VOTE NO

macker33

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

There hasnt been a decent argument put forward yet that doesnt boil down to much more than "because they're gay"

By all means though, on you go. The floor is yours...............

You do realise being against something because its gay is justification in itself.

You can be against something evil because its evil, no need to justify why you think its evil.

nc19

stefanovich wrote:

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

I can fix that for you.........All religion is made up nonsense designed to keep the weak of mind in check. Do away with all religion and the world will be a better place

macker33

cursai wrote: »

Isnt a fink a strikebreaker or something? Like in Strumpet City.

A fink is a sexual freak

macker33

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Ah, selective sinning.

So whats your plan to get rid of the gays, seeing as they have no purpose?

One way ticket to a tropical island paradise

Guy:Incognito

macker33 wrote: »

You do realise being against something because its gay is justification in itself.

You can be against something evil because its evil, no need to justify why you think its evil.

Is being against someone becuase theyre black ok?

Ive decided black people are evil, so it's good, yeah?

trackerman

If were involving the church I'd recommend reading "The transformation of Ireland" by Diarmaid Ferriter.
It will give some idea of how power corrupts... the church stepped into the void to promote their own ideals, the state were more than happy to comply.

Royal Legend

Reading the posts in here, beginning to think it should be moved to AH. (There is definitely at least one troll in the thread, not hard to see who)

There is IMO a bigger issue at hand, Political Correctness.

Its the one point that I would agree with the OP, people are afraid to speak out and debate and say they are voting No or are not sure, because then, as can be seen in some of the posts in here, are then tagged as homophobes or major league die hard Catholics. The media is definitely pushing the Yes vote, the amount of air time given to a silly debate on a stock photo used by the No campaign was IMO petty and has no bearing whatsoever on the referendum.

Those of us of a certain age, (between 40-50) would have been brought up to believe that Marriage was between a man and a woman, that men and women were put on this earth solely for the purpose to procreate. People older than us would for the most part strictly believe in this.

People of my age have seen huge change and for the most part we have accepted and embraced this change. When we were young and girls were victimised for having kids outside of marriage, we stood up for them, backed them etc. I had a friend that died in a field giving birth to a child, it was her second one, and the scandal and shame that this would have caused her and her family, forced her to try to hide the fact, causing her death.

Back in our day, Priests and Bishops were untouchable, we were the ones that stopped kowtowing to them and took them off their pedestal.

Teachers, yet another institution that was put on a pedestal years ago, now we confront, question, how teachers operate and how they teach our children, years ago, you could not do that.

There were no Gay people in our day, they were there but hid it for fear of retribution and shame. I knew people who were Gay 20 years ago, they were friends, colleagues etc. Again, our generation was probably the first to accept that people could be who they wanted to be.

My 16 year old daughter has a friend who is Gay, she tells me that I have to vote yes. The young lad is in our house nearly every day, he is like a second son to us, what his sexual leanings are do not even enter our head.
My Mother in Law believes that there is a danger that Gays that adopt children could possibly abuse them. I have explained to her that she is wrong as there are plenty of heterosexual couples who have abused children.
A work colleague and I had a debate last week on if a a Gay couple adopting a child could then turn that child Gay? By the way, we both agreed that you are born Gay not made and that the parents gender had no effect on how a child would be brought up and that as TL stated earlier that there are plenty of dysfunctional families.

Anyway, long winded I know, but my point is this.

I am still on the fence as regards voting Yes/No. Not because I am a homophobe, but because, even though don't even go to church any more I still believe to an extent that marriage is between a man and a woman, also I am still trying to evaluate if this referendum does effect children or not as been pointed out by the No campaign.

Also, Enda Kenny sees this as a legacy issue for him, the man who brought in Gay Marriage. yet the cretin will not even debate it. Usually politicians use diversionary tactics to take interest away from other more major issues

There are a lot of people like me out there, who are afraid to speak up because we are then seen as homophobic or dinosaurs, because its not politically correct.

The poster that was trying to label Tayto Lover as a homophobe is a great example of this, the threat of litigation against the same poster by someone else is another example of political correctness gone wrong.

I will make my own mind up before the referendum, in the meantime if that makes me a homophobe in some peoples eyes then so be it, get over yourself, everyone is entitled to their opinion, that's why we supposedly liven in a democracy.

macker33

Lu Tze wrote: »

So they haven't said anything of the sort?

