64 thoughts on “This Just Sin

    1. rotide

      If ‘reposting stuff the journal posted earlier’ can be described as propaganda, then sure.

    2. Martin Heavy-Guy

      I don’t think it’s just Broadsheet. There are posters in shops, blogs, news posts…in fact the “propaganda” machine is operating everywhere. Broadsheet ain’t publicly funded so they can say/post whatever they like.

      What’s worrying is that you can consider a call for a yes campaign “propaganda”. The idea that this debate is continuing at all is farcical. This vote is only about one thing only: “Are you cool with everyone being treated equally in the 21st Century?” That should be a no-brainer in everyone’s book, and why anyone would want to deny basic human rights to anyone else is beyond me.

        1. pedeyw

          The No campaign gets plenty of exposure. The fact that whenever their “arguments” get rebutted with facts, they point to bullying and propaganda in the media just shows how shaky their arguments are to begin with. No one is saying down with debate but let’s debate based on real facts, not made up scenarios.

        2. Clampers Outside!

          The ‘no’ campaign don’t debate…. they tell lies and intentionally misinform voters and misinterpret research… the ‘no’ side don’t do debate.

      1. Smith

        I consider biased information used to promote a political cause or point of view as ‘propaganda’

        1. Martin Heavy-Guy

          My point is that this isn’t political so no debate is needed, so propaganda doesn’t come into it. Not to mention (again): Broadsheet is a blog and they can say whatever the fupp they want. Just like any blog on the net or any loony on a street corner.

          There is no rationale behind denying people human rights – I have no issue with the BNP being given a soap-box or with the Iona Institute arguing against abortion (which can, at least, have a rationale and a point of view and can become political). But this vote is about whether or not we stop restricting 5% of our population from something that is OK for the other 95%. That shouldn’t be debated. It should be fixed. Quickly.

          Like how the government sorted out E-Day.

          And Irish Water.

          1. newsjustin

            No Martin. Your pet-topic doesn’t get a free ride with no debate.

            Most people are agreed that the issue of same-sex marriage matters. Most people agree that changing the constitution matters.

            It requires debate and scrutiny Martin.

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            News, can we have some replies to the comments debating and scrutinising you first? The ones you conveniently ignore? Repro’s one about the constitution would be a good start,

    3. Rob_G

      Start up your own blog and propagandise for a No vote if you like, the Internet is at your disposal.

  1. newsjustin

    There’s nothing unsound in any of their arguments here – except at 30sec where they suggest that the referendum, if passes, will give a same sex couple “the right to have children”. The rest is all correct and will convince many undecided people.

    1. Wayne.F

      Actually in 1985, the Irish courts defined marriages without children as families under article 41 of the constitution.

      The families they describe as a result as a No vote all ready exist in fact over 30% of children in Ireland are not conceived I a Married partnership.

      This issue extends to both gay and straight couples, again they fail to mention that

    2. pedeyw

      They’re implying that Gay couples love of their children is less than that of a straight couples, and is somehow damaging to children. All of our childrens’ charities disagree along with most psychologists.

      1. newsjustin

        Yeah, that’s what I am well. No one who disagrees with you could possibly be anything else. Keep the tinfoil hat at the ready.

    3. Tony

      The rest is ‘all correct’ if you’re opposed to same sex marriage. If you’re in favour of it, then it’s not ‘all correct’.

      Fixed that for you.

  2. Gavin

    I see they finally dropped the “we’re ok with lesbians but that man love …we’re not having that.”

  3. Don Pidgeoni

    Ha, good for a few laughs that. Love the cheesy “oh won’t someone think of the childrens!!” music

          1. Rob_G

            Not newspapers – sure, The Sun has claimed to have won elections in the UK for both the Conservatives and Labour in various years.

      1. Daisy Chainsaw

        Why would a publication want to be impartial about ending discrimination?

  4. Dubloony

    Where to start….
    Not all children are a product of a marriage, not all marriages produce children.
    Families come in all shapes and sizes and change over time.
    A married couple constitute a family in law. 2 married gay people = one family.

    I do have problems with potential exploitation of surrogates in poor countries. That is independent of orientation of the parents.
    This referendum is about allowing 2 adults, who are unrelated, commit themselves to each other in marriage.
    It is that simple.

    1. newsjustin

      It would be “that simple” if the amendment was to a section called “Marriage” in the constitution and it had no impact on the remainder. That’s not the case. So it’s not that simple.

      1. Dubloony

        This is what we’re voting Yes or No to:
        “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

        Nothing else.

        1. newsjustin

          That line of text will not be alone in the Constitution. It will not be in a blank document. Adding the proposed text does impact the full document. That’s the nature of such a change.

          1. ReproBertie

            The constitution does not define the family. In the section on the family the only mention of children is in making sure they are looked after in a divorce so this referendum is not about children.

            Adoption and surrogacy already happen. Any argument made against gay couples when it comes to adoption and surrogacy in terms of natural birth parents equally apply to adoption and surrogacy with straight couples so this referendum is not about adoption or surrogacy.

            What other imagined changes will this new text have on the entire document? Do you mean that it will cause problems when we consider a stay at home father in a gay couple isn’t covered by the article on how great stay at home mothers are? That’s as true for straight couples as it is for gay couples so it’s an irrelevance in this referendum.

            So please explain what impact this change will have beyond allowing same sex couples marry.

