Just another reason to vote no

Why destroy the castle! Idiot owner and artist.

It’s biodegradable paper. It is not destroying the castle as it will degrade in the rain. Neither the owner or the artist are idiots.

I love castles also, I think it’s class..!

Then we can concentrate on the issues concerning Irish Water again (more shite)……

It’s not exactly Banksy is it….

Maybe!

Let’s have our own Voting system here.
RED thumb = NO
GREEN thumb = YES

At least it’s biodegradable and will disappear after a few showers of rain. I hope the posters – including cable ties – will be removed within the legal timeframe after the referendum! The place is littered with them!

Vote YES for some, miniature Irish flags for others.

You cant blame me I voted for Kodos.

After 30 minutes of Voting the results are as follows:

NO VOTE: 33%

YES VOTE: 66%

You heard it here first!!

*ANNOUNCEMENT*

Yes voters are to vote on Friday.

No voters are to vote on Saturday.

*END*

Great but the grey vote do not appear to be either posting or interacting with this forum!
It looks like it will be much tighter than first anticipated and they are the ones who turn out!!

How do you know they are not interacting Richard?
Posters don’t attach a date of birth to their posts, I don’t.

Us ‘grey’ voters don’t automatically turn into a typical 1960s style homophobic, sandal and cardigan wearing, god fearing zealots at the first sign of a grey hair. Believe it or not most of us are calm, balanced thinkers that have many gay friends and relatives and actually want marriage for all citizens, gay and straight. We also are very well aware of all the bullshite that has been bandied around lately from the no side.

Anyone I know that is considering voting no are those much younger who have young children. I am sick to my teeth of us greys being blamed for being backward thinking – easy target comes to mind.

Try engaging with us, we will educate you.

Same sex, grand. Same sex marriage, RIDICULOUS.
VOTE NO.

I agree wholeheartedly Molly coddled, I feel this approach of ‘call your granny and tell her why she should vote yes’ is utterly patronising, I’m not an grey voter, but common sense I hope will prevail when people are in the voting booths. Vote yes for inclusion or no for exclusion even the oldest and most conservative voter realises this. There are members of the LGBT community living within all areas of our society and accordingly are all ages too. I sometimes wonder do young people think they invented LGBT people?? Do they not realise gay people have been around for as long as there have been people?? Except for most of it they have had to deal with a serious amount of discrimination or else hide in the closet. This is the last legal barrier, if we vote yes we can eliminate that! I think we are in danger of letting our own prejudices towards voter profiling influence our feelings on which way we are all voting!

What happened to the other 1%

Weeya, I personally have seen over the years, in Ireland, the effect of religious doctrine resulting in society’s treatment, exclusion, victimisation and criminalisation of homosexuals. I know some who even felt compelled to live a lie and become married for the sake of ‘respectability’ and keeping their jobs and the respect of their families.

We have, thankfully, moved on from those dark days, and now is our opportunity to redeem our past, not to perpetuate it, and to say sorry it was wrong, and vote yes for inclusion.

Well said Molly.It is time to move on and never look back.Sadly,there are still people out there who treat such religious doctrines as a way of life as clearly evident from the various comments.Vote yes for a fair,equal society.Vote yes for inclusion.

After 13 hours of Voting the results are as follows.
NO Vote 33.49%
YES Vote 66.51%

Almost exactly same %’s as the 30 minute count.

“…but grey voters don’t seem to be interacting with this forum…”

The article has over 40,000 views and a very small percentage of those readers interact with the forum on each article. It will still be a very close result either way.

It’s done with bio degradable paper, meaning when it rains it will start to come off. Like the last one.
Plus they got permission before doing this also. By that logic, no harm done.

It’s not permanent billy. It’s just paper and will fade and disappear in time. It’s just a rather large poster as such.

It’s bio degradable so it won’t do any permanent damage to the castle.

If it’s a yes it will be voted on again. Church still wielding it’s power.

Agree – it will come around again if voted no but maybe next time it will be about giving gay people marriage equality by way of giving civil partnerships equal status to that of marriage as opposed to changing one of the cornerstones of someone else’s beliefs. Nobody wishes for gay people to have less rights (except for a very small minority of idiots possibly).

Dgar we must have a separation of church and state.

“Billy Cotter:

“who ever will win will win”. Not necessarily. If it’s a win for the NO side then we will be given the ‘opportunity’ to get it right in a few months time.

Peter McGlynn, let’s put a wager on that!

Christian or any other religious marriage will not be changed or devalued by the introduction of same sex Marriage. Religion does Not own this word or institution.

