Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
US PRESIDENT BARACK Obama has cut short his Christmas break in Hawaii to return to Washington and deal with the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’.
You’ve probably been hearing a lot about the impending ‘fiscal cliff’ in recent weeks but just what exactly is it? What could be so important that Obama has to cut short his Christmas family and golf time in Honolulu?
Briefly, the fiscal cliff is a series of tax rises and spending cuts which are automatically due to come into effect on 1 January which is as soon as next week.
Such is the extreme nature of the fiscal measures they are predicted to almost certainly plunge the US into recession next year which would be devastating to the country, Obama’s second term and the global economy.
You may remember that in August 2011, President Obama and Congress struck a deal to raise the United States’ debt ceiling - the legal limit placed on the amount of debt the country can run up – having been on the brink of reaching the $14.294 trillion ceiling that summer.
In doing this both houses of Congress – the Senate and the House of Representatives – passed the Budget Control Act, a law which committed the US to cutting overall government spending in a bid to reduce the country’s deficit – the gap between money spent by the government and revenue raised.
In order to cap government spending over ten years and find budget savings of $1.2 trillion over that same period a bipartisan ‘supercommittee’ was established to identify where long-term and sustainable adjustments could be made in order to avoid the kind of brinkmanship experienced during the debt ceiling crisis.
But this committee failed to reach an agreement meaning that a so-called sequester of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts and tax rises would come into effect on 1 January 2013 – these measures are known as the ‘fiscal cliff’.
Why? Because they are measures considered so severe that they are predicted to plunge the US into recession next year – hence the country would go ‘off the cliff’, fiscally speaking.
Some of the measures include the expiration of federal tax cuts and breaks that were enacted under the presidency of George W Bush in 2001 as well as a payroll tax holiday that Obama enacted in his first term. These tax changes would hit an estimated 88 per cent of all US taxpayers, making almost all of them worse off.
For the ordinary, middle-income American – which is 60 per cent of the US population – the Tax Policy Center says they would face an average annual tax rise of about $2,000.
There would also be federal spending cuts particularly in areas like defence but most other federal agencies would also be affected and benefits for the unemployed would automatically expire for two million Americans who are currently out of work.
Overall the deficit reduction measures would be made up of two-thirds tax increases and one-third spending cuts and would total $607 billion.
This pie chart from a helpful New York Times powerpoint gives you an indication of what sort of cuts and tax hikes will be coming into force without a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff:
Click here if you are experiencing problems viewing the image
For the wider US economy the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that the real gross domestic product in the US would decline by 0.5 per cent in 2013 with a big drop in the first part of the year. Some analysts predict it the economy could decline by as much as four per cent.
Unemployment, which has stayed below 8 per cent in recent months, would shoot up to over 9 per cent by the end of next year, the CBO says.
Globally, the impact cannot be underestimated. The old saying ‘when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold’ would ring true with the International Monetary Fund among those predicting a knock-on effect on the world economy if the US economy declines.
The eurozone economy is already predicted to contract by 0.3 per cent next year and the US going over the fiscal cliff would have an even greater impact on this.
For Ireland, exports to the US – which account for almost a quarter of all Irish exports – would suffer and inward investment from major US-based multinationals would also be impacted.
Since the not-so-super ‘supercommittee’ failed Congress, where the Republicans control the House of Representatives, has been wrangling with the White House in an attempt to reach an agreement.
Unless some sort of a deal can be worked out before the turn of the year then the US will go over the fiscal cliff on 1 January, that’s next Tuesday.
The simple answer is that aside from the all the economic turmoil that has afflicted the US and global economy in the last five years, tax rates in the States have gone down while government borrowing and spending have gone up.
Tax cuts, like those introduced by Bush, are good an era when the economy is booming and there is more tax revenue coming in but when it starts to decline it can create problems especially when rising unemployment places a greater burden on government welfare programmes.
The share of income most families pay taxes on has been falling for the past 30 years, according to the Wall Street Journal. In 1981 the middle of the middle class in the US paid 19 per cent taxes. In 2007 they gave 14.3 per cent of their income to the tax man.
