VOTE NO

Penny Tration

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 are a vile, disgusting little excuse for a human.

Joeseph Balls

wow sierra wrote: »

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.

He probably knew the difference between a Union Jack and a Union Flag, unlike the OP.

Guy:Incognito

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.

If you were voting no to interracial marriage, would you be a racist?

RiseToMe

tayto lover wrote: »

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.

But a baby when born is incapable of doing anything for themselves. They rely on their parents to do everything. The people that get up with them at 3am, feed them, burp them, change them. The people who's voice they know, whose smell they learn, who they cry for when they wake up doesn't matter to them. That's when bonds form.

A baby isn't born with any conception of right and wrong, of gay and straight, they learn and develop that. Just like the learn and develop that these two parents, whatever their gender, are the people who love them and care for them.

I can see all your points BTW and I understand where they come from, I just don't agree and so will continue to ask questions as I am genuinely interested.

tayto lover

RiseToMe wrote: »

But a baby when born is incapable of doing anything for themselves. They rely on their parents to do everything. The people that get up with them at 3am, feed them, burp them, change them. The people who's voice they know, whose smell they learn, who they cry for when they wake up doesn't matter to them. That's when bonds form.

A baby isn't born with any conception of right and wrong, of gay and straight, they learn and develop that. Just like the learn and develop that these two parents, whatever they're gender, are the people who love them and care for them.

I can see all your points BTW and I understand where they come from, I just don't agree and so will continue to ask questions as I am genuinely interested.

I think bonding starts in the womb. That a child can hear familiar/caring voices and gets used to them. A child who is adopted after a month or more does not have that experience. Just like when a new-born lamb can find it's own mother in a field of sheep by smell, sound etc.

RiseToMe

tayto lover wrote: »

I think bonding starts in the womb. That a child can hear familiar/caring voices and gets used to them. A child who is adopted after a month or more does not have that experience. Just like when a new-born lamb can find it's own mother in a field of sheep by smell, sound etc.

So in your opinion, a lesbian couple who opt for IUI or IVF are just as good as parents as a heterosexual couple as they carry the child? It's just gay men that aren't as "suitable"?

gravehold

tayto lover wrote: »

I think bonding starts in the womb. That a child can hear familiar/caring voices and gets used to them. A child who is adopted after a month or more does not have that experience. Just like when a new-born lamb can find it's own mother in a field of sheep by smell, sound etc.

Wow homophobic much

Not a NSA agent

tayto lover wrote: »

I think bonding starts in the womb. That a child can hear familiar/caring voices and gets used to them. A child who is adopted after a month or more does not have that experience. Just like when a new-born lamb can find it's own mother in a field of sheep by smell, sound etc.

If a child isn't with their biological parents then there's a reason for it. Its not like we just take children away while the mother is asleep (not anymore anyway)

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If you were voting no to interracial marriage, would you be a racist?

Ha ha ha!

Someone catch this fellow and pull him out of the barrel, evidently he is near the bottom of it.

Is it the worst point made yet? All opposition to stuff and things is the same?

tayto lover

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

If a child isn't with their biological parents then there's a reason for it. Its not like we just take children away while the mother is asleep (not anymore anyway)

Never said that.

Guy:Incognito

tayto lover wrote: »

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.

The only problem with all of that is that its completely irrelevant to the referendum. Its not an either or. Same sex couples aren't taking kids away from their homes (married mother and father homes or any other). The kids either wouldn't exists otherwise or would be in foster homes.

and in the same way your post is irrelevant, so is my paragraph above, because all the referendum is about is allowing 2 men or 2 women to marry each other. They may already have kids, they may plan to have kids, they may never want kids. It doesnt matter. They can do all the having kids/not having kids stuff already , all that changes is they can marry each other. Same as me and my girlfriend who have been together 15 years and may, at some point in the future decide to get married, the gay couple down the road should have the same choice.

tayto lover

RiseToMe wrote: »

So in your opinion, a lesbian couple who opt for IUI or IVF are just as good as parents as a heterosexual couple as they carry the child? It's just gay men that aren't as "suitable"?

I was discussing the bonding issue.

tayto lover

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The only problem with all of that is that its completely irrelevant to the referendum. Its not an either or. Same sex couples aren't taking kids away from their homes (married mother and father homes or any other). The kids either wouldn't exists otherwise or would be in foster homes.

and in the same way your post is irrelevant, so is my paragraph above, because all the referendum is about is allowing 2 men or 2 women to marry each other. They may already have kids, they may plan to have kids, they may never want kids. It doesnt matter. They can do all the having kids/not having kids stuff already , all that changes is they can marry each other. Same as me and my girlfriend who have been together 15 years and may, at some point in the future decide to get married, the gay couple down the road should have the same choice.

