VOTE NO

macker33

Ireland has been cursed because of how we carried on during the tiger years and now we risk being cursed again.

For the last 15 years all we have heard on the radio is progay nonsense from progay mouthpieces.
Anybody who says anything different to the progay friendly media push is immediately labelled a bigot by the homfacists, Its all completely one sided.

Are people so easily manipulated? Enda is an idiot who only cares about his legacy. A "first" for ireland.

Dont make christianity a criminal offence because progay and christianity cannot exist together.
Gay is a sin to christianity and christianity is a sin lo the libtards, You cant have both.
Gays have never done anything for ireland, We wouldnt even have an ireland if it wasnt for catholicism. The union jack would be flying over government buildings and not the tricolour.

Dont let your parish be a gay parish, vote no to "gay marriage"

Mod note: this OP is below the forum standards but given the large number of responses since 5.40 on a saturday morning and that the No side claim to be denied free speech, I'm simply going to warn the OP to increase the quality of his/her posts rather than simply talking about how much he/she hates the nasty liberal homosexuals. -js

macker33

macker33 wrote: »

Ireland has been cursed because of how we carried on during the tiger years and now we risk being cursed again.

For the last 15 years all we have heard on the radio is progay nonsense from progay mouthpieces.
Anybody who says anything different to the progay friendly media push is immediately labelled a bigot by the homfacists, Its all completely one sided.

Are people so easily manipulated? Enda is an idiot who only cares about his legacy. A "first" for ireland.

Dont make christianity a criminal offence because progay and christianity cannot exist together.
Gay is a sin to christianity and christianity is a sin lo the libtards, You cant have both.
Gays have never done anything for ireland, We wouldnt even have an ireland if it wasnt for catholicism. The union jack would be flying over government buildings and not the tricolour.

Dont let your parish be a gay parish, vote no to "gay marriage"

I am leaning towards voting no.

But when I read efforts like that, I then wonder. I just don't want to be guilty by association.

Lu Tze

macker33 wrote: »

Ireland has been cursed because of how we carried on during the tiger years and now we risk being cursed again.

For the last 15 years all we have heard on the radio is progay nonsense from progay mouthpieces.
Anybody who says anything different to the progay friendly media push is immediately labelled a bigot by the homfacists, Its all completely one sided.

Are people so easily manipulated? Enda is an idiot who only cares about his legacy. A "first" for ireland.

Dont make christianity a criminal offence because progay and christianity cannot exist together.
Gay is a sin to christianity and christianity is a sin lo the libtards, You cant have both.
Gays have never done anything for ireland, We wouldnt even have an ireland if it wasnt for catholicism. The union jack would be flying over government buildings and not the tricolour.

Dont let your parish be a gay parish, vote no to "gay marriage"

Catholicism lost any remaining claims to the moral high ground on any issue when it came out that the church didn't report the paedophiles in there midst to the gardai, but in fact did the opposite, concealed the abuse, and facilitated movent to other parishes to abuse again.

This is who you take your moral guidance from?

MakeEmLaugh

macker33 wrote: »

Ireland has been cursed because of how we carried on during the tiger years and now we risk being cursed again.

For the last 15 years all we have heard on the radio is progay nonsense from progay mouthpieces.
Anybody who says anything different to the progay friendly media push is immediately labelled a bigot by the homfacists, Its all completely one sided.

Are people so easily manipulated? Enda is an idiot who only cares about his legacy. A "first" for ireland.

Dont make christianity a criminal offence because progay and christianity cannot exist together.
Gay is a sin to christianity and christianity is a sin lo the libtards, You cant have both.
Gays have never done anything for ireland, We wouldnt even have an ireland if it wasnt for catholicism. The union jack would be flying over government buildings and not the tricolour.

Dont let your parish be a gay parish, vote no to "gay marriage"

Your attempt at trolling is pretty transparent.

I'm passionately pro-'Yes', but I wouldn't like to think of fellow 'Yes' supporters attempting to make the 'No' side look even stupider by pretending to be one of them on a message board.

Joeseph Balls

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

The contents of the OP is the best argument to vote yes that I've come across yet.

There are so many things wrong with your claims that I won't begin to list them, as it's obvious that anything I post would fall on deaf ears.


The one thing that I'll agree with is that I'm easily maniplulated. You've made things very clear for me now - so thanks so much for manipulating me.