This table from BBC News shows how tax cuts during the George W Bush administration came down from his predecessor Bill Clinton’s time in office and led to the current situation:
Click here if you are experiencing problems viewing the image
While all of this is happening government spending has been increasing. At present one out of every four dollars spent by the US government goes towards healthcare compared to 1960 when less than 10 per cent of overall federal spending went towards health.
In the area of defence one in every five dollars the US federal government spent last year was in this area. Defence spending has rocketed in recent years because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Well this would hit everyone including struggling middle-income families. President Obama does not want to let all of the Bush-era tax cuts expire but does for those on higher incomes. He argues that those who earn more, specifically the wealthiest two per cent in America, should pay more.
This is anathema to the Republican Party which takes a dim view of taxes in general. Over 90 per cent of the party’s members who serve in the US congress have signed the so-called ‘Taxpayer Protection Pledge’ – the brainchild of Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist – which commits them to opposing increases in marginal income tax rates.
There is a recognition from both sides of the need for concessions.
Obama has pledged to change the way Social Security (social welfare) cost-of-living adjustments are made for some recipients and cut spending on government healthcare programmes.
But when the Speaker of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and defacto leader of the opposition, John Boehner, offered to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for those earning more than $1 million this was rejected by his own party.
The reason it’s called the fiscal cliff is because going off it is supposed to be so unpalatable that both sides – Democrats and Republicans – will do all they can to avoid it.
For the Republicans they do not want the Bush-era tax cuts to expire or defence spending to be cut so deeply. Here’s Boehner summing-up his side’s view during what was probably the shortest press conference ever on 19 December:
YouTube: SalonASW
For Democrats they want to avoid cuts to other federal government programmes as well as avoid a temporary payroll tax that Obama introduced expiring on 1 January. here is Obama summing-up his side’s view, also on 19 December:
YouTube: AssociatedPress
With days to go before the deadline there is no agreement and no sign of one. While Obama returns to Washington, the rest of the country’s lawmakers show no immediate signs of coming returning from their own Christmas breaks to forge a deal.
To complicate matters the US Treasury Secretary – the US’ finance minister – Tim Geithner has said that the statutory debt limit – that debt ceiling we mentioned earlier – will be reached by 31 December or Monday.
This means that the US won’t be able to borrow any more money to service it’s debt and it will default. Fortunately some ”extraordinary measures” taken by the Treasury will postpone the date it has to pay some of its bills.
This is effectively moving money around and kicking the can down the road to February or early March when the debt ceiling of $16.4 trillion will be hit again and the US really will default unless more permanent action is taken.
All of which makes it incumbent on lawmakers to reach some sort of deal.
Well in an ideal world yes but if a deal is not reached before then there is an expectation that it would not be an immediate catastrophe. After all, US citizens like the rest of us don’t have to pay all of their taxes for the year right at the start of it.
But going off the cliff would be a demonstration to the world that the US cannot handle its finances, stock market confidence would plummet, its already cut credit rating could be cut further and it would be a huge blow to Obama with his second inauguration on 20 January.
Well we can’t tell you that because we just don’t know but there are now three likely scenarios. In order of likelihood here they are:
But in truth it’s difficult to predict just what might happen between now and next week. Which means that the next few days in the US will be dominated by rhetoric and brinkmanship with the rest of the world watching on, nervously.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Sameness isn’t achievable. Or desirable.
Equality is.
He is entitled to his opinion, but unfortunately his opinion belongs in the 1500′s.
Dang……I had a full blown rant ready but that was beautifully put C. G. Ó Raghallaigh.
Everyone, It’s is not alright to vote No. How these loons justify it is ridiculous.
Vote yes and we can all Go back to not thinking about gay marriage.
If all your Mammy’s and Daddy’s where Gay you wouldn’t be here to Vote.
Just Vote No.
Just stop telling us how to vote
Yes because everyone knows Gay people have only gay babies and straight people have only straight babies.
No.
David it’s a bit late for you to be up.
