“But inevitably gay couples will then feel entitled to someone else’s kids once they are married. ”

Yeah, because if gays are allowed to get married – they are just going to run around stealing kids left, right and centre.

” ahead and get married gay people, but remember your sexual tendencies should prohibit you from having children when you do.”

Go on – humour me as to why their “sexual tendancies” are even remotely relevant as to whether or not a gay couple is suitable for bringing up a child.

im sorry but whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat !
so straight couples and single people who adopt are also after “other peoples kids ” instead of just attempting to provide loving home as they are

Don’t discriminate Frank.
Many of our local gays and lesbians are married to members of the opposite sex.
Should they all get divorced?

“But inevitably gay couples will then feel entitled to someone else’s kids once they are married”. Maybe I’m wrong but I thought you couldn’t adopt a child unless it had been given up for adoption by the parents? But maybe I’m wrong? I’ll look out for gay couples grabbing unatended children in order to whisk them off and raise them themselves. I always find it curious how staight people that have a problem with gay people adopting children always worry about the “sexual tendancies” of gay people? Is this knowledge from some experience or just from trawling through a lot of gay porn on the internet? Or is it just because you’r repeating chinese whispers and gossip? Kids need a mother and a father… personally, I need a big house and a billionaire!…..We can all dream about an ideal world but we don’t actually live in one, in case you haven’t noticed. Surely a good home is a good home and this obsession with kids and sex which the no side have says far more about them than gay couples.

Right like we are really gonna snatch kids and run off laughing like lunatics.

Kids need LOVE and only LOVE if you don’t understand that then you simply do not understand children period.

Oh really so I guess all of these loving same sex families who have been minding their own business raising their children and loving them as any other parent would has AMENDED the meaning of the word FAMILY?

The entitlement is how people like you feel not us we are not claiming we are the superior species or we are entitled too this or that.

However it is only fair that we are afforded the same opportunities at marrying the person that we love ,adopting a child,or even giving blood too save another persons life as any of you are easily afforded in this country.

It’s not natural. Like birth control, the internet and veganism.
It’s not supported by religion. Like women’s rights, vaccinations and evolution.
It denies a child a mother and a father. Like single parents who get benefits for being singular.
Gay marriage cannot produce kids. Like how infertile opposite-sex couples cannot marry.
Gay marriage means they will potentially parent kids, putting them at high risk to become gay themselves. Like how straight parents only produce straight kids.
Gay marriage isn’t normal. Like interracial marriages.

Whatever about the rest of your comments, having gay parents will not change someone’s chances of being gay! It’s not something you can change! You sound like that (clearly planted) ex-gay in America who Dónal óg interviewed who claimed to have ‘left the gay lifestyle’. How ridiculous. Although 30 years ago supreme Court judges would have agreed with you. Thankfully we have moved on (mostly)

I think you may have missed sarcasm there.

Haha oops!

Scarr, the objection is that religious people think that because their sky god has told them something it applies to everyone. Same load of baloney Islam teaches. That’s why religions are by definition anti-democratic and bigoted. That’s why no one should ever support them.

Exactly – but right now we can’t so we need you to vote Yes in May cos we are a minority. Please massah.

Reminds me of the conversation Gaye Byrne had with an audience member many years ago when discussing condoms on the programme. The guy stood up and ranted on for a couple of minutes on the evils of contraception and how in-Godly they are. Byrne asked him if he had any sons to which your man replied he did. He was asked would he like to see his sons use them to which your man said absolutely not. Byrne asked how old his son was to which the guy in the audience replied “35″.
Could just picture the son down the pub with his mates watching the whole thing unfold.

he’s entitled to his opinion and there are a lot of people who would agree with him. The Same Sex Marriage referendum is by no means a done deal. I think people will be surprised by the number of “No” votes. I expect the country will be divided along rural/urban lines.

Just because someone agrees with you doesn’t mean your opinion has any merit or should be treated with respect.