That's why i'm voting Yes.

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

Ha ha ha!

Someone catch this fellow and pull him out of the barrel, evidently he is near the bottom of it.

Is it the worst point made yet? All opposition to stuff and things is the same?

Well that's the point concisely debated.

Funny that you wont actually answer it. Maybe those "the blacks" are conspring to steal your kids too?

Guy:Incognito

tayto lover wrote: »

That's why i'm voting Yes.

But even debating children (about them, not with them :-) ) is giving legitimacy to the horse****.

tayto lover

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

But even debating children (about them, not with them :-) ) is giving legitimacy to the horse****.

I am interested in the bonding issue. Maybe it deserves a thread of its own?

gravehold

tayto lover wrote: »

I am interested in the bonding issue. Maybe it deserves a thread of its own?

It's valid here as the constitutional changes to the family due to a yes vote effect this.

Skatedude

I wasn't going to vote, but the no campaign and the op have convinced me to vote yes.

Not a NSA agent

tayto lover wrote: »

Never said that.

No but you were talking about how its best for a child to stay with their biological parents which tends to be the case. If anyone else gets a child from another source than conceiving themselves then the biological parents weren't going to happen so it's a bit irrelevant. We're already dealing with a situation where the parents raising them wont be their biological parents

B_Wayne

gravehold wrote: »

Wow homophobic much

While I disagree with the user's view, I'm pretty confident they're not homophobic tbh. So far nobody has called him homophobic...

Guy:Incognito

tayto lover wrote: »

I am interested in the bonding issue. Maybe it deserves a thread of its own?

Possibly, but I'd say theres a much better forum than politics (or and threads about SSM referendum)

Guy:Incognito

gravehold wrote: »

It's valid here as the constitutional changes to the family due to a yes vote effect this.

No its not. Whats the difference between a same sex couple with a child now, or one on May 23rd if SSM is legal?

gravehold

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Possibly, but I'd say theres a much better forum than politics (or and threads about SSM referendum)

Why the referendum effects the family in our constitution and the discussion is about the family

gravehold

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No its not. Whats the difference between a same sex couple with a child now, or one on May 23rd if SSM is legal?

Constitutional protection, without that the next government can decide you know what we don't wan't gays adopting or having CP

macker33

Wang King wrote: »

Don't think you could be trusted

No, I know some people fvck it up but i've actually figured out that whole appropriate holes thing,

ibstar

I'm voting No, but not for religious reasons since I'm an atheist.
But it saddens me that my vote will be associated with people like OP
People voting Yes ether don't have children and don't know what it's like to raise them or they simply doing it out of guilt because they have a friend/relative who's gay.
I have colleagues who are gay with whom I get along fine and maintain professional relationship and can rely on in work, but that doesn't give me enough reasons to trust homosexual couples raising children they were never meant to have naturally.

Yes they can already adopt which is wrong imo, but ones the legislation passes (which unfortunately it will from what I'm observing), this will relax the rules towards adoption even more.

This country has enough problems with it's pedophile priests, now we're going to hear even more cases of domestic abuse, ether sexual or physical, because these so called same sex "parents", I repeat SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ADOPT KIDS BECAUSE IT'S NOT NATURAL. I'm an atheist so no religious bias here. Just simple nature and biology.

I'm not against gay relationships, I'm just firmly and strongly against them having children.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well that's the point concisely debated.

Funny that you wont actually answer it. Maybe those "the blacks" are conspring to steal your kids too?

Ha ha!

Sure of course they are. And of course people who have mild concerns about changing the concept of marriage are all racist. Sure 'twas a great point altogether!!

macker33

RiseToMe wrote: »

Ironically the majority of gay parents spend literally thousands to conceive, etc etc.

Buttsh1t

Guy:Incognito

That a same sex couple may decide to bring children in to their marriage is irrelevant to them being married.

Forget that they are gay and just look at it as 2 people who are getting married. Theres no reason to exclude them because they happen to be the same gender. The rest is irrelevant.

They can adopt as a couple now so married or not they are a family and are both parents to the child. It's a separate issue thats allowing the no side to scaremonger and should be left separate.

macker33

bee06 wrote: »

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.

The yes side have had a 15 year head start

Penny Tration

ibstar wrote: »

I'm voting No, but not for religious reasons since I'm an atheist.
But it saddens me that my vote will be associated with people like OP
People voting Yes ether don't have children and don't know what it's like to raise them or they simply doing it out of guilt because they have a friend/relative who's gay.
I have colleagues who are gay with whom I get along fine and maintain professional relationship and can rely on in work, but that doesn't give me enough reasons to trust homosexual couples raising children they were never meant to have naturally.

