VOTE NO

macker33

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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

Hey, a persons colour is nature, that cant be helped

Guy:Incognito

ibstar wrote: »

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

Setting aside the rest of the crap, why do you think a marriage licence gives them more ability to have children?

Infertile woman and sterile men cant have children naturally. Should they be barred from adopting too?

Since we're on the subject of unnatural things, flying is normally inserted in to the conversation now.............

Man made fibers arent natural. Hope you're not wearing any of those.

Not a NSA agent

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

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.

Thats what the OP is doing. Or at least making it obvious. You cant use the word homophobe, of course they can accuse gays of being pedophiles but if you call him a homophobe its bullying.

El_Duderino 09

macker33 wrote: »

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

It doesn't criminalise anything. I don't share your religious beliefs but I'd oppose any move towards criminalising religion.

It becomes complicated when religious beliefs become a reason to promote real harm. Some muslims want to be allowed to perform female genital mutilation. I oppose that practice in all circumstances.

The Catholic's will probably figure out how to reconcile gay marriage with their teachings. They opposed interracial marriage and inter faith marriage in the past. They figured out how to pretend it was always part of their teachings and in time they be saying they were never really opposed to gay marriage. They'll say it was just a few fringe extremists.

The Moldy Gowl

macker33 wrote: »

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

Is that not being a pedophile?

Have girls ever been abused? Doubt it, us straight people are perfect

Guy:Incognito

macker33 wrote: »

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

Did we criminalise stoning people to death at any stage? **** we better get that back before god gets angry (you know god right? That loving caring lads full of bile and hate whos word , if followed, would pretty much mean the human race would be extinct)

Penny Tration

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Thats what the OP is doing. Or at least making it obvious. You cant use the word homophobe, of course they can accuse gays of being pedophiles but if you call him a homophobe its bullying.

Oh yeah, it's very obvious.

But I'd like to see just one have the balls to admit it instead of alluding to it.

Guy:Incognito

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

Why not remove marriage altogether and only give the option of civil partnership to everyone?

Why dont we stop straight people adopting? They're the ones that perpetrate the vast majority of abuse.

Wang King

macker33 wrote: »

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

Again, it's not your sexual proclivities I was alluding to, but do carry on.

Mr.Frame

Joeseph Balls wrote: »

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.

As a gay man I just want to say thank you, it means a lot

marienbad

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.

It seems the Iona tactics do work, such a deeply saddening state of affairs .

Wang King

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.

Extremely naive post in the extreme

Father Ted Crilly

Down With This Sort Of Thing.

Careful Now.

I don't care what other countries are doing. Gayness is wrong. I'm proud of my country and my religion. I don't want my country to be seen as something that can be manipulated by a small number of homofascists.
Besides, the way the country is now, the gay married couples will be harassed by hardcore Catholics.

VOTE NO INDEED.

Guy:Incognito

macker33 wrote: »

Hey, a persons colour is nature, that cant be helped

As is stupidity, but yet everyone is allowed to have kids.

FluffyAngel

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.

Sweet everything thats connected to everything ,are you for real?

its doesnt matter wether its male on male ,female to male or anything else in bewteen ,abuse is abuse

btw try having that agurment with the 55,000 women (and fathers ) whose children were adopted or any of the women in the laundrys

i would trust my kids with anybody who had morals and values,sexuality doesnt come into it

if you have kids or going to have kids at some stage ,i ask that you reconsider your views before your destroy their childhood

macker33

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Yet another poster assuming gay people will abuse their children.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1522158/Gay-couple-jailed-for-abusing-their-foster-children.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068731/Gay-couple-accused-abusing-adopted-sons.html
http://www.advocate.com/world/2014/06/03/abused-kids-placed-gay-couple-birth-parents-enraged
http://rt.com/news/australian-paedophile-us-jail-976/

Not assuming anything

The Black Oil

Ireland's cursed? I'll call the Winchester brothers.

Dunford

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"

what a vile post and attitude. seek help my friend.

Anyone who puts their faith in a group of child rapists and imaginary friends has no right to preach to us.

And also. who the hell gives you people the right to stick your bigoted nose into the affairs of other people? its none of your dam business if a person is gay or not.

FluffyAngel

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.

have you heard what has happened when kind caring men and women of the cloth stepped in to fix our children of the nation?

trust me when i say that being gay had nothing to do with it ...

if you think that sexual abuse happened "back then" and doesnt happen now ,then your wrong
abuse of children and adults in care is a daily occurence and has nothing to do with sexuality

Not a NSA agent

If god doesnt like gays, why create gayness?

