You get almost as many red thumbs here are you do there Paul. Quite an achievement. Wally.

come on back over Luke it’s nearly a week now your tantrum is finnished .

Hello .

Jim Walsh is still a member of Fianna Fail , he has not yet resigned . this information is not accurate .

People trying to ram their lifestyle down our throats would wanna be careful setting the precedent that majority vote on the minorities rights is ok.
The number of secular, non religious and atheists is growing, when it’s the majority do you want us to be able to vote in a referendum to declare communion and confirmation dangerous indoctrination and child abuse and bar you from sending your kids through it? You set this precedent and it’s open season…if we ever had a signifigant Islamic population they can demand sharia law…if everyone s individual rights are respected we can all live the life we want without interference isn’t that better?

@John, because this is an issue up for public vote, and there are no public votes planned for anything relating to racism or sexism presently. The idea of enforcing balance in referendum debates can occasionally seem ridiculous (50% air time dedicated to us not being allowed to alter judge’s pay in line with the rest of the PS when even some judges’ family members were supporting the amendment for example) but it is a good thing overall. Particularly where you have a national broadcaster dependant on government for the level of stipend they receive from the public, without enforcing balance you are leaving public debate open to political interference. Occasional excess publicity for unpopular views is a small price to pay to minimise manipulation of public debate.

“Or the intolerance of the homosexual marriage lobby John Everyman?”

Where’s their intolerance F.man?

There are two sides in this issue; one that believes that same sex couples and heterosexual couples should be treated equally and one that believes they shouldn’t.

Now you tell me which one of those sides is intolerant.

I understand why this lot’s views are aired, but it doesn’t annoy me any less.

” there are no public votes planned for anything relating to racism or sexism presently”

Indeed, and that raises another issue. There is a case to be made that we shouldn’t even have to vote on something like this.

Why should the rights of a minority be decided by a plebiscite? What kind of message does that send?

The homosexual marriage lobby have got to be the most intolerant movement of modern times followed closely by the AGW outfit.

“The homosexual marriage lobby have got to be the most intolerant movement of modern times ”

OK, you’ve stated that again.

Now do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Damn them gays, they love an auld party whip, assless chaps and now they’be used them again good old Jim!

John.

The treatment of Brendan Such for a start. The incessant twittermob reaction to anyone who doesn’t conform to the orthodoxy, another.

“The treatment of Brendan Such for a start”

Sorry, dunno who that is.

“The incessant twittermob reaction to anyone who doesn’t conform to the orthodoxy, another.”

Oh please, you’re upset because people are having their bigoted views called out and challenged en masse by people who oppose them? If you advocate that people should should be denied equality because of their sexuality of course people are going to challenge you, as is their right.

Be as bigoted as you want, but don’t start crying when others criticise you for your bigotry.

Have you looked at what “bigoted” meansJohn? It appears to fit the homosexual marriage lobby quite snugly.

Brendan Eich.

You’re all winging about how were discriminating against you (ironically) but you’re not giving us any actual arguments against same sex marriage…

“Bigot; noun:

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Someone who believes gay people should have less rights than straight people fit this definition perfectly.

Also a key word in that definition is “unfairly” For example, you may try to call me a bigot because I dislike the idea that LGBT folks should have less rights or that I dislike people who espouse those beliefs.

However, you would be incorrect. Why? Because that dislike is not unfair; it is perfectly reasonable, in the same way that disliking the idea that black people or women should have less rights.

I think you have been a bit selective there John. You left out this bit.

:a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;

I.e. the homosexual marriage lobby.

Ha, and you accuse me of being selective. Here’s the rest of that line:

“one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”

Sums up people who oppose equality perfectly.

Oh and for the record, I don’t have any prejudices. Challenging intolerance when I see it isn’t a prejudice, it’s what decent people do.

Squabbling over the definition of words is your only argument against SSM? This is going to be easy then..

I was hardly being selective, you had already pointed out the part of the definition that suited you, I was merely pointing out the part you selectively ignored because it accurately describes the attitude of a large section of the homosexual marriage lobby.

Hardly squabbling over a definition Ryan. When people start throwing what they believe is an insult they should really examine how such an insult may describe their own behaviour.

Congrats to Jim Walsh at least there is somebody with decency left. Fail to understand how the upcoming referendum could even be defined as marriage equality. A man married to a man is completely different to a woman married to a woman which is different again to a man married to a woman. How can something so different be defined as equal?