Whats to stop a man from having six wives?

macker33

cursai wrote: »

I think the plan was to let them slowly breed/not breed themselves out of existence but this whole adoption thing throws that idea out the window. Sexual preferences are breed by the parents don't you know.

Not one bit, there is no gay gene, and you know for a fact that gays have looked very hard for it.

macker33

freelancerTax wrote: »

isn't kiddy fiddling a sin also?? most likley illegal also?
what about moving know kiddy fiddlers around to different parishes instead of handing them over to authorities?

super bad, personally i would have given them the needle to the nuts and locked them up for life, the church fvcked up

Guy:Incognito

macker33 wrote: »

Whats to stop a man from having six wives?

self preservation.

macker33

cursai wrote: »

No no no. The bible says it is a man and womans duty to procreate. We can still have 'normal' children just have to isolate them from lefty artsy influences. Tv convinces kids to be gay seemingly.

You truely are a product of the times

freelancerTax

macker33 wrote: »

Not one bit, there is no gay gene, and you know for a fact that gays have looked very hard for it.

there is also no "like chocolate ice cream" gene

you cannot choose what you like... of course you will try convince everyone else otherwise......

macker33

B_Wayne wrote: »

Justifying the laundries now, I'm really not surprised unfortunately.

I just have the ability to see good in most things.

1hnr79jr65

macker33 wrote: »

One way ticket to a tropical island paradise

Funny there was a guy 60 odd years or so in our past who had a similar idea for a 1 way ticket destination for anyone Jewish because he didnt agree with their right to exist.

Amazing similarity to your quote there.

sunshine and showers

Royal Legend wrote: »

I will make my own mind up before the referendum, in the meantime if that makes me a homophobe in some peoples eyes then so be it, get over yourself, everyone is entitled to their opinion, that's why we supposedly liven in a democracy.

I'm curious about how your view of marriage has evolved as you've grown up and realised that children are not an integral part of marriage. I mean, are a childless married couple "less" married that a married couple with three kids?

Are you aware that adoption by same sex couples has been legalised recently? That makes it something of a non-issue with regards the vote on the 22nd.

I'm not trying to attack you, nor am I calling you homophobic, by the way.

macker33

cursai wrote: »

I predict a shorter timeframe as they'll just get bored of acting the eejit. Sure its only a fad.

Gay marriage could actually be the worse thing ever to happen gays.

All the gay fly by night gay bears will be at home watching emmerdale instead of hanging around public toilets looking for new recruits.

Loafers in cork has just closed down, could be a sign of things to come.

macker33

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Liberals, homosexuality and leprechauns. :rolleyes:

no change so

gravehold

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

Funny there was a guy 60 odd years or so in our past who had a similar idea for a 1 way ticket destination for anyone Jewish because he didnt agree with their right to exist.

Amazing similarity to your quote there.

Funnily enough the jews went to isreal by themselves in the end and prospered.

Guy:Incognito

Royal Legend wrote: »

Reading the posts in here, beginning to think it should be moved to AH. (There is definitely at least one troll in the thread, not hard to see who)

There is IMO a bigger issue at hand, Political Correctness.

Its the one point that I would agree with the OP, people are afraid to speak out and debate and say they are voting No or are not sure, because then, as can be seen in some of the posts in here, are then tagged as homophobes or major league die hard Catholics. The media is definitely pushing the Yes vote, the amount of air time given to a silly debate on a stock photo used by the No campaign was IMO petty and has no bearing whatsoever on the referendum.

Those of us of a certain age, (between 40-50) would have been brought up to believe that Marriage was between a man and a woman, that men and women were put on this earth solely for the purpose to procreate. People older than us would for the most part strictly believe in this.

People of my age have seen huge change and for the most part we have accepted and embraced this change. When we were young and girls were victimised for having kids outside of marriage, we stood up for them, backed them etc. I had a friend that died in a field giving birth to a child, it was her second one, and the scandal and shame that this would have caused her and her family, forced her to try to hide the fact, causing her death.

Back in our day, Priests and Bishops were untouchable, we were the ones that stopped kowtowing to them and took them off their pedestal.

Teachers, yet another institution that was put on a pedestal years ago, now we confront, question, how teachers operate and how they teach our children, years ago, you could not do that.

