions and or you're really just homophobic.

This sort of rhetoric dismays me.
Apparently Yes voters are intelligent and enlightened but no voters are homophobic unthinking bigots ?
If I was eligible to vote and if I was on the fence this sort of thinking would push to vote no.

From what I have observed the No campaign are having trouble putting forward cogent arguments but they seem to be fighting clean. Shops can safely put up signs proclaiming they are voting yes without fear of backlash. However if there is even a sniff that a business is on the no side there is a call for a boycott ( Dominos Pizza ).

No voters I know of are keeping a low profile to avoid the inevitable tirades. The Yes side need to clean up their act big time and avoid bullying people otherwise they will cede the high moral ground and lose.

Icepick

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

This sort of rhetoric dismays me.
Apparently Yes voters are intelligent and enlightened but no voters are homophobic unthinking bigots ?
If I was eligible to vote and if I was on the fence this sort of thinking would push to vote no.

thus confirming the assumption - denying human rights because you don't like someone

Ave Sodalis

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

This sort of rhetoric dismays me.
Apparently Yes voters are intelligent and enlightened but no voters are homophobic unthinking bigots ?
If I was eligible to vote and if I was on the fence this sort of thinking would push to vote no.

From what I have observed the No campaign are having trouble putting forward cogent arguments but the seem to be fighting clean. Shops can safely put up signs proclaiming they are voting yes without fear of backlash. However if there is even a sniff that a business is on the no side there is a call for a boycott ( Dominos Pizza ).

No voters I know of are keeping a low profile to avoid the inevitable tirades. The Yes side need to clean up their act big time and avoid bullying people otherwise they will cede the high moral ground and lose.

With respect, I don't think you've been looking at the arguments closely enough if you think the No side are fighting clean. Far far far from it, but they just kick up more of a fuss whenever they get called out on it.

gravehold

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

However if there is even a sniff that a business is on the no side there is a call for a boycott ( Dominos Pizza ).

thejournal.ie/dominos-not-pushing-marriage-vote-2075722-Apr2015/

Ha hadn't heard of this, woman gets a no leaflet in the post the same day a Domino's flyer was delivered calls for boycotts.

That's the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a while

Huntergonzo

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

This sort of rhetoric dismays me.
Apparently Yes voters are intelligent and enlightened but no voters are homophobic unthinking bigots ?
If I was eligible to vote and if I was on the fence this sort of thinking would push to vote no.

From what I have observed the No campaign are having trouble putting forward cogent arguments but they seem to be fighting clean. Shops can safely put up signs proclaiming they are voting yes without fear of backlash. However if there is even a sniff that a business is on the no side there is a call for a boycott ( Dominos Pizza ).

No voters I know of are keeping a low profile to avoid the inevitable tirades. The Yes side need to clean up their act big time and avoid bullying people otherwise they will cede the high moral ground and lose.

You don't need to be intelligent and enlightened (2 words I never used to describe Yes voters, you used them in an attempt to discredit) to work out that equal opportunities makes sense. In anycase most of the No voters I know are just as intelligent as I am if not more so, it just so happens that when we got past the red herring of children they showed their true colours = hatred of homosexuals, hand on heart, that is what I've observed and I don't see the harm in telling it as I've seen it.

I find it ironic that you talk about the No side fighting clean when they're the ones trying to build up fear, 'oh god what will become of humanity if 2 men raise a child'. This is of course completely irrelevant to the referendum, just an obviously dirty tactic, nothing more.

Ps I don't care what so called 'undecided' voters think of either the Yes or No side, I don't think there's many 'undecided' voters exist in a referendum like this. If it was always someone's intention to vote No then fine but claiming it was because of the Yes campaign is a cringeworthy cop out.

CramCycle

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

If I was eligible to vote and if I was on the fence this sort of thinking would push to vote no.

No ones opinion but my own decide which way I will vote, if you are on the fence, then unless something involved in the referendum and the changes it will or will not make to the constitution make up your mind, then I would stay on the fence until something does.

From what I have observed the No campaign are having trouble putting forward cogent arguments but the seem to be fighting clean. Shops can safely put up signs proclaiming they are voting yes without fear of backlash. However if there is even a sniff that a business is on the no side there is a call for a boycott ( Dominos Pizza ).