Go to bed and you can talk tomorrow.
Night Night.
Just stop telling us how to vote, says ailbhe. The irony. You stop too then.
Oh Dicktaker, you’re so insightful and hilarious. Please say more things.
Exactly
And a child brought up bt ss couple is not the same as a child brought up by a natural couple
FF have Fth themselves again
Byrne there is only one place for you.
And that’s down to putin.
You won’t be Dicktaking then.
Vote No.
President of Singapore begs to disagree.
Humans will never be equal.
Look up any behavioural science study comparing children who are rasied by Same sex couples and children who are raised by Hetrosexual couples.
Look them up! And then come back and tell me that Same sex couples are damaging to children.
Also, if two men get married, the mother of the child automatically disappers into thin air, thats for sure. Most same sex children actually get three parents you bunch of clowns
Affinity ff policy is pro equality?? This is the opinion of one individual!! Read the article
Ok Diarmaid the answer is yes. Are you still playing with all the kids . You’re the clown.
HAAAA HAAAA ! I cant believe you of all people said that Ailbhe. I nearly fell off the couch !
2 Daddies or 2 Mammies will never equal Mammy and Daddy. …..ever.
Ah I’m voting yes, Dick. So are my many many relations, friends and associates. I know one ‘no’ voter. She’s a dried up auld Jesus Botherer with a heart full of hate and lips thin and wrinkled. Good company for you.
@Dictator / @Tony_Kilduff:
You seem to be getting your online split personalities in a twist there. Have you two browsers open at once?
What’s wrong with a child brought up by a ss couple?
Ok Tony, point out one occasion I told people or ordered people to vote yes. I believe on one occasion I asked. Dictator as he is so aptly named, repeatedly orders people to vote a certain way.
I will be voting No it is alright and you should stop being a turkey campaigning for Christmas
Oh 3 parents now is it ? Sure why don’t we arrange all kids to have 6 parents, that would be twice as good wouldn’t it ? You are the clown if you think this even approaches normality.
@Diarmuid
@ winding down,
Are still creeping through people’s accounts ? Are you a bit of a weirdo or what’s your problem ? I’ve only one account, one browser, one phone.
@ Michael
Nothing wrong with the child, it’s the selfish parents that have the problem.
Dictator, statistically some of our ‘mammys and daddy’s’ were Gay but chose to ‘conform’ to the societal norms as dictated by the Church and State.
@Ailbhe – I think dictator is being a little tongue in cheek Ailbhe.
Leave the kids out of it Tony. Lets say a couple are together 30 years. One is on their Death bed and because they were not allowed to marry the hospital has a policy that family only can visit. you are happy with yourself for denying a loving couple to say goodbye?? Voting no will NOT stop people of any relationship having kids. Voting yes will not affect your marriage one iota. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.
“Leave the kids out of it eh”?
I’m afraid this dangerous wolf in sheep’s clothing referendum is all about the kids.
No decent person wants to see new born babies snatched out of their mothers wombs.
No decent person wants to see their daughters renting out their wombs to upper middle class OAP SS couples who want to fulfil their desires of having babies.
“No decent person wants to see new born babies snatched out of their mothers wombs.
No decent person wants to see their daughters renting out their wombs to upper middle class OAP SS couples who want to fulfil their desires of having babies”
That’s more of an argument against surrogacy in general than any focused argument against Same-sex parents opting for surrogacy!
Yes Gavin a Surrogacy system that SS couples use frequently.
With guys like “Sir” Elton, the Ex Alcho, Drug Addict, Manic Depressive OAP leading the charge.
Does this look natural to you Gavin?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/16/article-2263092-0BCEBB7200000578-268_634x356.jpg
You think that something is natural and therefore it is good?
Yes Gavin.
Who knows the long term physical/mental suffering that these poor unfortunate Frankenbabies will have to go through,
just because selfish wealthy OAP SS couples want to fulfil their urges and desires.
I have to say David. Your obsession with gay people particularly Elton John is a bit Creepy.