There were no Gay people in our day, they were there but hid it for fear of retribution and shame. I knew people who were Gay 20 years ago, they were friends, colleagues etc. Again, our generation was probably the first to accept that people could be who they wanted to be.

My 16 year old daughter has a friend who is Gay, she tells me that I have to vote yes. The young lad is in our house nearly every day, he is like a second son to us, what his sexual leanings are do not even enter our head.
My Mother in Law believes that there is a danger that Gays that adopt children could possibly abuse them. I have explained to her that she is wrong as there are plenty of heterosexual couples who have abused children.
A work colleague and I had a debate last week on if a a Gay couple adopting a child could then turn that child Gay? By the way, we both agreed that you are born Gay not made and that the parents gender had no effect on how a child would be brought up and that as TL stated earlier that there are plenty of dysfunctional families.

Anyway, long winded I know, but my point is this.

I am still on the fence as regards voting Yes/No. Not because I am a homophobe, but because, even though don't even go to church any more I still believe to an extent that marriage is between a man and a woman, also I am still trying to evaluate if this referendum does effect children or not as been pointed out by the No campaign.

Also, Enda Kenny sees this as a legacy issue for him, the man who brought in Gay Marriage. yet the cretin will not even debate it. Usually politicians use diversionary tactics to take interest away from other more major issues

There are a lot of people like me out there, who are afraid to speak up because we are then seen as homophobic or dinosaurs, because its not politically correct.

The poster that was trying to label Tayto Lover as a homophobe is a great example of this, the threat of litigation against the same poster by someone else is another example of political correctness gone wrong.

I will make my own mind up before the referendum, in the meantime if that makes me a homophobe in some peoples eyes then so be it, get over yourself, everyone is entitled to their opinion, that's why we supposedly liven in a democracy.

What bits about the children are your concerns?


Using Enda Kenny is a huge cop out btw. Not that I agree with your opinion but its entirely irrelevant. Something is either right or wrong. Should a member of the Gardai thats in it to climb the ladder and who really doesnt care about vistims arrests for murder or rape be dismissed?

Guy:Incognito

gravehold wrote: »

Funnily enough the jews went to isreal by themselves in the end and prospered.

All of them?

If I dislike you and your family, can I banish you?

macker33

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Thats not answering any of the points. I believe thats called deflection.

And what you are doing is laying all the blame on the church when the church isnt the biggest culprit,
I'd have thought the treacherous act of being disowned by the family would have been the worst sin.

1hnr79jr65

gravehold wrote: »

Funnily enough the jews went to isreal by themselves in the end and prospered.

The point i was trying to make here is his statement is just preaching hate, sometimes it take helps from a larger group of people so a section of society can have equality in their lives.

macker33

ElChe32 wrote: »

You watch Coronation Street and Emmerdale? That's so gay.

I do in my fvck, i wouldnt watch that rubbish

macker33

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Where are they having the experiences? In a book?

Dont start, i've more experience than everyone on this board combined.

Thepoet85

macker33 wrote: »

I just have the ability to see good in most things.

Except in two people who love each other and want to be together.

From what I gather, Jesus came from an "nontraditional" family, and he turned out fine.

Guy:Incognito

macker33 wrote: »

I just have the ability to see good in most things.

Apparently

Any reply here?

macker33 wrote: »

Secondly priests didnt turn up at peoples doors and drag them off to the laundry, these people were institutionalised by their own parents.

Thats not answering any of the points. I believe thats called deflection. Is it ok to abuse people as long as their parents sent them to you?

Is it the womens parents fault Rome has so much wealth while people are poor too?

macker33

freelancerTax wrote: »

priests from your beloved church were also some of these abusers
open your eyes

yeah, the gay ones, dont think straight priests did anything

gravehold

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

Sometimes it take helps from a larger group of people so a section of society can have equality in their lives.

The yes vote is the larger group in this referendum

macker33

jacksie66 wrote: »

Op do you need a ladder to help you out of the hole you've dug for yourself?

I'm a hundred feet tall, dont need one

Guy:Incognito

macker33 wrote: »

And what you are doing is laying all the blame on the church when the church isnt the biggest culprit,
I'd have thought the treacherous act of being disowned by the family would have been the worst sin.

Your family disowning you is worse than being beaten or raped, having your children take away and sold, being used as slave labour?

Thats a weird table of sin ranking you have there.