The only example of a business in this thread putting up a poster was of a shop putting up a yes poster and then getting hate mail and a threat of a brick through the window at 2 in the morning. The dominoes pizza story you refer to is a leafleting company put the two together and some nitwit on twitter didn't realise. When you get your news stories from thejournal though, I expect nothing better than random twitter rants rather than an actual story.

No voters I know of are keeping a low profile to avoid the inevitable tirades. The Yes side need to clean up their act big time and avoid bullying people otherwise they will cede the high moral ground and lose.

Unfortunately the only no voter I have conversed with who came across as fair and reasonable, in discussion terms, was on this thread. I don't agree with their readings and implications but they are the first no voter to have a fair discussion with me without retorting to name calling or childish behaviour.

If the no side had him as a speaker at least they might come across as reasonable in their behaviour.

Any time I have meet a no voter, I have just asked why. If there reasons were not related to the vote, I told them so and tried to explain why.

More often than not, I get met with a tirade of abuse about not listening or understanding and behaviour that I associate with my 1yo child but at least he can be placated and will talk to me again.

CramCycle

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I find it ironic that you talk about the No side fighting clean when they're the ones trying to build up fear, 'oh god what will become of humanity if 2 men raise a child'. This is of course completely irrelevant to the referendum, just an obviously dirty tactic, nothing more.

End of humanity you say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ervtik_7jYQ

ByfocalPhoto

sup_dude wrote: »

With respect, I don't think you've been looking at the arguments closely enough

The respect is appreciated and too often absent in these discussions.
It's not so much the arguments themselves but the venom unleashed on the opposition that worries me.
Both sides are bending truths and smoke screening.
Tying it to surrogacy ? What's that about ?

timetogo

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

From what I have observed the No campaign are having trouble putting forward cogent arguments but they seem to be fighting clean. Shops can safely put up signs proclaiming they are voting yes without fear of backlash. However if there is even a sniff that a business is on the no side there is a call for a boycott ( Dominos Pizza ).

I was thinking about this during the week. Because, we as a country haven't spoken yet the media has to give both sides 50% of airtime. This is fair enough and proper I suppose but after the referendum this'll obviously disappear. Imagine voting for the rights of black people. If it was a referendum we'd have the same rules. 50% of the time on the media must be spent on each side. I'm thinking we'll look back at this in 20 or 30 years and think it was mental. If Dominos were around and had a sign up saying Vote No to equal rights for black people they'd probably get calls for a boycott then too.

I'm not sure about the No side fighting clean. A lot of the posters are "Won't somebody think of the children" type poster. When you look into that you can see it's obviously misleading and trying to play on peoples emotions to get them to vote no. Even read back a few pages on this thread to see some of the mental posts by some people talking about being afraid of kids being bullied because they've got gay parents as if that was any kind of cogent argument at all.

The biggest arguments I've had with people are with people who have been homophobic and didn't really care about being it over the last few years. Now, suddenly theyre religious or are worried about children. My argument with them wasn't to try and get them to vote yes. I know they won't. But don't hide behind another argument because the way you think is dying out.

I'm absolutely not saying all no voters are like that. If you know people at all you will know what they think of gay people. If somebody is homophobic then just say you don't like gay people. If you're suddenly religious after not being religious all of your life and worried about the bible and you've always told me you've hated "queers" then I'll think you're probably using religion to justify your vote. If I was a church leader I'd be worried about having that kind of person associated with me.
If you are religious and live your life according to the bibles rules then I've no problem with you voting no.

ByfocalPhoto

CramCycle wrote: »

The only example of a business in this thread putting up a poster was of a shop putting up a yes poster and then getting hate mail and a threat of a brick through the window at 2 in the morning.

Very disappointing that there are undemocratic morons on both sides.

Ebay are another example, for some reason they called for a yes vote. Not quite sure what it's got to do with them.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/same-sex-marriage-tech-giant-ebay-backs-yes-vote-1.2203685

Ave Sodalis

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

The respect is appreciated and too often absent in these discussions.
It's not so much the arguments themselves but the venom unleashed on the opposition that worries me.
Both sides are bending truths and smoke screening.
Tying it to surrogacy ? What's that about ?

