The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[J70]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

You will be voting no because you are a homophobe. you are the ultimate hypocrite. A self righteous twat.

Hold on horse, that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw one.
Al the intolerant bigots aren't to be found on the No side in this debate.
For the record, I don''t agree with Rossfan but he is entitled to his opinion as I am to mine or you are to yours- no more and no less.

The "your intolerance of my intolerance makes you an intolerant bigot " argument.

[J70]

The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.

Ridiculous hyperbole much?

Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?

[J70]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

Does civil partnership allow the surviving partner to get a spouse's pension ?

Why should it? Why should the person not have their own pension and not be subsidised by other people?

Does the surviving spouse of a heterosexual marriage get the pension?

Whataboutery, the whole thing is based on getting what themmuns have, not justified for its own sake.
If you agree then put forward a postive justification for people paying more for pensions and tax reliefs for same sex couples.

The only argument needed is that by not granting rights such as entitlement to spousal pensions, the state is denying the legitimacy and codependency of homosexual relationships compared to heterosexual ones. Gay couples have all the same financial issues as the rest of us, including those that are shared with committed partners. They also pay the same taxes. As citizens, they are entitled to the same benefits. That includes the benefits deriving from making legal commitments such as marriage.

[seafoid]

Shane in 100 years time I will be enjoying heavenly bliss,you will be in hell suffering eternal misery,everyday will be like that glorious day in 2002 for me,with the same pain it caused for you

a keeper


You are going to be in for a such a land when you find out that Hindus were on the righteous path and you're reborn as a tyrone woman,
to learn what you couldn't or wouldn't in this life .

[seafoid]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

Does civil partnership allow the surviving partner to get a spouse's pension ?

Why should it? Why should the person not have their own pension and not be subsidised by other people?

Carers can't always work, those who raise kids can't always work- spouses pensions are part of what makes our society civilised.
Part of what gives people a floor so they don't end up destitute.

why should straight people have it but not gay people?

[armaghniac]

The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.

Ridiculous hyperbole much?

Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?

As Gandhi said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and you expect the effect of a change to be evident in 10, you are not serious.

Marriage has certain fiscal advantages which society provides to encourage men and women to get together and raise their children together. This is an attempt by people opposed to that concept to freeload on established arrangements. THe proposition here is  we we're a same sex couple, we're going to set up house together, would the rest of your please chip in to pay for this. This proposition would be rejected as there is no public policy reason for this. But by freeloading on established arrangements people want to achieve this by the back door.

[J70]

The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.

Ridiculous hyperbole much?

Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?

As Gandhi said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and you expect the effect of a change to be evident in 10, you are not serious.

Marriage has certain fiscal advantages which society provides to encourage men and women to get together and raise their children together. This is an attempt by people opposed to that concept to freeload on established arrangements. THe proposition here is  we we're a same sex couple, we're going to set up house together, would the rest of your please chip in to pay for this. This proposition would be rejected as there is no public policy reason for this. But by freeloading on established arrangements people want to achieve this by the back door.

Bollocks.

Please point out where and when opposition to heterosexual marriage has been a component of the campaign for gay marriage. And if the fiscal benefits afforded to heterosexually married couples is all about raising children, they why are childless couples not denied them? Why do we have extra benefits such as the children's allowance or, in the US, income tax deductions and credits based on number of children?

And I don't expect any effect on marriage by gay couples getting married. I can't even imagine what effects you are talking about. Perhaps you could outline what they will be?

[charlieTully]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

You will be voting no because you are a homophobe. you are the ultimate hypocrite. A self righteous twat.

Hold on horse, that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw one.
Al the intolerant bigots aren't to be found on the No side in this debate.
For the record, I don''t agree with Rossfan but he is entitled to his opinion as I am to mine or you are to yours- no more and no less.

The "your intolerance of my intolerance makes you an intolerant bigot " argument.

In a nutshell. every man alive has a degree of bigotry in their soul whether they care to admit it or not.

[seafoid]

The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.

Ridiculous hyperbole much?

Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?

As Gandhi said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and you expect the effect of a change to be evident in 10, you are not serious.

Marriage has certain fiscal advantages which society provides to encourage men and women to get together and raise their children together. This is an attempt by people opposed to that concept to freeload on established arrangements. THe proposition here is  we we're a same sex couple, we're going to set up house together, would the rest of your please chip in to pay for this. This proposition would be rejected as there is no public policy reason for this. But by freeloading on established arrangements people want to achieve this by the back door.

I think marriage as an institution has been undermined by straight people between divorce and not bothering  getting married  (which is grand as well).  Gay couples should have the same pension rights as straight people and if they want to f**k up their marriages like straight people let them at it. 

[Puckoon]

Iceman, not to derail the hilarity here - why if you don't mind people smoking weed do you not want it to be legal?

[armaghniac]

The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.

Ridiculous hyperbole much?

Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?

As Gandhi said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and you expect the effect of a change to be evident in 10, you are not serious.

Marriage has certain fiscal advantages which society provides to encourage men and women to get together and raise their children together. This is an attempt by people opposed to that concept to freeload on established arrangements. THe proposition here is  we we're a same sex couple, we're going to set up house together, would the rest of your please chip in to pay for this. This proposition would be rejected as there is no public policy reason for this. But by freeloading on established arrangements people want to achieve this by the back door.

I think marriage as an institution has been undermined by straight people between divorce and not bothering  getting married  (which is grand as well).  Gay couples should have the same pension rights as straight people and if they want to f**k up their marriages like straight people let them at it.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Some people undermining marriage is no justification whatsoever for allowing an increased number of people undermine marriage.

[seafoid]

The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.

Ridiculous hyperbole much?

Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?

As Gandhi said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and you expect the effect of a change to be evident in 10, you are not serious.

Marriage has certain fiscal advantages which society provides to encourage men and women to get together and raise their children together. This is an attempt by people opposed to that concept to freeload on established arrangements. THe proposition here is  we we're a same sex couple, we're going to set up house together, would the rest of your please chip in to pay for this. This proposition would be rejected as there is no public policy reason for this. But by freeloading on established arrangements people want to achieve this by the back door.

I think marriage as an institution has been undermined by straight people between divorce and not bothering  getting married  (which is grand as well).  Gay couples should have the same pension rights as straight people and if they want to f**k up their marriages like straight people let them at it.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Some people undermining marriage is no justification whatsoever for allowing an increased number of people undermine marriage.

Give everyone the same rights.
Straight people do most damage to marriage anyway. 

[LCohen]

You'll not be surprised to learn I'm in the No camp.For moral and religious reasons I object to these practices being equated to the status of normal male female relationships as defined by scripture.

"these practices"??

With posts like the one above tony you are going to run the risk of being labelled a truly horrific, hate-riddled bigot of the first degree. Before jumping to that conclusion myself i will grant you the right to at least explain yourself. Can you please detail where in scripture homosexuality is deemed to compromise morality or offend "god"?

[LCohen]

The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.

Please explain?

[LCohen]

Shane in 100 years time I will be enjoying heavenly bliss,you will be in hell suffering eternal misery,everyday will be like that glorious day in 2002 for me,with the same pain it caused for you

Another lesson in the fine virtues of the Christian virtues that the god character will reward when vetting entrance to his little club