Yes those selfish b@st@rds wanting to share their homes with those who have no homes or families of their own. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Sasha Baron Cohen called says he wants to you stop using his character to promote such a hateful message he will send Ali G with both west and east Staines Massive to sort you knob jockey out.
Don’t be disingenuous Rob.
We all know that “Sir” Elton’s kids were not orphans.
And I didn’t use expletives.
Calling something natural doesn’t automatically make something good.
Nature has no moral compass.
Tornadoes and hurricanes and childhood cancer are natural.
Would you call THEM good as well?
also why did you put Sir in inverted commas?
He HAS been knighted by the Queen. Are someone’s achievements viewed dismissively when they reveal they are gay?
Everyone get out and vote , shame tis fools into silence
You’ve got to laugh at the two people giving a thumbs down to Gavin Ward’s post.
I’d be 90% sure they’re ‘no’ voters.
Go Jim, while you’re at it, black people will never be white so let’s get the oul apartheid going again!
That is basically Jim Walsh’s argument, isn’t it? Same applies to men and women in the workplace, never be the same, basic biological differences, should know their place or they’ll never be happy. Just let people make their own choices, last I looked no-one was promised happiness – only the right to pursue it.
@Joe: Don’t be putting ideas into the man’s head – he’s FF’s Seanad spokesperson on Foreign Affairs.
It’s a wonder he hadn’t offended entire nations from his dusty perch in the Seanad.
don’t think that I have ever come across a gay person who is battling for ‘sameness’.
Equality is not sameness, a lesson my son learned when he was twelve, and here’s how……
Son: ‘ I’m sick of this , you always treat my younger sister better than me’
Me : ‘ I don’t treat her better, differently maybe, but not better’
Son : ‘ differently ? better ? same difference isn’t it!’
Me: It’s not the same thing, do you REALLY want to be treated in the exact same way??’
Son : (in a very sarcastic tone ) ‘Yeah…… and I bet ya wont’
Me : ‘ I promise you, if you are absolutely sure about this, from the time you get up out of the bed tomorrow morning I will treat you both exactly the same way. Are you REALLY sure that this is what you want?’
Suffice to say , his answer was absolutely in the affirmative, he actually had an extremely smug, satisfied grin on his face (in his mind he had won a battle with Mammy)
Me: ok then, as soon as you get up out of bed tomorrow, I will treat you exactly as if you are an eight year old girl’
Needless to say, that didn’t go down well, but I never heard ‘the same’ argument from him again.
If a twelve year old boy can understand the difference between ‘same’ and ‘equal’ why can a legislator not?
beggars belief!
Brilliant!!!
true too :-)
Send that in as a letter to the times !
You’re a good mammy. Any chance you’ run for government?
Government???? don’t think so. too many skeletons! ha ha
Comment of the year Chris!
I think this is a point that could apply to the No side. Treating situations differently doesn’t mean that there is a lack of equality.
Maria, are you related to anyone connected to the Iona Institute or Catholic Comment?
Maria completely misses the point.
John thats a ridiculous thing to say, both yes and no sides have those who express their views regardless of religion.
There are secular athiests who agree and disagree, there are religions who agree and disagree.There are gay people who disagree and agree, there are straight people who agree and disagree.
The question is who is right?
Someone must be, even in a majority you can still be wrong.
You are correct sameness is no the same as equality. You can treat someone different and still treat them equal. Using your own example your son reacted unfavourably by being treated according to a different gender. It seems according to your example that the genders do matter and treating them as if they are the same is not not a particularly great idea. I’m not sure I would use that example if you are supporting the Yes side because it does the opposite.
I saw that too. Also we still have not established why the son felt the way he did.
at the time I put it down to the fat he didn’t want to be treated like he was eight years old again, simple as that .
*fact
Fact?
My thoughts exactly Maria Conroy Byrne..I read this from the no side and thought it fitted very well. Being treated differently does not mean unequally.
Equality is all anyone is looking for. No matter the colour of your skin, your religion, your sexual preference, your gender, your anything. We are all human beings and therefore, we are ALL equal.