Yes they can already adopt which is wrong imo, but ones the legislation passes (which unfortunately it will from what I'm observing), this will relax the rules towards adoption even more.

This country has enough problems with it's pedophile priests, now we're going to hear even more cases of domestic abuse, ether sexual or physical, because these so called same sex "parents", I repeat SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ADOPT KIDS BECAUSE IT'S NOT NATURAL. I'm an atheist so no religious bias here. Just simple nature and biology.

I'm not against gay relationships, I'm just firmly and strongly against them having children.

Yet another poster assuming gay people will abuse their children. Jesus h Christ, do some research into abuse will you?

As for why you're voting no - adoption is being legislated for with or without the ssm referendum passing. So it's gonna happen whether you like it or not.

The ssm referendum has zero influence on gay couples adopting.

macker33

Lu Tze wrote: »

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

Its not that simple, a yes vote criminalises certain christian teachings, its slow erosion

PopePalpatine

macker33 wrote: »

Its not that simple, a yes vote criminalises certain christian teachings, its slow erosion

I can't say that's a bad thing, judging by your posts.

El_Duderino 09

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.

Look macker, I don't expect you to understand this but homosexuality is different to paedophilia. One is an attraction to adults the other is an attraction to children.

Paedophilia is a messed up sexual preference and causes real harm. Homosexuality doesn't cause harm to anyone.

The Catholic's mistake was covering up abuse when they found out about it rather than reporting it like a decent organisation would.

As a matter of interest, do you consider yourself to be homophobic?

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

Ha ha!

Sure of course they are. And of course people who have mild concerns about changing the concept of marriage are all racist. Sure 'twas a great point altogether!!

Still no answer to the issue. Just joking waffling around the issue. Many of the same arguments were brought up by racist groups to tell people how interracial relationships are wrong and ungodly etc and shouldn't be allowed. The world would end and other crap.

macker33

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".

Since when are gays not dysfunctional, I would say they are the very definition of dysfunctional

RiseToMe

macker33 wrote: »

Buttsh1t

Brilliant, there's free IVF clinics? Do pass along the details, I know many couples that can save a lot of money!

gravehold

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

That a same sex couple may decide to bring children in to their marriage is irrelevant to them being married.

Forget that they are gay and just look at it as 2 people who are getting married. Theres no reason to exclude them because they happen to be the same gender. The rest is irrelevant.

They can adopt as a couple now so married or not they are a family and are both parents to the child. It's a separate issue thats allowing the no side to scaremonger and should be left separate.

Why not give CP the same rights as marraige but not change the constitution, that way if the next government want to stop gays adopting they can

Penny Tration

macker33 wrote: »

Its not that simple, a yes vote criminalises certain christian teachings, its slow erosion

Christian teachings say 'judge not, lest ye be judged.'

So if you're gonna vote no, fine. But stop your disgusting comments about gay people. You're going against your religion by judging them

ThisRegard

macker33 wrote: »

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

But if your kids are girls there's no issue is there? And I'm sure you wouldn't let a female baby sitter mind your boys either as using your twisted logic she'd just try hump them too?

Not a NSA agent

gravehold wrote: »

Why not give CP the same rights as marraige but not change the constitution, that way if the next government want to stop gays adopting they can

The constitution has to be changed to make CP equal to marriage.

Preventing the second part is a good thing.

sunshine and showers

macker33 wrote: »

Its not that simple, a yes vote criminalises certain christian teachings, its slow erosion

Do elaborate.

Guy:Incognito

macker33 wrote: »

Buttsh1t

Maybe they just head out, get locked, find an equally drunk girl and have a rattle by some bins the way a lot of good , healthy straight people do? We must fight to protect good family values like that. (here, just in case you missed the tone ----> :rolleyes: )

Mark Tapley

macker33 wrote: »

Its not that simple, a yes vote criminalises certain christian teachings, its slow erosion

The Christians are advocating posting hate filled spew on message boards now?

macker33

RiseToMe wrote: »

However, "learning how to be man or woman" was a social construct really.

.

The man woman thing was never a construct, men were disposable, women werent

macker33

wow sierra wrote: »

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 -

Roger casement wasnt bent and i know all about the forged diaries etc.
Another case of ernie and bert

Penny Tration

Can someone please have the balls to just say 'im voting no because I don't agree with homosexuality/am homophobic/don't like gay people?'

It'd be really bloody refreshing to see some honesty from the no side.

macker33

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

You are a vile, disgusting little excuse for a human.

Em, false outrage aside, i'm not the gay who abused the kids under his care

The Moldy Gowl

Grand ol Saturday morning troll.


We could probably hear you better if you stopped deep throating fr o brien.

gravehold

RiseToMe wrote: »

However, "learning how to be man or woman" was a social construct really.

As a transsexual I find this really transphobic