Its obvious people pushing a ‘Yes’ vote feel they are above the law.
Disgusted by this. This castle is a national monument and heritage building. Its being ruined by this stupid mural.

Don’t worry zoe, you can sleep easy tonight because it’s biodegradable paper that will come off in the rain. do you know what doesn’t come out in the rain? the effect of people actively trying to deny others the rights that they have.

Ruined? By a biodegradable mural that will gradually disappear – just like the one on George’s Street is.

‘feel they are above the law’? He got permission from the owners of the privately owned building. They haven’t broken any laws.

The two he did in Limerick a year ago are still there. They’re degrading but not particularly quickly.

Relax, Zoe. No need to worry about heritage building – the owners (egalitarian types, I suspect) agreed to the mural. I’m sure you could have a counter mural done on your house.

Or all the churches calling for a no vote.

TL;DR Tom?

Graham in constutional law a family is the married couple with or without children. This was established in Murray v Ireland 1985. If there isn’t already a constitutional right to surrogacy for straight married couples then neither will there be one for gay spouses. The Referendum Commission has said so.

Marriage is not a deciding factor but if this referendum is passed a gay couple will have to be seen as absolutely equal to a straight couple by adoption services . Absolutely and totally equal. No scaremongering here. I refuse to get in the ‘cool’ vote Yes train because of this.

Red Herring Alert! Red Herring Alert! Red Herring Alert!

Ah graham they already are equal to hetrosexual couples in the eyes of the law with regard to adoption. The only people who are not recognising gay couples as equal are those who campaign to deny them rights.

Graham there are no quotas for adoption,if there were there would be no need for an Adoption Authority,adopting a child is probably the most difficult thing to do in this country,the current average wait is 3-4 years as there are no Irish children available for adoption outside of family circumstances. Countries Irish couples traditionally adopted from such as Vietnam,Ukraine and Russia are not signed up to The Hague Convention,a requirement for adoption into Ireland,the pool has shrunk drastically as most of the countries signed up to it are wealthy countries,who,like ourselves have no indigenous children available for adoption. Can I ask where you got your information from and also,how do you still not know at this stage that adoption has nothing to do with the marriage referendum?

Graham, you’re wrong. The child and family relationships bill has sorted out adoption issues. There are and will be no quotas. There will be no changes to adoption if it’s a yes at referendum time. If in doubt check out Geoffrey Shannon’s interview explaining this. We are voting on same sex marriage, nothing else.

Graham: Can you explain your issue with gay couples adopting children? Numerous studies have shown that it’s fine. And loads of kids (young and old) have spoken out on their experiences as kids of gay couples.

So your problem is…. what exactly?

That is not true Graham. Marriage does not confer automatic adoption rights. But what comes across from your post is a belief that gay couples cannot be good parents which I think is offensive.

Who cares if you think it’s offensive. Sick of people nowadays with their “I’m offended”.

@bojangles I find that offensive

I find that offensive lol

Graham, take a look at the family and relationships bill, it has already dealt with ssm couples adopting. Try educating yourself on the facts of the referendum before spewing irrelevant and incorrect arguments onto a comments forum

Gay individuals can adopt with or without same sex marriage. Amd adoption is extremely rare in Ireland. Get your facts right

Kids don’t want or need to have gay parents.
Vote no on Friday. Equality for kids.

Tony, how are you today? Still holding the belief that homosexuals are pedophiles as you stated before?

@Graham – And what exactly is the problem with Gay People adopting kids anyway. If they have to go through the same procedures as everyone else then surely they will have to be fit to raise a child in a safe and loving environment.

How do you know what kids want? Get a grip fella.

Equality for all kids? Or equality for all kids except those of Same sex couples?

Dell
I don’t remember claiming all gay people are paedophiles but you keep on making stuff up and twisting everything I say…
Do you remember saying anyone that votes no is a sick and twisted homophobe that should be locked up ?
What about the time you claimed all Catholic priests were kiddie fiddlers and anyone who was religious was actively supporting them ?
Have a nice day Dell.

Kids don’t want gay parents? Says who?? Do you speak for all kids Tony?

Graham,
Imagine a poor orphaned child had some say in who was going to adopt them. Imagine 2 couples were in the running and all was equal except that one couple was gay, the other couple straight. Give me an honest answer, which couple do you think kids would choose ?

Tony the difference is you are making stuff up. Dell didn’t say you said All homosexuals are paedophiles. You did link homosexuality and paedophilia so her statement is factually correct. Yours however is not.

