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.

If the prejudice you allure to isn't the well played card of homophobia what is it?

The phrase was 'prejudice to some degree'.

There are homophobes.
There are those who are quite uncomfortable with homosexuality, but might prefer not to show it.
There are those that are comfortable with homosexuality as long as it isn't in your face.
There are those who have no issues with any aspect of homosexuality whatsoever.

There is 4 different examples of degrees of prejudice, off the top of my head. Different posters will see themselves in one or two of the above, or maybe feel there should be more categories. Maybe many more categories. Other than the first category, I think most people can empathise with the different levels of tolerance. In fact, with education or life experience or whatever, people can move from one category to another over time.

[Eamonnca1]

A 6 year variation is not the time scale involved.
I'm not claiming a direct connection between gay marriage and the birth rate. I am saying that a national debate where the section of the constitution about the family is said to have nothing to do with children is indicative of particular frame of mind. I suggest that the original writers of the constitution in 1937 had a longer view than we do today.

Why are you bringing up birth rates then?

[imtommygunn]

[so what has been the trend of this birthrate being below replacement? Has it decreased the birthrate since gay marriage has been introduced, has there been a downward trend or was it always there?Genuinely interested to know this.

[edit] first country i looked at - sweden. Gay marriage legalised in 09. Birthrate has since went up.

A 6 year variation is not the time scale involved.
I'm not claiming a direct connection between gay marriage and the birth rate. I am saying that a national debate where the section of the constitution about the family is said to have nothing to do with children is indicative of particular frame of mind. I suggest that the original writers of the constitution in 1937 had a longer view than we do today.

Yeah as stated why bring up birth rates and then say 6 years isn't long enough.

To be honest you haven't  very good at making whatever point you're trying to make and also it was quite noticeable that only when it became clear yes was winning did you bring up the "illegal" voters which kind of seems like sour grapes.

[armaghniac]

My recent comments started when I criticised the simplistic and trivial nature of the discussion prior to the referendum, and the previous 2 posts prove my point, so I'll leave it at that.

[Tony Baloney]

You may have noticed the votes are cast and counted.

[imtommygunn]

My recent comments started when I criticised the simplistic and trivial nature of the discussion prior to the referendum, and the previous 2 posts prove my point, so I'll leave it at that.

I understand why they started. You seem to be trying to make a deep and profound point and don't seem to have the ability to articulate it.

Anyway not much point in this. As tb says case closed.

[gallsman]

Given the cataclysmic effects over population will have on the planet over the next century, lower birth rates might not be the worst thing in the world.

By the way, and this is only a hunch, but I doubt too many gay people would have thought "ah, sure I can't get married, may as well be straight and have a couple of kids".

[foxcommander]

Can look forward to more stories like this one now in the free state.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199076/Grandparents-children-given-gay-couple-adoption-denied-access-years.html

You know it's going to happen and if some don't get their way they will label others and bully into submission. Seems to be the trend.

The biggest winners in this referendum will be the legal eagles with tons of new cases to leech from.

I hope all the massgoers who voted yes yesterday had the decency to stay away today.
A dark day for the family unit.

[Eamonnca1]

Well if it's in the Daily Mail then it must be true. 

[Eamonnca1]

where about's in Ireland are you celebrating currently?

And just what, prey tell, does that have to do with the price of fish? Hmm?

[topcuppla]

I never asked about the price of fish, I asked where about's in Ireland are you currently celebrating?

[topcuppla]

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.

If the prejudice you allure to isn't the well played card of homophobia what is it?

The phrase was 'prejudice to some degree'.

There are homophobes.
There are those who are quite uncomfortable with homosexuality, but might prefer not to show it.
There are those that are comfortable with homosexuality as long as it isn't in your face.
There are those who have no issues with any aspect of homosexuality whatsoever.

There is 4 different examples of degrees of prejudice, off the top of my head. Different posters will see themselves in one or two of the above, or maybe feel there should be more categories. Maybe many more categories. Other than the first category, I think most people can empathise with the different levels of tolerance. In fact, with education or life experience or whatever, people can move from one category to another over time.

The gay rights activists on this board would beg to differ, though your post does give more of an insight into your rational that you let on, I would guess you fall into the second and third, but keep at the keyboard warrior you are playing a blinder!

[macdanger2]

Can look forward to more stories like this one now in the free state.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199076/Grandparents-children-given-gay-couple-adoption-denied-access-years.html

You know it's going to happen and if some don't get their way they will label others and bully into submission. Seems to be the trend.

The biggest winners in this referendum will be the legal eagles with tons of new cases to leech from.

I hope all the massgoers who voted yes yesterday had the decency to stay away today.
A dark day for the family unit.

[imtommygunn]

Can look forward to more stories like this one now in the free state.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199076/Grandparents-children-given-gay-couple-adoption-denied-access-years.html

You know it's going to happen and if some don't get their way they will label others and bully into submission. Seems to be the trend.

The biggest winners in this referendum will be the legal eagles with tons of new cases to leech from.

I hope all the massgoers who voted yes yesterday had the decency to stay away today.
A dark day for the family unit.

Yes because that couldn't possibly happen if a heterosexual couple had adopted them.

The daily mail is the lowest of the low as a paper. The story printed after stephen gateley died was as homophobic as it gets and one of the most disgusting atories i've ever seen in the media. (Second only to a picture of someone hanging on the front of the sunday world)

[LCohen]

The vote applies to the free state only.If proper democracy applied on this island,a No vote would be recorded as all unionists in the north are opposed to gay marriage as are the majority of Catholics.

You would think that the the end of the campaign, the cotes being counted and the result being announced would signal the end of the lies but alas no. Keep deluding yourself there Tony