Up to this I was undecided as to whether or not I'd even vote, but now I'll definitely be voting & most definitely be voting yes

I wasnt going to vote at all being honest, as it dosnt affect me (wrong attitude, I know), but the whole No Campaign has changed my mind. They are the best support for the yes vote there is imo. I'll be voting yes.

ardmacha

The OP started off OK, but lost the plot as he went on.

This is groupthink here not unlike the Celtic Tiger property market. We have the "new paradigm" which renders all previous experience irrelevant, the political system provides nobody to articulate the other side of the debate, the media have been cheerleading this all along, once again no major media organ seems to have any real ability to articulate an alternative view. Anyone who does articulate an alternative view is the subject of derisory threads, there is no respect for democratic debate. There may be merit in the proposal, but the conduct of the process leaves much to be desired.

stefanovich

Lu Tze wrote: »

Catholicism lost any remaining claims to the moral high ground on any issue when it came out that the church didn't report the paedophiles in there midst to the gardai, but in fact did the opposite, concealed the abuse, and facilitated movent to other parishes to abuse again.

This is who you take your moral guidance from?

He was talking about Christianity not the Catholic church and regardless, the actions of some within the church does not condemn the entire religion.

His main point, so terribly expressed, is that Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.

Penny Tration

Op, it's simple - we're not all Catholic. We shouldn't be forced to subscribe to YOUR imaginary friend.

Your post is absolutely vile and I hope you atone for your vile words to your god on your deathbed.

Lu Tze

ardmacha wrote: »

The OP started off OK, but lost the plot as he went on.

This is groupthink here not unlike the Celtic Tiger property market. We have the "new paradigm" which renders all previous experience irrelevant, the political system provides nobody to articulate the other side of the debate, the media have been cheerleading this all along, once again no major media organ seems to have any real ability to articulate an alternative view. Anyone who does articulate an alternative view is the subject of derisory threads, there is no respect for democratic debate. There may be merit in the proposal, but the conduct of the process leaves much to be desired.

The entire no arguement now seems to centre on think of the children, or the won't know there father, or have a father/mother figure. This is already happening, the difference being their parents could be married, whereas currently some of the don't have that option.

That said, I do hate the way the meaning of words change so easily nowadays. This probably wouldn't have been an issue if they had granted all the same rights under civil partnership in the first place

Lu Tze

stefanovich wrote: »

He was talking about Christianity not the Catholic church and regardless, the actions of some within the church does not condemn the entire religion.

His main point, so terribly expressed, is that Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible.

He does mention the catholic church specifically in his post if you want to scroll back up and re-read.

The church aren't responsible for the individuals, and their actions. They are responsible for no reporting to the guards, concealing it to protect the institution, and moving the abusers facilitating them in abusing again.

I'm not anti-relgion, but I'm also not religious. I have no issue with religious people practicing as they as they believe, so long as they aren't trying to impose their beliefs on others, and try to get their beliefs legislated for.

stefanovich

Unconventional family set ups exist for sure but I think the problem people have is the normalisation of such set ups. Biology dictates that a child will have a mother and father. I am sure a competent and loving mother and father is the ideal. Sadly this is not always they case and in this case an alternative family might be better but it doesn't mean it should be encouraged to the detriment of the ideal.

Lu Tze

stefanovich wrote: »

Unconventional family set ups exist for sure but I think the problem people have is the normalisation of such set ups. Biology dictates that a child will have a mother and father. I am sure a competent and loving mother and father is the ideal. Sadly this is not always they case and in this case an alternative family might be better but it doesn't mean it should be encouraged to the detriment of the ideal.

Adoption and other options are already there. The only difference from this child centred argument that's been put forward, is that the couple have will have the option to marry.

stefanovich

Lu Tze wrote: »

...so long as they aren't trying to impose their beliefs on others, and try to get their beliefs legislated for.

Isn't that exactly what the Yes side are trying to do?

macker33

Lu Tze wrote: »

Catholicism lost any remaining claims to the moral high ground on any issue when it came out that the church didn't report the paedophiles.

This is who you take your moral guidance from?

Paedophile priests are what happens when gays become priests, correct me if i'm wrong but most of the abuse was male on male.
Yeah, gays didnt mess things up there at all.
And now you want gays to be able to adopt, i'm not being funny but would you trust your kids with a gay, i certainly wouldnt.

macker33

Joeseph Balls wrote: »

but the whole No Campaign has changed my mind. They are the best support for the yes vote there is imo. I'll be voting yes.

I have no idea why people post stuff like this when they know nobody will buy it,
maybe you think its clever?