@ Tony Skillington, it’s a comment from a rustic gentleman, it just all came out the wrong way! There’s still a lot of those older thinking ppl in the nooks & crannies of our rural villages! Oh, I can remember that famous scene from the Late-Late also! Same type of person!!

So far the most compelling argument that I have heard against voting yes has been some nonsense about tradition marriage being better for children(I grew up in a single parent house hold) and the old line… “It’s supposed to be Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.”

I genuinely feel sorry for those who will vote No because they are living in the wrong century.

I’d be and enlightened and proud if he was related to me.
You can’t deny he’s got character,conviction and courage.
People like him are few and far between these days.
He’s a lot more fun than the jaundiced zombies serfs who’ll replace him.

@ Gary …….lighten up for Gods sake and buy yourself a sense of humour

My point is its ok to bully this man because he is different and you don’t agree with what he is saying.
When the shoe is on the other foit gay peolle want to be treated with respect wrapped in cotton wool and told they are great.
Double standards

Gary – they weren’t laughing at him for his views, they were laughing at his slip of the tongue saying men and women shouldn’t get married. Get with the game….

I didn’t laugh. I was second hand embarrassed at his ignorance. He believes morals and values comes from a sky fairy and yet that he should enjoy freedoms and liberties of marriage under law while denying them to other of age citizens. How is that not, at least, a bit ridiculous? I’m sure his family love him and just shake their head if they don’t agree, but the rest of us don’t have to respect him. I’m all for everyone’s right to an opinion. It doesn’t make everyone’s opinion right. I’m sure you won’t agree. But I have no time or respect for the no side anymore. They have no argument.

Ah Gary Gary: Get down off the high horse before you fall, good lad. Nobody has bullied this guy. Video’s like this go viral everyday. It’s funny because he made a fool of himself.

I think we all understood what he meant. It was the verbal slip that made it funny. Nobody is trying to bully him.

I’ll never ever ever ever agree with what he has to say. But In fact I would applaud him for having the guts to say it.

But that to the back of the bus mentally is something we need to strive to get rid of from Irish society.

Actually I couldn’t understand half of what he was saying. I was shocked and laughing at the fact anyone could be such an ignorant bigot

@Gay Gary… what he is doing is wrong. Gay people are not doing anything wrong. They just want equal rights. So it’s nothing to do with the shoe being on the other foot.

Seems like this referendum is going to be promoted with a kind of “Je Suis Charlie” style freedom of speech and opinion.

Agreed David,
No real debate so far and a lot of people are afraid to oppose the proposition publicly.

It’s ok to laugh at him because he stood up in order to have a venomous angry rant and ended up sticking his foot in his bigoted mouth and making a fool of himself in front of the whole country. And it had to be pointed out to him! Which made it even funnier. He’s not some hapless victim that is being picked on. Karma’s a b***ch, isn’t it Michael?…

David you sound like you are very anti “je suis Charlie”, and possibly against freedom of speech and opinion – but your message is lost in your sarcasm. It looks like you are (deliberately?) confusing a number of issues. “Je suis Charlie” says that we have the right to scathingly criticise or satirise views / ideologies / even people, without being murdered for it. On the subject of this thread, a person made some very vitriolic comments about marriage equality and then uttered a hilarious malapropism. Are you saying that we must not laugh at that? Nobody in the country is denying his right to say these things or even hold these views; many people are just laughing at the malapropism and the preposterousness (or whatever the word it) of those views. So if you agree with his views, try to articulate them a bit more rationally. If you disagree, just argue the point…

Sorry, I don’t respond well to aggressive orders based on biased assumptions.

Believe it or not Sean Macc, it takes many different kinds to make a nation. Not everyone is a carbon copy of you (thankfully).

I had a great laugh watching this guy (don’t agree with him at ALL) but this man is as entitled to his opinion as you or I am.