Lol
Sorry Anne the ‘lol’ was meant fir Pontious!!!
Your point was a valid one though.
Anne being gay is a crime in a lot of countries..
He’s a nobody anyway
Oh god I’m so bored with this debate whoever wants to get married let them off ! The economy is the winner think of the tax dollars.. Can’t wait for the first my big fat gypsy gay wedding !
Perfectly explains what goes on in that void between the ears of a liberal progressive.
He’s a dreadful little man sowing division intolerance and hate. That’s what he’s spending his last years on earth doing. The mind boggles. In November 2009, Walsh claimed that women working outside the home is a major cause of depression in young people, and also expressed annoyance that he couldn’t call gay people “fairies”.
His party lists his contact details – rember he’s a public representative: Contact. Mountgarrett Castle, New Ross, Co Wexford. Tel: 01-618 3763 or 051- 421771. Fax: 01-618 4558 …
@Lizzy: But we need your Yes -vote for that fantabalistic programme to be made. Don’t get too bored. I need you.
Go on jim… Finally somebody with kop on not afraid to speak on this issue which most shy away from
Thierry – lots of people are discussing the issue! Do you mean ‘finally someone who agrees with me’? Have you found that they are few and far between and then assumed they’re just hiding? Have you considered that bigots are in the minority because most people are decent?
Martin everyone who is in the public eye is afraid of being known to be a “no” voter.. This guy has balls
Yes, he has balls but in the wrong place. They occupy the area of his brain usually taken up with the prefrontal lobes. His higher cognitive functions and sensible inhibitions are impaired.
What???
Who dares speak out against Same sex marriage???
How dare you??
Attack him everyone, now…
But Thierry surely if it’s widely accepted that being against this equality measure is a distasteful position then you should conclude perhaps that it IS a distasteful position.
You’d get the same reaction bring racist and for good reason.
There is no prohibition on speaking your mind, none whatsoever, but if you think you’re entitled to a positive reaction all the time then you don’t quite understand how it works.
Martin,
I think you will find there are a lot of us who believe same sex parenting is “distasteful” to say the least. There is nothing distasteful about the no vote, quite the opposite.
There are a lot more of us who find people who think they are better than others because they are different “distasteful”. You will realise that’s the truth on May 22nd.
Fair Play to this guy for voicing his opinion.
Heterosexual marriage/reproduction/parenting is just not for SS couples.
No matter how many Colin Farrell’s come on the Claire Byrne show with Freddy Mercury tashes.
No matter how many Leo’s come out of the closet.
Yes. He is really concerned for the gays. He has only their best interests at heart. Of course.
The sweetie.
Thats what riles me though. No voters will refer to the ‘gay agenda’ till cows come home meanwhile claiming to care for children, while actively campaigning against them with a no vote. Laughable, as laughable as the lad here who says what marriage ‘IS’ purely because a country that currently discriminates says so under law. Laws were made by men and can be challenged and changed by the men and women in this country. :)
“while actively campaigning against them with a no vote ” ??? WTF ? Please tell me you are insane or drunk or something. The No vote is a campaign AGAINST children ?
The fact is, banning same sex couples from civil marriage does not stop same sex couples from having children. All it does is stop these families from being recognised in Irish law, and therefore stops children from being protected.
You are 100% incorrect it has always been lawful in Ireland to make any contract you choose. What you are (stupidly) campaigning for is to give a corrupt government control over those private arrangements. You want to buy their dodgy licences and pay to register them. Sorry but that’s not an intelligent thing to do. turkey’s voting for Christmas and giving Kenny a success and propaganda oppertunity!!!
Lloyd,
Are you suggesting that after this referendum children who are born outside marriage will receive equal treatment from the State with regard to their parents?
I sincerely doubt that that will prove to be the case.
well said Lloyd, the reason I argue campaigning against and I believe I am correct, is that same sex couples in relationships already raising children will feel discrimination by a no vote so don’t be silly, put an X in the yes box May 22
The hetro’s worried about the sanctity of marriage must have very poor marriages if they are frightened that same sex marriages might weaken their union…..