          2. pedeyw

            It’s fun watching newsjustin back away from any thread that puts up decent arguments against his/hers.

    1. Don Pidgeoni

      Why isn’t Iona upset about when we redefined what colours were used for boys and girls?

        1. Don Pidgeoni

          Tbf , it was a while ago. But boys used to be dressed in pink, which was a watered down red, something about virility and power. And girls used to have blue, probably connotations of being virginal.

      1. TJ

        Don, I think you are being a bit unfair to Iona. I probably wouldn’t like most of its members if I met them, but then again I don’t like most people. However, I’ve heard them on the radio and I’m convinced they are decent, genuine people who really believe in the concept of the traditional family. I know you were only joking about redefining colours for boys and girls but if you lived in Sweden, a country ruled by a giant PC iron fist, you’d realise just how much moonbattery is going on there with gender roles and terms. Some playschools are not even alowed to refer to the kids as ‘boys’ or ‘girls’ and use the neutral pronoun ‘hen’.

        1. Don Pidgeoni

          If they really believed in the wonders of the traditional family, I would expect to see them involved in actively, or through lobbying, supporting families at difficult times to ensure families, married or not, stay together, that they support single parents to keep their kids and keep their kids happy and healthy, in ensuring access for fathers after separation. They are poisonous and add nothing to Irish society.

          1. TJ

            They don’t believe in the wonders of the traditional family, as they believe we are all fallen and live in a fallen world. However, they do believe a child, if possible, is better with a loving mother and father. As for the other works you mention, ie trying to get access for fathers after separation, I’m not sure on that and you may have a very good point there.

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            Great, no problem with them believing that. It would be wonderful if kids could grow up with both parents, gay or straight, biological or step, but this doesn’t happen for a number of reasons. My problem is with them thinking other couples are not able to do exactly the same job when kids turn out just fine if they have loving caring parents (surprise surprise).

        2. Jane

          They are welcome to believe in the traditional concept of the family if they choose and live their lives in accordance with this belief including, but not limited to, only contracting marriages between opposite sex couples. It becomes a problem when they try to inflict their beliefs on other people.

          Also, they are definitely, decidedly *not* nice people. They are bigots who wish to force other people to suffer for their beliefs.

          1. TJ

            Jane, come on now, stop throwing insults and the ‘bigot’ word on people who you don’t know intimately. As for “not limited to, only contracting marriages between opposite sex couples. It becomes a problem when they try to inflict their beliefs on other people”. That’s untrue. They have often said on many occasions that a child in a loving gay relationship is better than one in a hetro dysfunctional relationship. And they are not “inflicting” their views on anyone. Like yourself and all of us, we are also entitled to our opinions and to fight for what we think is best. Iona is Christian and according ot Christianity, which lays out many rules, we have the freedom of the will to break those rule and even reject God if we want to. When, and if, the State get to play God, then our opinions will be stamped out. Even Huxley, Orwell and the greatest atheist of all time, Nietzsche, knew this.

  5. jeremy kyle

    Ah I’ve been having a good day I’m not gonna piss myself off my listening to these bottomholes.

    1. pedeyw

      Ah, to be fair there are plenty of organisations and channels, bpoth left and right, on youtube than disable youtube comments. It turns into a cesspool pretty quick.

  6. TJ

    Remember those Frankenstein movies where at the end of the film the kangaroo-court villagers march up to the castle at night shouting and holding up lighted torches? Some of the commentators on this site are kind of like that only it’s the Iona Institute they’re marching to.

    1. Mani

      Christ. To think there’s someone with locked-in syndrome out there in the world who has to spend hours typing a sentence and you just vomited that out with less effort than a fart.

    2. Bob

      In fairness, when you have a monster like Iona destroying the lives of the villagers, can you really blame them for getting upset?

  7. Slightly Bemused

    What gets me is the section where they say neither a gay nor a lesbian couple can provide a child with the love of a mother and a father. sadly. Neither can . There are far to many marriages between a man and a woman where one or the other does not love their child/children, so just being a man and a woman does not guarantee love.

    1. Gers

      Yes but there is a big difference between situations like this because of circumstances and those that will be by design once the amendment is passed.

      1. Chucky R. Law

        You realise that gay people can already have children? And adopt? How will the amendment change this?

  8. orla

    the imagery at 0.52 secs of the children of the straight couple being separated from the straight couple and places under the gay couples is particularly insidious and disingenuous. Also the pink and blue is ridiculous. urgh.

  9. Gers

    Totally fair I think, see the part “if you believe…” ; Another great show of tolerance by some purporting to its “them” who aren’t tolerant. Is it so difficult to understand that some people live by different values? I cant vote but it would be a YES, purely cos im pro-choice.

  10. munkifisht

    WHOA WHOA WHOA! Hold the f**k up there for a second Iona. Two men and two women in a gay relationship already have the right to have children. There will be no change to laws governing the methods gay couples can get pregnant and have kids. There are plenty of children in the world and in Ireland who have been raised by same sex parents and they’re fine. The ONLY change will be with regards adoption (and there will be no change to the adoption laws).

    At present, in Ireland only a married couple or a single person (gay or straight) can adopt, an unmarried couple can not. There will be no change to these laws, it will simply mean that now a gay couple can try for adoption if they choose to AS A COUPLE.

    Now, move on bigots and try and concoct an argument against marriage equality that isn’t just hatred and homophobia.

Comments are closed.