Yes Marion, on the same note, how could women have ever sought equality? I mean, we don’t have pennies we clearly aren’t the same!!
And black people, they don’t even have white skin, how can you expect to treat them the same, they’re not like us white folk!
And don’t get started on disabled people, I mean, who do they think they are demanding access? If you can’t walk don’t expect special treatment, you’re not the same as us able bodied folk..

The thing about equality is that the people aren’t actually the same, but there’s no rational reason to treat them differently because that one thing that makes them different doesn’t have any bearing on their character.

We don’t have pennies.. My autocorrect doesn’t seem to appreciate the name for the male appendage..

marriage is about the nature of a relationship which may welcome children who are biologically connected to both parents…..a man and woman are uniquely designed to fit together for this purpose….any other arrangement is a perversion

Is it Mairead??
Because up until relatively recently it was actually a property transaction. This is why once a woman married she had to give up her job whether she liked it or not. Why her husband was free to rape her up until 1990.
Because the woman was nothing more than chattel.

But please, tell us more about what marriage is “supposed to be”..

Realistically it’s a civil contract between two people who legally were strangers, creating a bind of family where one previously did not exist. There is no onus to provide offspring, but naturally if you do, they are protected under the family article of the Constitution, given that the parents are legally considered “family” as a result of their marriage.

As a matter of interest, the kids out there already being raised by gay couples, do you not reckon their families deserve constitutional protections too? (and ps, it will be perfectly legal for a gay couple to adopt, whether you vote no or not).

Ok I’ve an opinion too…the catholic church is an organized child rape conspiracy and should be suppressed as an unlawful organization…dare to speak against me and you’re a bigot.

Now if I’m Minister for Justice and I want to sign a suppression order to declare them an illegal organization am I just talking? exercising my free speech? No I’m taking an action that’s going to have a practical effect on peoples lives and they are entitled to object to it without being called intolerant.

The Yes side wants everyone to be free to do their own thing.
THe No side wants to impose it’s will with the force of the state on others.

Most opinions are bigoted David McDermott.

The thing is Ryan, this referendum is simply about marriage equality. Once it’s passed and gay people can marry each other, it will have absolutely no effect on anyone’s else’s life whatsoever.

@Ian We don’t know that there won’t be changes to everyone elses marriage from the Implementation Act that follows. For one thing the grounds under which a marriage is voidable would be inconsistent with the new wording. The words ‘without distinction’ mean that we could not copy the legislative approach in England of having some parts of the law not apply to the same-sex version of marriage.

the Yes side doesn’t want people to be free to disagree or follow their conscience.The Gaystapo are on the rise….no pun intended

….@Ianwalsh79…That is a lie ….it will affect all the children forced to consider 2 dads or 2 moms as normal and equal to a mom and dad.Not just the children born into these situations but all school children who will be taught in school that this is proper and not to mention all the teachers who do not want to teach this.Then there are all the the florists and bakers whose livelihoods are on the line……..that is quite a significant effect

I suppose they’re being hyperbolic about their disagreement with him, which is not the same as shooting him.

Hyperbollix!

Oh right. So we can only ELECT people you agree with….

Those who you can see directing abuse at him. It is a pity a real shame that the name calling and abuse in this referendum campaign is coming mainly from the Yes side. Fortunately, there is a sufficient number on that side of the argument disowning the abusers and the trolls.

Paddy, in your rant you refer to ‘those who seem to think Mr Walsh has no right to have or express his beliefs’ and then use the remark ‘how liberal is that’.

Can you point us to any remark by a liberal inferring that ‘Mr Walsh has no right to have or express his beliefs’

I echo Ryan’s sentiment but would also add that to compare people speaking ill of someone’s belief that not everyone should be treated equally to murdering people for drawing a cartoon is ridiculous and grossly offensive.

I am comparing the defence of free speech in one case to the abuse of someone freely expressing an opinion in the other.