Sorry Kerry
me personally I’m more concerned about new born babies being snatched fro their mothers wombs to facilitate SS couples acquiring babies.
And and industry where you women/daughters are used as “rent a womb” baby incubators by rich OAP SS couples.
By “sameness” does he mean equality? I’m definitely gonna agree with the lad who makes words up. It just shows his intelligence knows no bounds
And his “conception of family”
We really do have such poor legislators in this country.
He was later quoted saying “stay masso hunzos” to those in support of him. Followed by “our No campaign shall be conducted in a totes amazeballs manner”
I thought sameness was a word
Could be actually, just never heard it used. I just found it funny that he didn’t wanna use the word equality
Sameness IS a word, a perfectly acceptable word.
I’m not doubting you. I acknowledged that in my comment directly above. Uncommonly used words most be something you’re passionate about. Never mind the bigotry pertained within the article, this is important. I apologise for any offence that I’ve caused you Sheik
I very much doubt any gay person would like to be in anyway similar to jim “the dinosaur” Walsh.
I at least wouldn’t Martin.
I can’t speak for Keith ‘Catholic shame’ Mills
Imagine he juxtaposed the word “gay” with “disabled”, “traveller” or “woman”. He’d be forced into retirement very fast. A disgracefully prejudiced speech.
If FF Policy is pro-Referendum, why does he still have the whip after a speech like that?
The most similar I’ve come across is interracial. Imagine the absolute uproar if people were trying to deny an interracial marriage because it “destroyed the sanctity of marriage”.
Wow , imagine if that happened , there’d be such an outcry that it would be global news in seconds , except of course unless your an Israelite http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/israel-civil-marriage-ban_n_3429764.html? , funnily enough the same parasitic State is behind the push for SSM worldwide , makes one stop and think , is there something else going on , no tinfoil hat needed.
@Ugly: Do you already have yours?
Prefer cheese-cutters to be honest.
@Ugly: Whatever you’re into, Ugly.
Live and let live ;-)
I see the fact that inter-racial marriage bans are actually in operation has been lost on you.
@Ugly: Nope, but after clicking on your link to the FRC’s Press Release yesterday, your opinions are.
But like I said above, live and let live ;-)
(As for Israel – a country which has been condemned by 45 UN Human Rights Council Resolutions since 2006 – it is a basket case and is one fallout with the US Military away from a becoming a failed State).
Why bother commenting on them then , man , you liberlefty’s love to f*k’n moan.
@Ugly: Because you very evidently need adult supervision, and I feel compelled to provide it until somebody else comes along.
How very ‘liberal’ of you to assume what another’s needs may be.
“How very ‘liberal’ of you to assume what another’s needs may be.”
How splendidly ironic @Ugly_Truth, given your deliberate obfuscation on the issues of Marriage Equality and Family Law reform.
Ugly. The Israeli marriage you mention is a religious one. The Irish marriage referendum relates only to civil marriage.
Nothing confusing about my message , vote NO , keep marriage between one man and one woman.
That’s fine Ugly. It’s just that it appears you misunderstood the context of the link you yourself just posted in relation to the Irish marriage referendum.
No Sir , I contend it is you that is missing the point , this is part of an ongoing effort by vested interests to undermine and abolish the nuclear family ,its been going on for decades in earnest and its not very difficult to join the dots. Not too many would believe if I told them where the rabbit hole leads to , that’s a journey one must take for himself.
It’s clear you misunderstood the point of your link in relation to the Irish marriage referendum. Anyway moving on, you’re so brimming full of intrigue you’ve got me curious. Who are these ‘vested interests’? Why would they seek to abolish the nuclear family? What dots? Where does the rabbit hole lead? Genuinely, I’d love to know.
I think ugly truth is losing his cool a little bit there.
Ah, he bailed it seems. This is a recurring trend on the ‘no’ side I’m noticing. To opt out of the conversation once they’re pressed for something more concrete than their own arbitrary aversion to two people of the same gender marrying.