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

I don't care what other countries are doing. Gayness is wrong. I'm proud of my country and my religion. I don't want my country to be seen as something that can be manipulated by a small number of homofascists.
Besides, the way the country is now, the gay married couples will be harassed by hardcore Catholics.

VOTE NO INDEED.

Its gotten to the point where I cant tell the difference between those who are sarcastic and those who are serious.

macker33

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Look macker, I don't expect you to understand this but homosexuality is different to paedophilia.

Hey, greasy breaks are greasy breaks, cross the line once and you are likely to do it again,
The only people who dont get homosexuality are homosexuals, if you did you wouldnt be gay.

Mr.Frame

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.

The referendum has nothing to to with adoption so your "logic" is wrong ,actually it should be used as the poster boy for blatant homophobia

Father Ted Crilly

Dunford wrote: »

Anyone who puts their faith in a group of child rapists and imaginary friends has no right to preach to us.

Who might you be referring to?

macker33

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

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

Matthew 15 and mark 7, read them before quoting the bible to people

macker33

ThisRegard wrote: »

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?

well women arent as sexually driven as men(ie they wont let their langers make their decisions for them)
Lesbianism is more an anger issue than a langer made me do it issue.

sibby

Ibstar you do realise that what you are a talking about is a completely different law which was already passed earlier last month.....apples and oranges!!!

Windowsnut

ibstar wrote: »

I'm voting No, but not for religious reasons since I'm an atheist.

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

I'm not sure your really thinking straight?, gay couples can and already do have children,

If you vote no, should the civil partner that is the legal guardian of the children dies or is hospitalised, the other partner who has also raised these children has no rights to them, no rights to visit them in hospital, no rights to collect them from school, no rights to protect them, they're pretty much a stranger to these children in the eyes of the current applicable laws, even though she/he may have raised them from an early age, fed them, clothed them, put a roof over their heads, worked days/nights for them / educated them, cradled them back to sleep after nightmares - How would you feel if your partners parents came in and took your children away from you if your partner god forbid was hospitalised or passed on?

What's worse is that this family could technically be broken up by the state, children put into care, which we all know how the state has record of doing so well with children in care:

thejournal.ie/deaths-children-state-care-preventable-hse-official-report-494026-Jun2012/

macker33

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Do elaborate.

Whats to elaborate on, old and new testament both tell us homosexuality is a sin and now the government wants to give gay a medal.

The government is telling us that homosexuality isnt a sin and that to consider it so is illegal,

macker33

Mark Tapley wrote: »

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

Hey sympathy addict, disagreeing with gays isnt a crime, dont make it out to be one

gravehold

Windowsnut wrote: »

I'm not sure your really thinking straight?, gay couples can and already do have children,

If you vote no, should the civil partner that is the legal guardian of the children dies or is hospitalised, the other partner who has also raised these children has no rights to them, no rights to visit them in hospital, no rights to collect them from school, no rights to protect them, they're pretty much a stranger to these children in the eyes of the current applicable laws, even though she/he may have raised them from an early age, fed them, clothed them, put a roof over their heads, worked days/nights for them / educated them, cradled them back to sleep after nightmares - How would you feel if your partners parents came in and took your children away from you if your partner god forbid was hospitalised or passed on?

What's worse is that this family could technically be broken up by the state, children put into care, which we all know how the state has record of doing so well with children in care:

thejournal.ie/deaths-children-state-care-preventable-hse-official-report-494026-Jun2012/

Why would any of that be an issue for the no side, they don't want to give the gay couple a kid in the first place

Father Ted Crilly

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

If god doesnt like gays, why create gayness?

Nobody said God doesn't like "gays". The Catholic Church is against gay people. This country is built on Catholicism.

Not a NSA agent

macker33 wrote: »

The government is telling us that homosexuality isnt a sin and that to consider it so is illegal,

macker33 wrote: »

Hey sympathy addict, disagreeing with gays isnt a crime, dont make it out to be one

ummm, make up your mind

Guy:Incognito

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

If god doesnt like gays, why create gayness?
.

You're missing how god works. He's only responsible for the good bits. The negative stuff is the fault of those other false gods and the gays that the space aliens dropped down here.
Dont mention the kids dying of starvation, aids, cancer etc. God didnt do that either, he loves everyone (except those mentioned above obviously) .

