The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[AZOffaly]

My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?

I'll tell you what is abnormal, a supposedly grown man posting/trolling the same old shite over and over again on an internet forum for his own twisted satisfaction.

*applause*

[topcuppla]

My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?

Do priests not marry God, is that not a bit abnormal?

[muppet]

My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?

Do priests not marry God, is that not a bit abnormal?

Nuns too.

Come to think of it.......

[Gabriel_Hurl]

My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?

I'll tell you what is abnormal, a supposedly grown man posting/trolling the same old shite over and over again on an internet forum for his own twisted satisfaction.

The old newspaper competitions must have dried up the last few months

[Keyboard Warrior]

My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?

You compare homosexuals to dogs?
Their relationships are abnormal? The relationship as a whole or specific parts are abnormal?
Yes, their sexual intercourse cannot produce offspring, but by your logic that implies that the only aspect of a relationship is sex to produce offspring. (This by extension would move infertile heterosexuals into the same abnormal category).

I would contend that there is more to a relationship than sex to produce offspring; things like love and companionship to begin with.

[Sidney]

Poor Tony, so much hatred for one man.

Must be down to the way he was brought up.

Truly a man to be pitied.

[LCohen]

Evidence? How about I believe gay marriage is morally wrong and contrary to God's word?

Sentences beginning with "I believe ......" are unlikely to amount to evidence.

I believe that Tony Fearon is a bigamist and my evidence is that I believe he is a bigamist. How would play out in a court of law or even in a rational mind?

So I'm still waiting on your evidence

[LCohen]

The core point here is children being placed in the setting of a non normal upbringing,before they reach the age of consent or reason.

How if one is reared in a non normal environment is one going to grow up to be normal,and how will anyone feel and react to this non normal upbringing when they reach the age of reason.

children are normally placed in their new families before the age of consent. Some will resent their placement. There will be many reasons for this. Homophobia seems to the rationale for you focusing on one potential cause.

Your repeated use of "normal"/"abnormal" needs to be explained with something a bit more substantial than "I believe ...."

[LCohen]

tony describes describes a child being raised by a same sex couple as a bizzare proposition. Yet when asked for evidence that it cannot work he falls silent. I never thought there was any link between faith and decency but i understood that spiritualists would make that claim. Tony's willingness to deal in ignorance and hatred and not to have the decency to address the argument and come up with some evidence (or to admit that his arguments are baseless in fact) shows that spiritualists have given up on even the appearance of decency.

That is some claim, using one person's viewpoint for all the people of one grouping.
Tony is also a member of the GAA (I persume), would this sound right "shows that GAA have given up on even the appearance of decency"

Tony roots his outrageous statements/claims in his spirtualism. I would welcome a host of spiritualist who pointed out the disgusting nature of Tony's contributions to this and other debates

Tony is not rooting his outrages in his GAA fandom or membership

Tony is from my own county. I am ashamed of him
Tony is from my own species. I am ashamed of him on that level also

[LCohen]

My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?

Now that is shameful trolling

Any not sure anybody is advocating ,arriage between anything other than consenting adult humans. The dog analogy is idiotic as well as shameful

[BennyCake]

I think it's got to the point where you can't say anything against gay "marriage" or adoption without being regarded as homophobic or anti-gay. Yer man Wells at least has the balls to speak out about it, (unfortunately he went a bit far) unlike the rest of the cowardly political leaders out there. Gaining a few votes is obviously more important to them.

[J70]

I think it's got to the point where you can't say anything against gay "marriage" or adoption without being regarded as homophobic or anti-gay. Yer man Wells at least has the balls to speak out about it, (unfortunately he went a bit far) unlike the rest of the cowardly political leaders out there. Gaining a few votes is obviously more important to them.

Maybe you need better facts and arguments?

[Maguire01]

I think it's got to the point where you can't say anything against gay "marriage" or adoption without being regarded as homophobic or anti-gay. Yer man Wells at least has the balls to speak out about it, (unfortunately he went a bit far) unlike the rest of the cowardly political leaders out there. Gaining a few votes is obviously more important to them.

Wells didn't just go too far, he made no sense whatsoever. Put forward a good case and it can be debated on its merits.

[Jeepers Creepers]

I think it's got to the point where you can't say anything against gay "marriage" or adoption without being regarded as homophobic or anti-gay. Yer man Wells at least has the balls to speak out about it, (unfortunately he went a bit far) unlike the rest of the cowardly political leaders out there. Gaining a few votes is obviously more important to them.

Went abit far or came out with an outrageous statement based on no fact or statistic?

[muppet]

I think it's got to the point where you can't say anything against gay "marriage" or adoption without being regarded as homophobic or anti-gay. Yer man Wells at least has the balls to speak out about it, (unfortunately he went a bit far) unlike the rest of the cowardly political leaders out there. Gaining a few votes is obviously more important to them.

In fairness, it is a good question whether you can do the former and not be the latter.

If you take the Tony approach, then there are very few who will regard you as anything but rabidly homophobic. But what about the reasonable person who treats everyone they meet respectfully and equally, but deep down just can't agree with the concept? Their personal objection will only manifest itself in the referendum by voting NO.

Is conscientious objection in this case homophobic? It would seem very harsh if yes was the answer.