Anyway. Why does your families sin justify the sins of a completely different group?

freelancerTax

macker33 wrote: »

yeah, the gay ones, dont think straight priests did anything

you do know that little girls were abused also?

are you really that ignorant?

macker33

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is being against someone becuase theyre black ok?

Ive decided black people are evil, so it's good, yeah?

already answered this already, race is nature, nature is good

macker33

trackerman wrote: »

If were involving the church I'd recommend reading "The transformation of Ireland" by Diarmaid Ferriter.
It will give some idea of how power corrupts... the church stepped into the void to promote their own ideals, the state were more than happy to comply.

Indeed

Guy:Incognito

macker33 wrote: »

yeah, the gay ones, dont think straight priests did anything

Only gay priests hit children did they? What about the other stuff?

Theres more to abuse than anal rape.


See -
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abuse

gravehold

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Only gay priests hit children did they? What about the other stuff?

Theres more to abuse than anal rape.


See -
dictionary.reference.com/browse/abuse[/url]

What is there money for these abuse claims? The nuns used to hit my hands with rules can I get some free money? I thought it was just for the guys the bummed by the priests

El_Duderino 09

macker33 wrote: »

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.

I have no idea what this means. You think I'm gay because I understand the difference between gays and pedophiles? Humm.

Guy:Incognito

gravehold wrote: »

What is there money for these abuse claims? The nuns used to hit my hands with rules can I get some free money? I thought it was just for the guys the bummed by the priests

The nuns used to hit you? Doesn't sound very godly and forgiving.

Were they gay nuns? That would explain it.

macker33

Royal Legend wrote: »

Reading the posts in here, beginning to think it should be moved to AH.

There were no Gay people in our day,

Also, Enda Kenny sees this as a legacy issue for him, the man who brought in Gay Marriage. yet the cretin will not even debate it.

The mods going to shut the thread down as soon as it quietens off and i'm banned from AH for going against a circlejerk.

Hopefully endas legacy will be the water charges debacle

macker33

freelancerTax wrote: »

there is also no "like chocolate ice cream" gene

you cannot choose what you like... of course you will try convince everyone else otherwise......

Its all in the head, it is actually a hysterical(and i'm not being funny) condition.

Guy:Incognito

macker33 wrote: »

The mods going to shut the thread down as soon as it quietens off and i'm banned from AH for going against a circlejerk.

Hopefully endas legacy will be the water charges debacle

Do you find group masturbation occupies a lot of your thoughts? You've brought it up a few times now.

Maybe you need to go have some one on one time with a priest.

gravehold

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The nuns used to hit you? Doesn't sound very godly and forgiving.

Were they gay nuns? That would explain it.

Not sure I guess there is no reason to think they weren't gay and became nuns go get away from it. But why do you suggest that, I figured the nuns were just people that found god and that was the discipline of the time.

macker33

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

Funny there was a guy 60 odd years or so in our past who had a similar idea for a 1 way ticket destination for anyone Jewish because he didnt agree with their right to exist.

Amazing similarity to your quote there.

Hey, all i said was a kind of tropical island israel for gays

gravehold

macker33 wrote: »

Hopefully endas legacy will be the water charges debacle

that's labours, enda walks clean on that one

Royal Legend

A couple of posters have replied to my post, I have to go to a family do, so will reply to all later.

macker33

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

The point i was trying to make here is his statement is just preaching hate, sometimes it take helps from a larger group of people so a section of society can have equality in their lives.

I'm preaching hate? what exactly did i say? or is disagreeing with gays hate speech now?

Guy:Incognito

Royal Legend wrote: »

A couple of posters have replied to my post, I have to go to a family do, so will reply to all later.

Be sure to tell any single parents they are obliged to marry someone fast. Afterall, those kids are entitled....

macker33

Thepoet85 wrote: »

Except in two people who love each other and want to be together.

Call it what you want but dont call it love

Guy:Incognito

macker33 wrote: »

I'm preaching hate? what exactly did i say? or is disagreeing with gays hate speech now?

You're not disagreeing with them, you're telling them they are less than you, are evil, no equal and wrong. That sounds like hate speak to me.

gravehold

macker33 wrote: »

Hey, all i said was a kind of tropical island israel for gays

A hetrophobe on lgbt suggested that last week as he didn't like straight people around him cause they made him uncomfortable

boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95320846