The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[muppet]

Other than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree.

And given the intolerance to the church on this board or anyone who supports the church, that pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic, but it is ok to insult, berate and lambaste a religious institution and those who support as long as everyone is supporting gay rights and patting themselves on the back for being tolerant and forward thinking, you seriously couldn't make the hypocrisy on this board up!

I apologise, I can see now that english isn't your first language.

'hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree'  = 'pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic'



But as imtommygunn pointed out above, your views are completely homophobic. Stop trying to hide behind the rest of the decent NO voters and just admit it.

[gallsman]

"...the word "homophobia" is no longer available to gay people. Which is a spectacular and neat Orwellian trick because now it turns out that gay people are not the victims of homophobia - homophobes are."

[T Fearon]

The violin Finbarr Mc Connell played in Clones in 2001 was so small it was invisible.

Sensible points raised by Nuala O'Loane on BBC's Sunday Sequence this morning about the whole ramifications of so called gay marriage which stretch well beyond two same sex people having a wedding ceremony! Plenty of headaches now in store for the freestate government who can't think beyond the popular vote! Hell slap it up them.

[imtommygunn]

Care to share what these ramifications would be?

[armaghniac]

Any talk of maturity here is self satisfied nonsense. This was a referendum conducted against a typical political contention that you could have something for nothing, so we get people having a party in Dublin without any concern for the future. With a complete media blitz that there was no actual issue of public policy here, and that everyone who asks any questions is a predjudiced homophobe then of course people voted yes. But a country which no interest in its next generation and how they are raised is a country on the skids, whatever back patting that is going on this morning. The point is that this simplistic debate is welcomed by people in this case because the end justifies the means, although those same people argue for a more realistic complex analysis on other issues. This risible reduction of the issue to imaginary rights feeds the abuse of people arguing for a nuanced analysis and the triumphalist carry on this weekend which resembles DUP election victory.

There is a enormous public mobilisation to have people change the name of their relationship from civil partnership to marriage, a purely token change. Where will be the public mobilisation to ensure that people have proper health treatment? The Minister for Health is going around undermining marriage instead of reducing waiting lists or ensuring that babies do not die from neglect. How many of these people who are living in England for years and who are coming here to vote fraudulently will vote to sort out these matters?

There is no reason for anyone, even a homosexual, to be satisfied at the state of the this State.

[imtommygunn]

Any talk of maturity here is self satisfied nonsense. This was a referendum conducted against a typical political contention that you could have something for nothing, so we get people having a party in Dublin without any concern for the future. With a complete media blitz that there was no actual issue of public policy here, and that everyone who asks any questions is a predjudiced homophobe then of course people voted yes. But a country which no interest in its next generation and how they are raised is a country on the skids, whatever back patting that is going on this morning. The point is that this simplistic debate is welcomed by people in this case because the end justifies the means, although those same people argue for a more realistic complex analysis on other issues. This risible reduction of the issue to imaginary rights feeds the abuse of people arguing for a nuanced analysis and the triumphalist carry on this weekend which resembles DUP election victory.

There is a enormous public mobilisation to have people change the name of their relationship from civil partnership to marriage, a purely token change. Where will be the public mobilisation to ensure that people have proper health treatment? The Minister for Health is going around undermining marriage instead of reducing waiting lists or ensuring that babies do not die from neglect. How many of these people who are living in England for years and who are coming here to vote fraudulently will vote to sort out these matters?

There is no reason for anyone, even a homosexual, to be satisfied at the state of the this State.

Forget votes about anything else. What is the complex analysis of the ramifications of gay marriage? I'm genuinely interested to know.

[easytiger95]

Any talk of maturity here is self satisfied nonsense. This was a referendum conducted against a typical political contention that you could have something for nothing, so we get people having a party in Dublin without any concern for the future. With a complete media blitz that there was no actual issue of public policy here, and that everyone who asks any questions is a predjudiced homophobe then of course people voted yes. But a country which no interest in its next generation and how they are raised is a country on the skids, whatever back patting that is going on this morning. The point is that this simplistic debate is welcomed by people in this case because the end justifies the means, although those same people argue for a more realistic complex analysis on other issues. This risible reduction of the issue to imaginary rights feeds the abuse of people arguing for a nuanced analysis and the triumphalist carry on this weekend which resembles DUP election victory.

There is a enormous public mobilisation to have people change the name of their relationship from civil partnership to marriage, a purely token change. Where will be the public mobilisation to ensure that people have proper health treatment? The Minister for Health is going around undermining marriage instead of reducing waiting lists or ensuring that babies do not die from neglect. How many of these people who are living in England for years and who are coming here to vote fraudulently will vote to sort out these matters?