All is never equal Tony.

Graham, mr justice Kevin cross was on morning Ireland this morning and stated that he wants to make it very clear AGAIN that adoption and surrogacy have nothing to do with this referendum. Have a listen to it on the rte player.

Tony and when I argued your point with you, you said where there is smoke there is fire. I can trawl through the comments section of the articles and find it if you want, can you find the things you are saying that I said? I am not lying tony, you are and worse again you don’t even have the back bone to stand by the horrible things you have said and insinuated. Why is that tony? what’s the name for someone who says hatefilled things about others based on their sexuality? Come on,you love this guessing game.

I believe the first statement was about you not feeling comfortable with two homosexuals with a boy and when I questioned it you said where there is smoke their is fire. Is any of that jogging your memory?

The honest answer is I have no idea. I don’t pretend to know the thoughts of children I have never met.

Lol ! What are you like !
I asked a question about smoke and fire I did not say where there is smoke there is fire. In response to a statement about paedophile priests I asked the question why does paedophilia always come up on these articles about gay narriage. If you are going to quote me you need to get it right otherwise you are just making stuff up which anyone can do ! Ask Demise.
These are concerns that people have anyway, you can’t just brush them aside.
What about your comments calling all no voters sick and twisted bigots who should be locked up ? I see you decided to ignore that !!

ah tony, you are a card! I do so love reading your joy filled posts that aren’t filled with red herrings and in this case an out and out lie. That would be tony because you completely made that up. Given that I have been saying that people should not call no voters bigots and homophobes, you really picked the wrong thing to lie about. so when you coming to meet the people I know who have same sex parents? They are dying to meet the man that is so worried about them ☺

Ha ha. Good answer Graham but I don’t think it’s an honest one !

Hold on Dell. You seem to think people can make up stuff about me but I can’t do the same back ?? Where’s my ” equality” ? Equality when it suits…

Enough with the poor orphaned children Tony. My “poor orphaned child” needed love and nurture and protection, and parents to provide all those things.

tony, gay people can already adopt children and already have children. Voting yes or no won’t change that. Why do you keep saying it, seriously? Do you really believe voting no will change this and if so why?

Here are some comments made by Tony relating to ss parenting and relating homosexuals with paedophilia, I found and copied them recently when he accused me of wrongly attributing comments to him on another article. He also accused Ailbhe of making things up about him too and was proved wrong that time too. He claims to stand by everything he writes, yet when somebody talks about his comments he accuses them of twisting his words and making things up, until it is proved in black and white that he did in fact say those things. When I backed up my statement he said I am clearly unhinged and should never have children and I am a sad and bitter individual apparently also.
Tony_Kilduff Apr 4th 2015, 9:12 PM #
Well said David. If a gay couple have no problem denying a mother or father to a child to satisfy their own desires who knows what they are capable of
Tony_Kilduff Apr 4th 2015, 10:44 PM #
I’m not denying anything to anyone, you are. We all have equal rights. I don’t agree with gay parenting. It’s airy fairy nonsense
Tommy Crotty Mar 9th 2015, 5:06 PM #
Another foot in the grave for the Catholic Church, keep up the good work protecting their paedophile pals.
| Tony_Kilduff Mar 9th 2015, 5:49 PM #
And what would the sexual orientation of these priests that abused young boys be ?
Tony_Kilduff Apr 15th 2015, 10:49 AM #
Shanti I pointed out that the some of the paedophile priests that are regularly slagged off by your side are probably homosexuals.
And i reffered to the treatment of children with regard to ssm as disgusting.
But you carry on twisting everything I’ve said.
Tony_Kilduff Apr 14th 2015, 10:35 PM #
Well raised children ?? Warped and scarred children more like.
Tony_Kilduff Apr 14th 2015, 10:48 PM #
Shanti
One fact that will never change is that a child is better off with normal parents as opposed to any other mixture of people / animals / whatever..
Tony_Kilduff Apr 14th 2015, 11:30 PM #
It’s only a matter of time Shanti. A man and a horse raising children makes about as much sense as what you are proposing.

Nothing unusual about that Robert, all the lesbians I know are just men trapped in an ugly fat womans body.

Gerry, I know you are just looking for attention and reactions but it’s a cheap way to do it. Plus I really do not want to hear from anyone on the no side ever again playing the bullied victim card after that humdinger.

Linda from Gimme Gimme Gimme reckoned there was no such thing as bisexual people, they were just greedy.

Gerry, they have feelings too… show them a little more respect than that.

