The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[T Fearon]

Easy tiger why are you looking for straight answers to gay marriage issues?

[imtommygunn]

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.

I really don't agree with this at all to be honest. I vaguely read what you wrote before and thought your argument was about potential ramifications which you can't qualify or quantify. The family unit is very different to what it was years ago. Children no longer have to born in wedlock and people who marry no longer do it purely for children. Anyway no point in covering old ground.

To be fair you make better arguments than topcuppla or fearon though topcuppla seems like a very confused individual.

[T Fearon]

Gabriel another 15/1 bet up today! Roscommon,Minaghan,Celtic -1,Newcastle!

[Gabriel_Hurl]

2 Corinthians 11:30

If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.

James 4:16

As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil

[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?

[macdanger2]

Where did the use of the phrase "playing the racist / homophobic card" when you call somebody on saying something blatantly racist / homophobic come from? It's an interesting way of avoiding having to back up your remarks while at the same time leveling an accusation at the other person

[J70]

Where did the use of the phrase "playing the racist / homophobic card" when you call somebody on saying something blatantly racist / homophobic come from? It's an interesting way of avoiding having to back up your remarks while at the same time leveling an accusation at the other person

Originally the phrase came from Churchill ' s uncle i.e. the Orange card being the one to play. More recently,  the US right wing, whenever someone mentions inequality,  it's class warfare;  minority/black issues, you're playing the race card. It's a way of shutting down conversations they don't want to have.

[T Fearon]

Gabriel when did making a statement of fact become a boast?

[Oraisteach]

When you use the fact to intentionally draw praise from others and thereby pat yourself on the back.

Still, as impressed as I am that you win these competitions, I'm even more astounded that you're able to find them.  So competitive are you, Tony, that if there were a competition whose first prize was a gay rights rainbow flag, you'd enter because it's in the genes, like homosexuality, and good for you.  I'd be curious to know how many of these competitions you've won in your storied life, and better yet, you should post a photo of your haul.  Do you recall the first prize you ever won?

[T Fearon]

Believe it or not it was a bottle of whiskey for writing the star letter in the Sunday People sports pages way back in the early 70s.Also remember winning tickets from RTE Radio 2 for Rolling Stones at Slane in 1982,that was when the bug bit.

[armaghniac]

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.

I really don't agree with this at all to be honest. I vaguely read what you wrote before and thought your argument was about potential ramifications which you can't qualify or quantify. The family unit is very different to what it was years ago. Children no longer have to born in wedlock and people who marry no longer do it purely for children. Anyway no point in covering old ground.

To be fair you make better arguments than topcuppla or fearon though topcuppla seems like a very confused individual.

There is no point in covering old ground as we are talking at cross purposes. I am talking about what is the best environment for children and you are talking about the best setup for facilitating adults. There is no agreement possible because we are not answering the same question and you don't consider my question valid nor do you think you should have to think about it.

Every country which has introduced gay marriage has a birthrate below replacement, although this is not confined to such countries. They will have a rainbow culture for a declining number of people, or they will have immigration from places who may not fit into the rainbow culture at all, with all that entails.

[Eamonnca1]

Are we going extinct so?

[imtommygunn]

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.

I really don't agree with this at all to be honest. I vaguely read what you wrote before and thought your argument was about potential ramifications which you can't qualify or quantify. The family unit is very different to what it was years ago. Children no longer have to born in wedlock and people who marry no longer do it purely for children. Anyway no point in covering old ground.

To be fair you make better arguments than topcuppla or fearon though topcuppla seems like a very confused individual.

There is no point in covering old ground as we are talking at cross purposes. I am talking about what is the best environment for children and you are talking about the best setup for facilitating adults. There is no agreement possible because we are not answering the same question and you don't consider my question valid nor do you think you should have to think about it.

Every country which has introduced gay marriage has a birthrate below replacement, although this is not confined to such countries. They will have a rainbow culture for a declining number of people, or they will have immigration from places who may not fit into the rainbow culture at all, with all that entails.

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.

[armaghniac]

[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. 

[thebigfella]

[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.

So you had a vote then?