Regarding the COWARDLY no-show from FG, your attempt to paint this as an excuse for them not turning up is pathetic.

I for one am enjoying the debates and would like to sincerely thank TV3 and Vincent Browne for adding to our democracy. It’s just a pity that FG don’t care to participate. But then again a party that would rule a country via a four man ‘Economic Management Council’, doesn’t really respect democracy does it.

You’ve got some nerve Sinead some bloody nerve to preach about the journals comments policy. An absolute nothing policy that is never enforced. Some of the outrageous stuff that you and your staff apparent allow as fair comment is a disgrace.

Patrick, it is enforced…..from time to time. However, repeated reports are ignored. I reported a comment where I was told to ‘go get the ride in coppers’ if I want children. Another one where I was called mentally ill and a paedophile. They were allowed to stay. My report was ignored. I emailed the author. Nothing. I emailed the editor. Nothing. I emailed the info contact. Nothing. It’s lazy at best

Sinead, it’s time it was pointed out that often this “ad-hominem” argument is false. Many people hold opinions that say more about them than their arguments. For example if I was debating with a Creationist who didn’t believe in Evolution it’s perfectly valid to point out that his objections to Evolution are not on the basis of science but his brainwashing into a fundamental Christian religion. A person’s brain power, logical abilities, education, knowledge, religion etc are perfectly valid parts of that discussion. Often such a person will say he’s “insulted” if you say he holds his opinions because of brainwashing as a child, but it’s not an insult, it’s a fact. Facts must be allowed in discussions. In fact it’s essential that people are challenged to analyse their own lack of objectivity.

Just have to love this guy, he sounded just like John from the unbelievable’s Comedy Duo! “We don’t want to see men & women marrying! Well he could be right about the Political Parties all-right!

When it comes to votes, they’ll lick the sores off his ass for his vote!

When it comes to votes, they’ll lick the sores off his ass for his vote!

Sinead

Why are you informing us of the comments policy in this article?

You are contributing to the notion that we all have to be very careful about what we say in terms of the gay marriage debate. I say everyone should say whatever the hell they want. If people want to see the comments policy they will look it up.

I’ll be voting no I’m afraid.
Nothing personal.
I just do not trust the referendums that our government put forward.

Looks like a decent old fella, who went through a lot in his life.
Shame that people like him are being replaced with materialistic hollow selfish dependant pawns.

Thank you for your opinion William.
But I’d have him over the majority of today’s moribund shallow technoslaves any day.
The vested interests just love vilifying beliitling banishing people like him,
shutting their local Garda stations, pubs, shops, and post offices
busting up their little communities and throwing them at the mercy of criminal gangs.
Why would he vote yes to anything our shylock criminal government put forward?

that mans frustration is certainly understandable, and he has to be admired for making an impassioned stand, against the way in which his beliefs, and the beliefs of his forefathers, are treated with contempt and scorn by the media and political establishment in this country.

Neil, I’m sure the plantation owners felt exactly the same when they were told they must free their slaves….. Just because a belief has been the belief of your forefathers and entrenched for generations doesn’t make it right to cling on to it in a more enlightened time. If that was the case we’d all still be living in caves. The magadalene laundries were a way of life for generations but surely nobody would suggest they are something that should be brought back?

So we should do as they do? rather than try do things differently? and yes that is how political campaigns in a western democracy go and look how well we are all doing!!

“be the change you want to see in the world”

I agree, Ginger. Real shame liberals harm their position with such disdain for their opponents’ views.

If someone honestly feels that gays shouldn’t be given the right to marry, then obviously that view should be respected, just as the view that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote or that black people should go to the back of the bus should be respected.

See what I did there?

