Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

efb wrote: »

You're spoiling his story!

Don't worry, it's just a repeat.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Don't forget about the children having no role models

Which is why single-parent families are totally illegal and unconstitutional, of course.

RobertKK wrote: »

Same sex marriage along with gay adoption will be exploited by that same type of man who will see it as a means as easy access to children.

In your opinion? Or have you any actual substantiation for such a claim? In fact can you even substantiate the claim that pedophiles became priests specifically TO access Children rather than, for example, they became priests with no such intention but then engaged in their rape when situations and opportunities arose?

RobertKK wrote: »

The authorities feared about getting accused of discrimination when questions marks over the couple arose and they continued to foster children.

the fetid desperation aside, that drips from your attempt to extrapolate one single case into a generalization about gay adoption as a whole, this is NOT an argument against gay marriage or gay adoption. It is an argument against the system behind it and the controls and procedures in place when such cases arise. You are wantonly and transparently attempting to indict gay marriage and gay adoption as a whole with the guilt that is better placed elsewhere.

Some years ago it was found that a number of clothing brands were using child slave labour in foreign countries to produce the product. What is the CORRECT response to this? Is it to decry the entire clothing industry as evil and wrong? Or is it to prosecute the perpetrators and improve procedures and methods to prevent the same thing happening again to the best of our ability?

Clearly the latter is the right answer. But the way you are spinning the anti gay propaganda you want us to do the former. Indict an entire group or industry with the crimes of a minority within it. For shame son, for shame.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Excellent trolling on RTE this morning, they had Paddy Manning from "Preserve Marriage" on. He tweets:

Loving the outrage from #SSM proponents over my Morning Ireland piece.

He'll be loving it a lot less in about 18 months or so.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Paddy Manning is himself gay, so who knows, in 2 years he might be getting hitched!

Be curious to know what his objections, unless he has none, in which case he isdeed trolling and what ****wit gave him airtime?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Be curious to know what his objections, unless he has none, in which case he isdeed trolling and what ****wit gave him airtime?

He lists himself on Twitter as "Irish (bad) Catholic libertarian/conservative" as well as gay. You can listen back to the morning ireland spot here: http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland

In brief:

1) Marriage is about children

2) Family law - nobody knows what will happen if you change anything

3) I'm gay and don't feel discriminated against

4) It's OK to discriminate in law like different laws for men/women.

5) I'm a libertarian, and this is a state power grab to redefine natural relationships.

6) shouty shouty shouty

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Sounds like a mix of scaremongering and factually incorrect statements - love the bit about not wanting to change anything (does that go for all laws, Paddy?)

Still, it's a damn sign better than anything I've read here.

Because we can't discuss these topics here. He has genuine points to make. Like many.other gay men who object to gay marriage.


Gay men who Care about society.

hansfrei wrote: »

Because we can't discuss these topics here. He has genuine points to make. Like many.other gay men who object to gay marriage.


Gay men who Care about society.

If you lay out one reason society will be devalued as a whole without fearmongering or constructing strawmen id be impressed.

hansfrei wrote: »

They're neither poor nor inaccurate.

Perhaps you would like to expand on the headline summary above, so. Yes voters here have been asking and asking that anyone with an No argument defend it (without saying "I just don't like it").

Some questions I'd like opponents to answer:

1) If gay people are allowed to marry, do you think there will be more gay people?

2) If gay people are allowed to marry, do you think there will be more gay people having children?

3) If yes to 2), do you think it is better that gay people do not have children?

4) If yes to 3), does this imply that you believe children are better off not existing than having gay parents?

5) Do you believe a child has an absolute right to both its biological parents?

6) If yes to 5) would you support the banning of adoption in all cases where parents are alive?

hansfrei wrote: »

Fearmongering? Strawmen?

Lolapoluza.

In other words. Don't discuss any fallout from a fundamental change in society that doesn't conform to your strict view of the future. Think you're posting in the wrong forum.

Ranting and raving --->

You are being invited, now, to make your case and we can discuss it rationally. Make points, let's see if they stand up. Here is why I think yer man is wrong:

1) Marriage is about children

- We let infertile couples and people beyond child-rearing years get married so this is obviously the case.

2) Family law - nobody knows what will happen if you change anything

- Legislation isn't a nuclear reactor, if there are problems we can amend them. Not that there are any particular problems that gay marriage would cause.

3) I'm gay and don't feel discriminated against

- Not relevant to the fact that others want marriage rights extended to them. In every civil rights struggle there have been people on the oppressed side who defended the status quo.

4) It's OK to discriminate in law like different laws for men/women.

- Kind of. Women, for example, have access to OBGYN medical care. Men do not as they fundamentally cannot take advantage of it. No such difference exists for gay people and marriage.

5) I'm a libertarian, and this is a state power grab to redefine natural relationships.

- Definition is a question of language. Allow gay marriage does not in any way impact on straight marriages.

So, if you've a point to make or would like to defend any of his, please do.

LookingFor wrote: »

The 'i'm gay and I'm against it' thing reminds me of:



Oh and look at that. Fear-mongering about the end of the family was popular back then too it seems.

This is brilliant.

To give my own quick refutations of Paddy Manning's points:

1) Marriage is about children

Firstly: no, it isn't. Childless married people have been a thing since forever.

Secondly: Gay people already have children of their own, and already adopt children. Letting them marry regularizes the existing position, it does not challenge it.

2) Family law - nobody knows what will happen if you change anything

If this was a real principle, we could never change any law, but in fact we do it all the time. If issues come up later, we can change the law again.

3) I'm gay and don't feel discriminated against

Because you don't want to get married, it's ok to discriminate against all the gay people who do? I don't think so.

4) It's OK to discriminate in law like different laws for men/women.

Simply pointing out cases where discrimination in law has been justified in the past does not make gay marriage one of those cases. You have to make an argument for discrimination in this particular case. The very same argument can be used to say racial discrimination is OK based on the fact that women get more parental leave than men.

5) I'm a libertarian, and this is a state power grab to redefine natural relationships.

The state already defines who is legally married and who is not, and currently excludes same-sex couples. This is the opposite of a power grab, it is a relaxation of a state ban, keeping the state out of the business of telling (some) citizens who they can and can't marry. Libertarians should welcome it.

LookingFor wrote: »

The 'i'm gay and I'm against it' thing reminds me of:



Oh and look at that. Fear-mongering about the end of the family was popular back then too it seems.

I'm thinking more along the lines of Samuel L. Jackson's character in Django Unchained. :pac:

Billy86 wrote: »

I want to marry my duck.

If gay marriage passes it will be discrimination again and an affront to both me and to Quacky.

Your love for Quacky is touching, but has no bearing on gay marriage.

Unless your duck is gay, of course. And you are gay, too, which I suppose would make you a Ducky. Then you might have a case.

Are either you or your duck gay?

Billy86 wrote: »

I want to marry my duck.

If gay marriage passes it will be discrimination again and an affront to both me and to Quacky.

Is your duck capable of giving legal consent? Because otherwise this may not be relevant.

Deleted User wrote: »

What's frustrating is that if this referendum passes, some of those on the NO side will claim it was only due to "bullying by the liberal media" or "anti-Catholic Church bias" and will blindly refuse to acknowledge that equal marriage is what the people want.

F*ck 'em.

Billy86 wrote: »

Well, we do both like fish sticks...

That may not be enough to build a relationship on, dude. After all, you have to remember, Quacky is a duck. He's not going to change that for you, or for anyone.

Spend some time together. Fly south for the winter, perhaps. Be gentle, be patient, and try not to mention orange sauce.