Maybe I'm being too harsh, I mean he has a busy schedule. He has to help rich sportspeople score goals, or win boxing matches (or lose them ) . He probably just doesnt have time for the kids , the sick, the poor.

FluffyAngel

gravehold wrote: »

As a transsexual I find this really transphobic

As a Human ,i find this thread sorryfull..

on behalf of my fellow humans ,come here and give me a hug

gravehold

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

If god doesnt like gays, why create gayness?



Its gotten to the point where I cant tell the difference between those who are sarcastic and those who are serious.

A test that if you fail you will burn in hell for

Guy:Incognito

macker33 wrote: »

Whats to elaborate on, old and new testament both tell us homosexuality is a sin and now the government wants to give gay a medal.

The government is telling us that homosexuality isnt a sin and that to consider it so is illegal,

Is murder a sin?

macker33

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It becomes complicated when religious beliefs become a reason to promote real harm. Some muslims want to be allowed to perform female genital mutilation. I oppose that practice in all circumstances.

The Catholic's will probably figure out how to reconcile gay marriage with their teachings.

What muslim do in their country isnt my business and i'm not going to tell them what to do except stop killing christians

Secondly there are already some bishops trying to do that

macker33

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Is that not being a pedophile?

Have girls ever been abused? Doubt it, us straight people are perfect

It was mostly male on male

Wang King

macker33 wrote: »

Whats to elaborate on, old and new testament both tell us homosexuality is a sin and now the government wants to give gay a medal.

The government is telling us that homosexuality isnt a sin and that to consider it so is illegal,

Any teachings of Jesus to show where he condemned homosexuality?

Guy:Incognito

Father Ted Crilly wrote: »

This country is built on Catholicism.

Which is a large part of the problem that is being rectified (all to o slowly mind)

The Moldy Gowl

macker33 wrote: »

well women arent as sexually driven as men(ie they wont let their langers make their decisions for them)
Lesbianism is more an anger issue than a langer made me do it issue.

You must not know many women.

Father Ted Crilly

Wang King wrote: »

Any teachings of Jesus to show where he condemned homosexuality?

The Catholic Church has its own teachings on Christianity and honestly, a load of them are BS. The Catholic Church is against homosexuals, not Jesus.

The Moldy Gowl

macker33 wrote: »

It was mostly male on male

It's really not

gravehold

gravehold wrote: »

As a transsexual I find this really transphobic

I have been asked to edit this or remove it by a user, as a new user I cannot edit posts can a mod edit it cause they threatend to sue it it stays up even after I told them I am unable to edit posts

macker33

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Did we criminalise stoning people to death at any stage? **** we better get that back before god gets angry (you know god right? That loving caring lads full of bile and hate whos word , if followed, would pretty much mean the human race would be extinct)

Educate yourself on something before trying to knock it.
Christians arent bound by the jewish Laws, such as mixed fabrics, menstruating women etc

FluffyAngel

im out of this flaming troll thread ,im off to fume into my latte..

and to hug no voters

Lu Tze

macker33 wrote: »

Whats to elaborate on, old and new testament both tell us homosexuality is a sin and now the government wants to give gay a medal.

The government is telling us that homosexuality isnt a sin and that to consider it so is illegal,

Have they really said that? Any chance you could provide a link to the press release? I would be very interest to see it, it would be the first time a thought has been criminalised as far as i am aware.

macker33

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why not remove marriage altogether and only give the option of civil partnership to everyone?

Thats whats going to happen if gays are allowed to marry, marriage will be so devalued people wont see the value of it anymore.
The only people getting married will be gays.

FluffyAngel

gravehold wrote: »

I have been asked to edit this or remove it by a user, as a new user I cannot edit posts can a mod edit it cause they threatend to sue it it stays up even after I told them I am unable to edit posts

if people are doing that by pm ,report it to mod ,its against the rules etc etc

RiseToMe

gravehold wrote: »

As a transsexual I find this really transphobic

OK despite having tried dialogue with this poster off thread to point out that I was speaking of gender ROLES not gender and asking them to remove this accusation it has proved fruitless.

For anybody who thinks I may be transphobic, i would like to point out that I am not, in any way, transphobic. Quite the very opposite. If I offended any people I apologise, it was gender ROLES I was referring to.

For those of you who doubt that, feel free to pm me and I will clarify my exact position.