If gay people are allowed to marry all straight people will immediately burst into flames, the countryside will turn to ash and the skies themselves will turn black as coal blocking all sunlight from reaching the earch. May 22nd marks the end of days. The beast is coming.
*Earth
ugh
lol
It will also spark an economic crash and a run on grazing land, as all livestock previously traded to purchase wives will have to be refunded.
Vote YES!
Live and let live.
Live and let love.
Only morons will vote no.
I love the way norris speaks so enthusiastically. He reminds me of my 15 year old niece trying to get her own way with her parents through drama and theatre. Totally agree with what he says and he puts on a good show
Breeders be like ‘Marriage wreckers them gays’
But thats the very thing. Equality IS conceivable by voting yes in this referendum and fitting as thats all thats being sought. The attempts to hijack the discourse so far have been predictably shallow. This is about people being equal under law which is the direction this republic wants to take and the polls state that . #voteyes
When are people going to understand this law is nothing to do with children, their rights or anything to do with adoption. This law is about same-sex marriage, that being the marriage of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Other than those who hold strong religious beliefs, which I respect however dont personally agree with, I cant see a logical reason as to why anyone would be against someone marrying the person they love.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Two men getting ‘married’ is making a mockery of marriage.
Vote NO.
No
No
You saying it doesn’t make it true. Everywhere it says marriage is between a man and a woman it also gives a number of other conditions. I suppose I should be able to haggle over my daughter’s dowry? Or decide if my wife can continue to work? We have changed what marriage is before and we’re about to do it again.
You’re making a mockery of your own argument. Well done sir. Irony is lost…
Yeah next thing I’ll be allowed marry your pet or your favourite chair.
Ye that’s the logical step there isn’t it lukey boy….
Luke, I hope to Marry my chickens toilet seat!
And I hope your inanimate object loves you back Ailbhe
So do I! Although the shower head is a bit jealous.
Is that what you’ve stuck up there? Not a wonder you’re cranky
Ha. No, thankfully! Maybe I should go back to my girlfriend, the toilet seat doesn’t want me
We really are such a backwards country in certain areas!
@Fergal Horan:
I can see that.
Backwards? sdrawkcaB!
So let me get this right…. If,as this idiot suggests, a gay couple are allowed to marry, it will somehow mean I’m no longer really married???? Divorce lawyers must be sh*tting bricks about this I’d imagine. Or, as is more likely the case, he is just talking out of his overpaid, unelected arse.
Opposing same sex couples right to get married because you’re straight is the same as getting mad at someone for eating a Big Mac when you’re on a diet. Neither is going to have any impact on your life in anyway
I’m really not sure what he means – all those bigots look the same to me.
As a member of FF, I can say that he does not represent my views. I’ll be canvassing for a YES vote in this referendum.
Although my wife and I are happily married to each other and soon to enjoy a major anniversary, we are waiting for the yes Referendum just so that we can each marry someone of the same sex.
We will be a little nostalgic for the time of heterosexual marriage, before it is banned and replaced with same sex marriage.
At least, that is what we understand from the No supporters who say that our heterosexual is to be diminished and rendered meaningless if the Referendum passes because there will only be same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage will be worthless.
Gay people should be allowed to get married, they should be as miserable as the rest of us. :-)
Ta dum tish. Here all week.
Donate this man to human science. We might solve stupidity once and for all.
Dear Jesus. The whole spiel sounds like, “Now lads, don’t encourage the gays, they’ll just end up with notions”. Where the fluich do we get these people from.
The unfortunate Senator Jim Walsh is a marooned fossil.
There was a time when his thoroughly unpleasant view represented mainstream thinking at a time when the Roman Catholic Church had absolute rule over the people of Ireland.
Now the poor unfortunate is part of an unpleasant minority, pathetic, backward looking, ungenerous, uncaring and, to use the Senator’s own expression, ‘heteronormative”.
Politically, Senator Jim Walsh will not be part of the next Senate. The last pontification of a Catholic relic.