@Gerry

And you’re absolutely not homophobic in any way, aren’t you

Gerry o Donell. VILE. REPORTED.

Who put up the thousands of posters about children and surrogacy if there wasn’t a no campaign? That’s a genuine question? I am very much yes and I have actually pointed out to other yes people that they are being offensive at times so I’m not discrediting what you are saying at all.

I honestly don’t think the no campaign would have gained much traction if there had been more of an effort to keep all of the country in the fold. Most people can recognise that the majority of their arguments are weak and hypothetical or just false. Those people who are left dissatisfied with the Yes campaign may feel they now want to oppose it and cling to some of the No arguments in their defence, without really believing them.

Dell by the standards of the 1980s the campaign thus far has been the picture of restraint and far from the nastiness of the 1980s. There is nothing wrong with a robust campaign. In a healthy democracy things need to be said even if they cause offence. I am voting Yes. What has annoyed me about the campaign is the cheap labelling of people’s voting intentions rather than engaging with people respectfully and seeking to convince them of the validity of your viewpoint. Labelling has achieved nothing except resentment and I doubt it has succeeded in changing the voting intention of one person. A pity really and an opportunity lost in some respects to genuinely engage with people.

I agree john,that is in fact what I pointed out to others. All the name calling in the world will not answer questions or encourage a vote.

Our Daughter and I went to the Yes Equality March in Galway on Saturday, this was our conversation with No Campaigners on the way home. Before anyone says “Why are you bringing a three year old child into this” the posters around my house brought her into it already. She was safe and comfortable during the conversation, had I had any concerns for her we would not have been there. Unfortunately her other Mum was overseas on work otherwise she would have been right there by our side.

Lola and l had a very enlightening time today over a pleasant conversation with the No Campaigners.
Me: “Hi, this is our three year old daughter Lola, can you look her in the eyes and tell her why she shouldn’t have two Mums?”
Man: Bursts into tears
Me: Hi, this is Lola, our three year old daughter, can you look her in the eyes and tell her why it is wrong to have two Mums?”
Lady: “Because it is against nature, a child deserves a Mother AND a Father. Male and females are made very differently and a child needs both. They will not grow up properly otherwise, it is wrong”
Me: Yes,l know this is your argument, but science says otherwise. Our daughter has her two Mums but also knows and loves her Dad”
Lady: ” So now you are saying children should have THREE parents, this is a whole new low. You disgust me”
Me: No, l did not say that, but nice way to twist an argument. Personally l do not mind how many parents a child has as long as they are loved and well looked after. How about the poor solo parents who you also say are wrong”
Lady: Well any solo Mum will tell you it is hard and that their child needs a Dad”
*At this stage a teenage girl from the No Campaign agrees with her.
Me: “So if you ever had the misfortune to be raped would you keep the child?”
Teenage Girl: Well l would be devastated, but l have been searching my soul on this lately, and yes l would keep the child”
Me: Would you marry your rapist so that your child had a Mother AND a Father?’
Teenage Girl: Well no, this is the one exception where it is OK?”
Me: “Well l missed that bit in the Bible”

So,
*If you cant answer a question about your campaign, hide behind you flag and cry.
*If someone has a proven scientific response to your key points, find something else they have said and twist it into some scandalous claim, thus drawing attention away from tge truth.
*The Bible, and or Scientific ideas are wholly and entirely correct….unless you want to pull the “Exception” card.
*

You’re just as bad as the agressive “no” people. You are alienating people who are were happy for you to marry. There’s a superior, dismissive & patronizing attitude from a lot of yes posters. Not a clever way to win an argument or a referendum.

Politics is a contact sport.

“Fahders”, David Quinn, Ronan Mullan and the whole “no” gang are constantly lamenting the absence of Fahders. Are the not aware of the thousands of children abandoned by their Fahders. Yesterday a man was found guilty of raping his three daughters over a period of years. Would they not have been better without their Fahder? I would safely say that only 70% of fathers are worthy of the term.

@Charlotte, according to the bible, rape victims are supposed to marry their rapists.

Deutoronomy: If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife.

Dave , there is no point in being gay unless everyone knows about it , talks about it and flaps around making a big fuss about it.

One is more dynamic and distinct, and difference, shouldn’t make one thing the same as the other.

With all due respect David, that makes no sense. Also what actual proof do you have that one loving relationship between two adults is not equal to another? Outside of that even why should you be allowed decide what weight and rights should be attached to other people’s relationship? At this stage you sound more like you have a god complex than you follow a god.