Ok there is a diff between daring to say someones beliefs are wrong and persecuting him..were just countering what he’s saying, he’s a public figure (unelected though he is) and were entitled to disagree with him. He’s the one trying to use his power to force something on US, our WORDS don’t hurt him in the least (like all politicos he probably thinks of it as ‘they’re critical of me the politician not me the person, they don’t know me the person’ ..as that’s the only way to not take this stuff personally in a political job, and so he goes home and gets on with his life no worse off) but what he wants hurts us in practical ways some of which would be very serious

Senator Walsh is elected. Whatever you think about Senate elections – and I don’t think much – he is as elected as those Senators who have an opposing point of view. He is not forcing his views on you or anyone else. He is expressing his view on the subject matter of the forthcoming referendum – unless you believe that all those who oppose your point of view are ‘forcing someithing on you” as you seem to believe he is. It may come as a surprise to you that people do have a different point of view and I, for one, will defend their right to express it. And I would even extend that to Dolce whose views on IVF I found upsetting and repulsive. I will, however, not resort to calling him names or abusing him. That’s freedom. Because if freedom does not extend the right to express different opinions, it is not freedom at all

@ Paddy “I am comparing the defence of free speech in one case to the abuse of someone freely expressing an opinion in the other.”

So you are defending jim walshes right to express his opinion, but have a problem with a ‘liberal’ expressing their opinion of jim walshes position.

Basically, you are guilty of what you are accusing the liberal of, just from the opposite perspective.

Hypocrisy much?

I think, We’re Jammin if you actually exist at all, you deliberately misunderstand what is being said. O clearly have no difficulty with people of opposing opinions expressing their views. It is when it descends to vitriol, insult and abuse that it offends.

Are we to take it that you can’t point us to any remark by a ‘liberal’ inferring that ‘Mr Walsh has no right to have or express his beliefs’?

I will explain again. If expressing your opinions and beliefs results in someone expressing THEIR belief that you are wrong, if they say they disagree with you and explain why, if they say they just don’t like what you’re saying, fine. Calling him a bigot is not fine. Suggesting he defends racial segregation is not fine.

Paddy
The same Jim Walsh who said women working outside of the home was main cause of depression
The same Jim Walsh who was annoyed he couldn’t refer to gay people as “fairies”.
What a lovely man he is.

@Paddy I’m sorry being elected by your own mates on county councils is nto ”elected” and I refuse to insult democracy by claiming it is, the Senate is a joke we should have got rid of and the buyers remorse from those who were duped with the “vote no for reform” arguments is showing us more and more think the same.

Paddy he’s not just EXPRESSING HIS VIEW…he wants to force his way of life on other people, that’s NOT just talking that’s action.

Paddy, instead of repeating the same thing over and over, just

Just give an example of what you are talking about. Otherwise you are just doing the exact same as you are accusing liberals of doing.

He’s forcing nobody. If you don’t agree with him, then vote YES. Simple. He can’t force you or anyone else to vote no.

Paddy.
You may wish to reread the article. He resigned over the family and relationships bill, which is not going to the public vote. It’s legislation that is badly needed, opposing it leaves a lot of kids in limbo, not to mention unmarried fathers.

He’s free to vote whatever he likes in the referendum as are the rest of us..

My main worry is that a senator, someone who is actively involved in the passing of our laws, wasn’t able to tell the difference between two separate pieces of legislation..

Fair enough. But is he not entitled to his view? Does every TD and Senator have to agree with your standpoint? Must they be ‘liberal?” I really don’t understand the vitriol. The disagreement, yes of course. But the vitriol, no.

But we voted to keep the Seanad, so we still have to allow them to express their opinions. We might not agree with him, but we are still a democracy and he is entitled to his opinions. Polling day will decide on whether anyone was paying much attention to him.

Alan Kennedy
Who are you to call anyone a backward bigot
Whats your story
Are you the fountain of all true knowledge.
What makes you think you are modern.
You halfwits go on about backwardness etc.
Where have you ever been
That most if the rest of us have not been.
There is nothing new about a minority of pc liberals trying to coerce the public at large into accepting something 97.99 percent of the population have no interest in.
I have been abroad watched the pc lobby at work.. you are not in any bringing anything new to the table
In terms of your reasoning
Its the same old song i have heard since the mid eighties.

Complete and utter intolerance to anyone who does nit agree wuth your agenda.

I ask you this question what inform s you is it your personal actual experience of actually living in other countries.
And through this exp it tells you ireland is backwards.
Or are you informed by other peoples opinions and what you read on the Internet.

This is the same old nonsense
Try to call every one backward.
Some people who have never lived abroad may think you know what uour talking about i dont.

Am i backward in your opinion
And if so what gives your opinion more merit than mine.

Also can you tell me how many countries in the world allow ssm and how many do not.

No screaming just answer.