I can only assume that the people who vote yes , either by good conscience or religious conviction are also pathetic , backward looking , ungenerous & uncaring fossils too , the kind of society you and your comrades are trying to bring about sounds very age-ist and elitist , no place for old men & women to pass down the wisdom of their years , Ireland is now in the grip of its great forgetting.
Fossils are of the past. The future is open, embracing and tolerant, except of bigots.
No two children are the same, irrespective of who their parents are……it is wrong,in my opinion to bring children into this discussion.
Not when there is a proposal to change our constitution
“Senator warns gay people not to expect pregnancy from anal sex”.
Can this generation of politicians please just die off already…
Pious arrogant fool; how others choose to live their life is no ones business if it does not affect them…you would swear being gay was contagious…Best of luck to anyone who can achieve happiness
He’s a di#k!
emotionally many will want to support the equality referendum, but many logically may remain unsure as it is redefining what we mean by the term marriage, and there may be unintended consequences. Both arguments when made respectfully deserve to be heard
“Unitended consequences”. What would they be?
Daughters might want to marry their grandmothers, and lesbians will clog up the law courts. Obvious really.
The effects of redefining marriage.
https://twitter.com/Horsebox86/status/580753739461578752?s=09
The “yes” referendum ? , by the way , you’ll probably need a divorce first , or do you propose introducing the possibility of polygamy into the referendum at this late stage , perhaps down the line a little once you and the Reds get over this hurdle.
Gay and straight people are equal . Gay and straight relationships are NOT the same and it is ridiculous to say otherwise. Voting no.
Care to give us a reason why gay and straight people should not have equality? I can only surmise that if the likes of you had your way it would still be a crime to be gay like it is in Saudi.
They are different just by their very nature, they will never be the same no matter what
Ah yes. The not-REMOTELY-homophobic Senator Jim Walsh who was upset that he could no longer call gay people “fairies.” The intellectual giant who opined that women going to work increased depression. Of COURSE we respect every considered syllable that tumbles from your lips, Jim. Good man yerself.
Replace “Gay” with “Black” in Jim’s ridiculous argument (or indeed any of the other anti- gay marriage statements) and you can clearly see that all of this anti-gay marriage crap is based on irrational bigotry, prejudice and nothing else..
If we are free sovereign adults, why are we asking anyone else for permission to have legal sex- as that is precisely what the marriage licence is.?
Why want the equality which binds married couples with the 3rd party in the marriage contract- church/state?
When divorce is wanted, all married couples have to ask permission like children to leave, because the 3rd party- church/state never defaults on te contract.
As a society we were much more evolved before the Romans came to civilise us.
We had our own ceremonies with only 2 people involved.
Norris: They don’t like him when he is angry… The Incredible Bulk lol.
Norris as always gives me a great laugh. We can learn from him that while there is a serious side to this debate we need to be able to laugh at ourselves through it all and not be falling out over people’s views. I think there is something in what the FF lad said in that I think some people are looking to push an agenda of treat us as the same or never hear the end of us. I don’t think everyone in the world should be treated the same because we are all different with differing needs but we should all have mostly the same rights. Why mostly? Because again we all have differing needs and our legal rights should take that into consideration for true equality to ever be realised.
He felt this way because he saw me, his then 8 year old sister, be treated to Poundshop dolls a little more regularly than him being treated to his expensive tracksuits and runners. We were treated equal but not anywhere near the same.
Patrick, I completely fail to see the relevance of gender in marriage. men and women are different, nobody has denied that But how does that in any way effect validating the love between two people? And doesn’t the fact that he wanted to be treated differently to an 8 year old girl not completely reinforce that being treated equal and being treated the same are not the same thing?
He felt this way because he saw me, his then 8 year old sister, be treated to Poundshop dolls a little more regularly than him being treated to his expensive tracksuits and runners. We were treated equal but not anywhere near the same.
Patrick, I completely fail to see the relevance of gender in marriage. men and women are different, nobody has denied that But how does that in any way effect validating the love between two people? And doesn’t the fact that he wanted to be treated differently to an 8 year old girl not completely reinforce that being treated equal and being treated the same are not the same thing?
have your say