A quick read through the thread in AH (the original one) and you'll see where the true venom and hatred lie. Some of the things the No side have been saying have been horrendous. I'm not going to lie, whatever about what the Yes side have said, the No side have the potential to cause serious damage to the lives of gay people through what they're saying, especially younger, more vulnerable people who aren't as secure about their sexuality as some older people.
The extent of the lying also leans more heavily on the No side. The referendum has nothing to do with children and yet that is their main argument. In fact, it's rare to see a No argument that can't be refuted and it's rarer again to see a No voter who will admit the argument has been refuted.

gravehold

timetogo wrote: »

. If Dominos were around and had a sign up saying Vote No to equal rights for black people they'd probably get calls for a boycott then too.

Domino's never did anything to push a no vote, a woman got leaflets in her post box and one happened to arrive at the same time as a Domino's leaflet.

She went crazy and the liberal left went calling for boycotts when Domino's did nothing wrong. The fact you still think Domino's are in wrong is showing the bullying someone gets if the yes side get even a hint you might not vote yes.

timetogo

gravehold wrote: »

Domino's never did anything to push a no vote, a woman got leaflets in her post box and one happened to arrive at the same time as a Domino's leaflet.

She went crazy and the liberal left went calling for boycotts when Domino's did nothing wrong. The fact you still think Domino's are in wrong is showing the bullying someone gets if the yes side get even a hint you might not vote yes.

Ok, sorry about that. See I can change my mind when somebody explains something to me. Something many posters can't seem to do and just keep repeating the same old tired rubbish again and again and again. Don't want to attack any poster. You know who you are
I was just reading the posts above about Dominos where somebody said they had posted about voting no. You know the post by ByfocalPhoto saying Dominos had put up No posters and the post that you thanked. If it was incorrect you probably shoudn't have thanked it.

And then, unlike some posters, I'll address your second point. For your second paragraph. Can you explain (in detail) how anything I said had anything to do with bullying.

ByfocalPhoto

Icepick wrote: »

thus confirming the assumption - denying human rights because you don't like someone

I am neither a yes or no voter but after this reply if I have any more suggestions as to how the Yes campaign might be more effective I will keep them to myself.

gravehold

timetogo wrote: »

Ok, sorry about that. See I can change my mind when somebody explains something to me. I was just reading the posts above about Dominos.

For your second paragraph. Can you explain (in detail) how anything I said was bullying.

Not you but the yes side in general

facebook.com/DominosIreland/posts/10152725345091671?fref=nf

Read through those comments from the yes side even after Domino's said it was nothing to do with them.

If the yes side get a wiff of not going to vote yes they are all over them justified or not

timetogo

First post replying to me.

gravehold wrote: »

The fact you ....

Second post.

gravehold wrote: »

Not you but the yes side in general

Can ya see where I got confused.

gravehold

timetogo wrote: »

First post replying to me.


Second post.


Can ya see where I got confused.

That fact you still believed Domino's did wrong and deserved a boycott was what I was saying was bad

wexfordman2

gravehold wrote: »

They have to follow the Catholic ethos and two married gays go against that so the adopted kid would also be not following the ethos.

Atm kids not following the ethos don't have to be accepted into the schools ie the unbaptised.

Theh can obviously still go to the non religious schools but most are worse and hard to find in the country

Are kids from single or unmarried parenta allowed into rc schools, seeing as that goes against rc teaching ?

timetogo

gravehold wrote: »

That fact you still believed Domino's did wrong and deserved a boycott was what I was saying was bad

You should really read the posts a bit better before replying. I didn't say I believed that Dominos did wrong or deserved a boycott.

Now you've told me they didn't put up a poster. Grand. If they did or not that's their right. It's also peoples right spend their money wherever they want. I wouldn't be marching or calling for a boycott. I just wouldn't use their services anymore. I'm sure anybody else could do the same. They might get more business from people who agreed with them.

timetogo

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Are kids from single or unmarried parenta allowed into rc schools, seeing as that goes against rc teaching ?

Or divorced.

gravehold

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Are kids from single or unmarried parenta allowed into rc schools, seeing as that goes against rc teaching ?

The chruch has said they will step up enforce their beliefs more if it passes

thejournal.ie/eamon-martin-same-sex-marriage-2083383-May2015/