Joeseph Balls

macker33 wrote: »

Paedophile priests are what happens when gays become priests, correct me if i'm wrong but most of the abuse was male on male.
Yeah, gays didnt mess things up there at all.
And now you want gays to be able to adopt, i'm not being funny but would you trust your kids with a gay, i certainly wouldnt.

You should quit while you're ahead and have a few no voters still left.
Or educate yourself a bit more.

hairyslug

macker33 wrote: »

Paedophile priests are what happens when gays become priests, correct me if i'm wrong but most of the abuse was male on male.
Yeah, gays didnt mess things up there at all.
And now you want gays to be able to adopt, i'm not being funny but would you trust your kids with a gay, i certainly wouldnt.

So it's not just that you are voting no cause you don't agree with it, you are a homophobe.

macker33

ardmacha wrote: »

The OP started off OK, but lost the plot as he went on.

This is groupthink here not unlike the Celtic Tiger property market. We have the "new paradigm" there is no respect for democratic debate. There may be merit in the proposal, but the conduct of the process leaves much to be desired.

The problem is that the media has given the gayboys the middleground to the effect that anyone who disagrees appears as if they are shouting from a margin.

Less than 1% is gay yet we are made to feel like they are an overwhelming majority.
The media manipulation is not right.

Joeseph Balls

macker33 wrote: »

I have no idea why people post stuff like this when they know nobody will buy it,
maybe you think its clever?

You wonder why people post their opinion? On a discussion forum?
Em?

macker33

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Op, it's simple - we're not all Catholic. We shouldn't be forced to subscribe to YOUR imaginary friend.

Your post is absolutely vile and I hope you atone for your vile words to your god on your deathbed.

And we arent all raging homos either.
Imaginary friend? you must be one of irelands 3920 atheists, and what are you going to tell God?

Wang King

macker33 wrote: »

Paedophile priests are what happens when gays become priests, correct me if i'm wrong but most of the abuse was male on male.
Yeah, gays didnt mess things up there at all.
And now you want gays to be able to adopt, i'm not being funny but would you trust your kids with a gay, i certainly wouldnt.

I wouldn't trust you with a pet rock

macker33

stefanovich wrote: »

Unconventional family set ups exist for sure but I think the problem people have is the normalisation of such set ups. Biology dictates that a child will have a mother and father. I am sure a competent and loving mother and father is the ideal. Sadly this is not always they case and in this case an alternative family might be better but it doesn't mean it should be encouraged to the detriment of the ideal.

They gays are only thinking of themselves, children are just an attachment to their ideal fantasy.
Everything is perfect in their mind, a model family.
Except families arent perfect, things go wrong in every family, think how wrong things can get in a gay family.

And instead of admitting the blame themselves they will blame everybody else and everybody else intolerance for whatever goes wrong.

jungleman

OP, if you're a NO voter and this post is genuine then you're a laughable homophobe.

If you're a YES voter masquerading as a seriously bigoted NO voter, then you should be ashamed. Crap like this doesn't help.

macker33

Joeseph Balls wrote: »

You should quit while you're ahead and have a few no voters still left.
Or educate yourself a bit more.

male+male=gay

sodomy is not a right

gravehold

Wang King wrote: »

I wouldn't trust you with a pet rock

Not sure you can sodomise a rock, I think your rock would be safe with anyone

Wang King

macker33 wrote: »

male+male=gay

sodomy is not a right

Oh go on, give it a try, you might even like it

macker33

hairyslug wrote: »

So it's not just that you are voting no cause you don't agree with it, you are a homophobe.

No offence homonazi but insults from a sympathy addict arent really an insult

macker33

Wang King wrote: »

I wouldn't trust you with a pet rock

At least i could be trusted not to try and hump it anyway.

bee06

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am leaning towards voting no.

But when I read efforts like that, I then wonder. I just don't want to be guilty by association.

Someone said the same thing to me yesterday. The no side would have been a lot better putting forth a moderate argument than all the outrage, anger and disgust they have put forward.

coolbeans

Gave you a "thank" for the laugh You gave me and the fact you use the term "libtards". Very grown Up .

Wang King

macker33 wrote: »

At least i could be trusted not to try and hump it anyway.

Don't think you could be trusted

falan

macker33 wrote:

Are people so easily manipulated? Enda is an idiot who only cares about his legacy. A "first" for ireland.

This is the only part of your post that I agree with.

Not a NSA agent

There are plenty of countries in the middle east that let religion make the laws, Im sure you'll find them quite nice.

stefanovich wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what the Yes side are trying to do?

Yes, by voting yes couples of opposite sex will be unable to marry.