There is no reason for anyone, even a homosexual, to be satisfied at the state of the this State.

If it was just a token change then why such passion in your opposition to it?

By the way, your first paragraph makes no sense whatsoever, either grammatically or logically. No change there then.

[easytiger95]

If it is purely token, then why such talk about ramifications leading from it?

[easytiger95]

Can you write a post without blatantly contradicting yourself? No lost not because of a media bias to Yes, but because anytime No campaigners tried to logically argue their position they were hopelessly exposed. Which left people not with a choice between gay and straight, but between rationality and irrationality. And you were always going to be outnumbered on that.

As I've said during the campaign and Eamon Sweeney also pointed out this morning in the Sindo, the argument from Faith was the only No one that rung true with voters and that should have been front and centre at all times. You'd have lost still, but with a far slimmer margin, and a good deal more respect from all concerned.

Maybe next time, bin the posters saying children deserve a mother and a father, and all the other arguments that antagonized not just gays, but single parents, separated parents, divorced parents, widowed spouses....Jesus the list goes on, and you're still blaming other people.

The one thing missing from your campaign was empathy - empathy for others whose families do not add up to the Biblical ideal, and the ability to induce empathy in Yes voters for No catholics struggling with their conscience. Without it, you were on a loser.

[armaghniac]

If it is purely token, then why such talk about ramifications leading from it?

No real need to write 3 posts in response to mine, you could just write one sensible one. Thanks for pointing out the problems with my grammar, it is important to aim to do things right and not settle for lower standards.

I think that both the Constitution are Marriage are important things, not something to be used  for tokenism. Others may not think this, obviously they make up 62% of the population. 

Care to share what these ramifications would be?

I don't wish to refight the who thing again. But it isn't rocket science, if you had an institution, marriage, more or less setup to support people having children and bringing them up in stable circumstances and you redefine it as having nothing to do with that then that can only reduce its support for its original aim. This is a long term thing I can't say exactly what is going to happen in 10 years or 20 and of course the emphasis here is short term, the long term be damned.

[J70]

If it is purely token, then why such talk about ramifications leading from it?

No real need to write 3 posts in response to mine, you could just write one sensible one. Thanks for pointing out the problems with my grammar, it is important to aim to do things right and not settle for lower standards.

I think that both the Constitution are Marriage are important things, not something to be used  for tokenism. Others may not think this, obviously they make up 62% of the population.

Or maybe the 62% think marriage is so important that gays should be entitled to take part too?

[easytiger95]

I think that both the Constitution are Marriage are important things, not something to be used  for tokenism. Others may not think this, obviously they make up 62% of the population. 

That's not what you said, and even now, you seek to avoid questions that you know you can't answer. You said first

There is a enormous public mobilisation to have people change the name of their relationship from civil partnership to marriage, a purely token change

Now it can be either a token change, which, by definition, can have no ramifications, or it can be a change motivated by tokenism, which could have ramifications.

Your complete lack of intellectual honesty has been a hallmark of your contributions to this debate,  and not only did it weaken your argument, it displays a deep lack of respect for other posters on this board.

[armaghniac]

Now it can be either a token change, which, by definition, can have no ramifications, or it can be a change motivated by tokenism, which could have ramifications.

I'm not fighting this over again. But I would have been happier if the public debate had at least discussed issues like the above.

Your complete lack of intellectual honesty has been a hallmark of your contributions to this debate,  and not only did it weaken your argument, it displays a deep lack of respect for other posters on this board.

I've put forward my analysis, you may not agree with me, but there is no reason to say that it was dishonest. I put forward this analysis and have received feck all respect for being willing to do so when I ran into the blanket defence.

[easytiger95]

I'm not fighting this over again. But I would have been happier if the public debate had at least discussed issues like the above.

that is the very definition of dishonest - you have made two diametrically opposed statements in the space of two posts, you do not clarify which is your position, then you say you would have been "happier if the debate had discussed issues like the above".

I'd be happier if you would give a straight answer to a straight question, but given your behaviour so far, we're both likely to end up disappointed.

[Gabriel_Hurl]

Gabriel,it was a great day yesterday! A 34/1 accumulator came up for me involving 3 French and 3 Spanish teams! Utterly brilliant adrenalin rush,with the three Spanish clubs all winning in the afternoon,while the three French teams kicked off at 8pm,so following them on livescore as they each held on to one goal leads was brilliant.Seeing Full Time pop up in each of the three games was sheer ecstasy,I could have proposed to David Norris I was so happy!

But I don't gamble to make money (if I did I would be staking huge sums) I gamble for the adrenalin rush hence I am not committing any sin.

You'll be donating your winnings to charity then??

I hear the Christian Institute are looking a few bob to help out your favourite bakery so they can keep making those fruit scones you like