Why should anyone who thinks women shouldn’t vote have that view respected, not all views are worthy of respect and this mans backward homophobic view should be treated with the same disdain as those examples you gave Shocklodge.

i never said respect their views , i said respect the fact that they have their own views.

i see what you did there all right

Well actually Ginger Jay there is a huge difference between being “liked” and being “accepted”. I’ve never demanded the right to be “liked” but from the time that I understood my G sexuality late in my thirties [long story, not relevant any more thank goodness] I have always felt that I deserve to be “accepted” as an equal member of society. And in fairness in my personal experience since I came out I have never experienced any non-acceptance, and with this liberation I’ve probably grown more “liked” as a person (my bitchy friends may say, from a low starting point).

Anyhow the points are:
1. Everybody is entitled to their opinion in a democracy.
2. We don’t have to respect that opinion, but we do have to try by argument to change it if we don’t agree with it, because that opinion still carries a vote.
3. It is usually better to try to convince people by rational and non-insulting argument, rather than by insults or bullying, no matter what side you are on.
4. But sometimes the opinions are so irrational or absurd that your only choices are to laugh or cry. Better to laugh.

Would it be okay for a man who lived in a different time to endorse taking a belt to a child to discipline them? If not, why not?

He’s not living in a different time, unless there’s a time machine stashed away in his cowshed. He is living in this time, just with backward and unenlightened views. That’s his fault and not something to be excused. If he had suggested that all single mothers in the village be rounded up and dragged off to the nuns for their sinful ways would people have made excuses? Or even laughed? The shock of how unacceptable that is today would have left the room in a stunned silence! He’s a backward relic that has been left behind while everyone else has moved on. and he’s angry about it. Nothing more. I’m sure the first humans that moved from caves to mud huts felt the same.

Such tolerance.

It’s quite obvious that most of the people saying this man is being ‘bullied’ or ‘shouldn’t be laughed at’ didn’t even see the show.

He got up and started ranting against gay marriage, but actually ended up lambasting heterosexual marriage and didn’t realise it until the person next to him told him, several seconds after he’d finished & handed back the mic.

That’s what was funny, not the fact that he’s old and has a view that differs from the masses.

Im going to assume my post has gone over your head this morning Mr.Cat

It’s ok to laugh at the gays too. Graham Norton is pretty funny for instance.

Keith what’s with the running commentary its terrible humour
Grunts at keyboard
Farts
Scratches arse
Pushes send button
Oh eating popcorn ha ha
Ha ha ha
Laughs
Not out loud

Actually, laughing at bigotry is the best way to respond to it.

Maybe you’re right. It makes me as angry as anybody else. I feel somewhat sorry for those people though. Like it or not, if you were born 100 years ago, you may not be as progressive as you are. It wouldn’t be your fault as an individual, more down to our evolution as a society. That doesn’t justify his comments, but I just think it needs to be said. Anyway, my opinion is still in strong contrast to his which is the real topic of debate I suppose!

People learned bigotry from other people. Shouting about “da gays” contributes to a narrative that other bigots learn their hate from, or use to justify their hate. So, mainstream society laughing at bigotry tells all the bigots out there that their opinions are ridiculous so they hopefully keep their mouth shut and other would be bigots don’t learn from them.

Up down, I totally agree with your attempts at understanding and tolerance; and I’m trying really hard to agree with your sentiments. But honestly, in a case like this, the options of education and rational debate seem to be limited. Maybe some straight ally could educate him and the hundreds of thousands like him – whether in rural Ireland or in Colaiste Eoin Stillorgan (where the same issue exists, albeit more articulately) – who WILL vote NO, that actually this is just an equality issue where many will gain, but not one adult or child in the whole country will suffer if it is passed.

Stephen, as a left handed person I take great exemption to being referred to as a ‘quirk of nature’……

Mairead
Its nothing to do with the popular vote. Its about treating ALL of our citizens equally.
What exactly do you mean by “moral values”??
Is that a dig at LGBT people?

Sorry Jean, I meant no offence! What would you suggest as an alternative wording? I just meant that both traits are naturally occurring and have no moral implications.

Stephen when you say “quirk of nature” what exactly do you mean?