No wait, they wont.

Wang King

gravehold wrote: »

Not sure you can sodomise a rock, I think your rock would be safe with anyone

Oh, its not his sexual proclivities I'm worried about

bee06

bee06 wrote: »

Someone said the same thing to me yesterday. The no side would have been a lot better putting forth a moderate argument than all the outrage, anger and disgust they have put forward.

That's true of both sides.

One of the standard arguments online is that if you vote no you are a homophobe, to trigger the anger and disgust that that word invokes.

RiseToMe

Ironically the majority of gay parents spend literally thousands to conceive, it takes years, a lot of planning, a lot of emotional investment, a lot of time off for appointments, but they do it because they want that child together. Gay parents who choose IUI, IVF, adoption etc don't have the choice of just deciding they want a family and conceiving, like many heterosexual parents who need assistance. Gay parents are not "accidental" or "unplanned" parents, they fight for their children from the very start. I can't imagine a home where a child could be more wanted and loved and protected.

Children "need" a mother and father? We are surrounded by single mothers and some father's whose children have no contact with the other parent. These are one parent families, is the No campaign telling them all that they shouldn't be parents too?

I grew up in one parent family, no father role, on a council estate with a mother who worked every hour to keep a roof over head. 3 diplomas, a first class honours degree, bought my own house at 21 and run my own business now. I never had a father figure, yet my siblings, who are very successful and I turned out just fine.

Gay people I'm Ireland are workers, are business owners, are volunteers, firemen, garda, nurses, doctors. Gay people pay the same taxes and contribute to this country just like everybody else. Yet are told that they can't have the same rights to marry the person they love.

Vote yes, who you hold hands with on the street should not make you a less equal citizen.

coolbeans

Keep talking OP, it's all grist to the mill...for the Yes campaign. Love it.

bee06

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's true of both sides.

One of the standard arguments online is that if you vote no you are a homophobe, to trigger the anger and disgust that that word invokes.

Yeah I agree. The so called debate on both sides has been nothing but mud slinging without any real discussion. Can't wait for the whole thing to be over.

Lu Tze

stefanovich wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what the Yes side are trying to do?

What beliefs will be forced on you? If this passes, will you be forced to marry somebody of the same gender?

tayto lover

RiseToMe wrote: »

Ironically the majority of gay parents spend literally thousands to conceive, it takes years, a lot of planning, a lot of emotional investment, a lot of time off for appointments, but they do it because they want that child together. Gay parents who choose IUI, IVF, adoption etc don't have the choice of just deciding they want or family and conceiving, like many heterosexual parents who need assistance. Gay parents are not "accidental" or "unplanned" parents, they fight for their children from the very start. I can't imagine a home where a child could be more wanted and loved and protected.

Children "need" a mother and father? We are surrounded by single mothers and some father's whose children have no contact with the other parent. These are one parent families, is the No campaign telling them all that they shouldn't be parents too?

I grew up in one parent family, no father role, on a council estate with a mother who worked every hour to keep a roof over head. 3 diplomas, a first class honours degree, bought my own house at 21 and run my own business now. I never had a father figure, yet my siblings, who are very successful and I turned out just fine.

Gay people I'm Ireland are workers, are business owners, are volunteers, firemen, garda, nurses, doctors. Gay people pay the same taxes and contribute to this country just like everybody else. Yet are told that they can't have the same rights to marry the person they love.

Vote yes, who you hold hands with on the street should not make you a less equal citizen.

Very good post and well done.
I believe, however, that a child raised in a happy home with a father and mother is the ideal family. A child raised by two gays would still be much better off than a child raised by dysfunctional parents. I'll be voting "Yes".

gravehold

tayto lover wrote: »

Very good post and well done.
I believe, however, that a child raised in a happy home with a father and mother is the ideal family. A child raised by two gays would still be much better off than a child raised by dysfunctional parents. I'll be voting "Yes".

You know you will be called a homophobe for that opinion

tayto lover

gravehold wrote: »

You know you will be called a homophobe for that opinion

Funny enough I had this chat with my gay nephew and he agreed with me. A gay work colleague also agrees with me so I can't see why it would be seen a homophobic but i'll wait and see.

gravehold

tayto lover wrote: »

Funny enough I had this chat with my gay nephew and he agreed with me. A gay work colleague also agrees with me so I can't see why it would be seen a homophobic but i'll wait and see.

Using the gay friend defense tut tut

tayto lover

gravehold wrote: »

Using the gay friend defense tut tut

Defence ??

gravehold

tayto lover wrote: »

Defence ??

I have a gay friend so I can't be a homophobe, standard homophobe defense

tayto lover

gravehold wrote: »

I have a gay friend so I can't be a homophobe, standard homophobe defense

My opinion is my opinion and I don't need it defended.

gravehold

tayto lover wrote: »

My opinion is my opinion and I don't need it defended.

But to the gay lobby you do or you are a privileged homophobe, think why are a mother and fater better then a father and father you can't give one that's not homophobic can you

RiseToMe

tayto lover wrote: »

Very good post and well done.
I believe, however, that a child raised in a happy home with a father and mother is the ideal family. A child raised by two gays would still be much better off than a child raised by dysfunctional parents. I'll be voting "Yes".

I can understand the idea of the" ideal family" being preferable, but why is it seen as ideal?

The days where the father worked and the mother stayed at home are gone. If it was still a case that men worked and women had to stay at home, yes children would miss out on core values.

However, "learning how to be man or woman" was a social construct really. Women work, men work, women cook and clean, men cook and clean, women ready the kids for school and bed, so do men.

On other levels, I know men that can't do any DIY or change a wheel on their car but I know women who can do both easily. Same way as I knew women who aren't sensitive and emotional and men who can really relate to people and share their pain and cry. Note these are straight people who grew up in two parent homes.

What is the benefit of both roles in a home set up anymore when men and women are equal and share workloads and roles in society?

And if it comes back to role models, they are not just parents anymore, they are teachers, friends, family, celebrities. The world is a lot more accessible now than before when your family were your main social output before playschool, extended education, going to the cinema with friends, access to transport, TV, Internet, holidays etc.

wow sierra

macker33 wrote: »

Ireland has been cursed because of how we carried on during the tiger years and now we risk being cursed again.

For the last 15 years all we have heard on the radio is progay nonsense from progay mouthpieces.
Anybody who says anything different to the progay friendly media push is immediately labelled a bigot by the homfacists, Its all completely one sided.

Are people so easily manipulated? Enda is an idiot who only cares about his legacy. A "first" for ireland.

Dont make christianity a criminal offence because progay and christianity cannot exist together.
Gay is a sin to christianity and christianity is a sin lo the libtards, You cant have both.
Gays have never done anything for ireland, We wouldnt even have an ireland if it wasnt for catholicism. The union jack would be flying over government buildings and not the tricolour.

Dont let your parish be a gay parish, vote no to "gay marriage"

Vote how you like in the Referendum - I just want to comment on the whole Freedom V Union Jack comment.
Roger Casement - he of Banna Strand fame - google him. Or if it's too much bother he was executed for his part in the Rising, was knighted for his Human rights work, 30,000 attended his State Funeral etc etc Oh and HE WAS GAY. I think he was one of the greatest Irish men ever.

Some people think Oscar Wilde did something for our reputation in Literature too - but sure what would they know.

tayto lover

gravehold wrote: »

But to the gay lobby you do or you are a privileged homophobe, think why are a mother and fater better then a father and father you can't give one that's not homophobic can you

As I have said in other threads, I believe that in general a child born to a mother and father in a loving relationship would bond better than a child adopted by two gay men.
It's my belief. However a child adopted by two gay men would do much better than a child born into a dysfunctional family. The vast majority of single mothers/fathers raise great kids too as someone already said but there are many exceptions.
Just my opinion. I don't think there is scientific evidence to prove the matter either way though.

gravehold

RiseToMe wrote: »

I can understand the idea of the" ideal family" being preferable, but why is it seen as ideal?

The days where the father worked and the mother stayed at home are gone. If it was still a case that men worked and women had to stay at home, yes children would miss out on core values.

However, "learning how to be man or woman" was a social construct really. Women work, men work, women cook and clean, men cook and clean, women ready the kids for school and bed, so do men.

On other levels, I know men that can't do any DIY or change a wheel on their car but I know women who can do both easily. Same way as I knew women who aren't sensitive and emotional and men who can really relate to people and share their pain and cry. Note these are straight people who grew up in two parent homes.

What is the benefit of both roles in a home set up anymore when men and women are equal and share workloads and roles in society?

And if it comes back to role models, they are not just parents anymore, they are teachers, friends, family, celebrities. The world is a lot more accessible now than before when your family were your main social output before playschool, extended education, going to the cinema with friends, access to transport, TV, Internet, holidays etc.

Damm right only the homophobies think a male/female parents are better the male/male female/female or single parents