Month and Week Decided this is getting Real

lyinghere · 16-12-2014 11:49pm

So you agree with the people who want to refuse people just because they are gay.

You disagree with the people who feel it is unfair to be discriminated because they are gay.

Just think about you life. How would you feel if you were refused something because you were straight.

You feel the people who are refused just purely because they are gay should be spited for standing up for themselves and trying to become equal. Just try to think about it from the other side.

anonyanony wrote: »

The fact they are forced to do something they do want makes me want to spite the group the removed that freedom of choice.

You don't win respect of people by forcing them to do something they don't want, that just make you hate that group more.

eviltwin · 16-12-2014 11:52pm

anonyanony wrote: »

I wish more restaurants where allowed to ban babies after 8 but that the only group I would personally stop if I owned that kinda place, but if I setup a place I would not be able to set what clientele I want in my own private business.

A parent at least has the option to leave a child at home, a gay person can't exactly un-gay themselves for a night. If that is your only reason to vote no, to spite the gay community, it's a very immature reason.

anonyanony · 16-12-2014 11:53pm

lyinghere wrote: »

So you agree with the people who want to refuse people just because they are gay.

You disagree with the people who feel it is unfair to be discriminated because they are gay.

Just think about you life. How would you feel if you were refused something because you were straight.

You feel the people who are refused just purely because they are gay should be spited for standing up for themselves and trying to become equal. Just try to think about it from the other side.

Ireland is not like there are no other options and I have been refused entry to a place for being straight but that's the right of the establishment to me.

Farwijk · 16-12-2014 11:53pm

Hi guys, Dutchman here visiting your country for a few days with my boy who I am married to

I came across this and I knew I must post here!

Your country is beautiful despite this rain, and I have to say that I do hope this referendum is passed in Ireland. However, I think that a lot of people here probably believe it will be passed when it may not!

This story happened yesterday when we were in a part of the country in a town named Westport, we both hugged each other and showed affection while a couple maybe aged +50 sneered at us as they walked past. It was distressing because it doesn't happen where we're from

Anyway (this post accidentally published so editing was required) I hope that this does get passed

You must keep campaigning and maybe everything will work out well for all of the people

Good luck!!!

eviltwin · 16-12-2014 11:53pm

anonyanony wrote: »

The fact they are forced to do something they do want makes me want to spite the group the removed that freedom of choice.

You don't win respect of people by forcing them to do something they don't want, that just make you hate that group more.

Interesting choice of words there...'hate that group more'

Do you hate gay people?

Annasopra · 16-12-2014 11:54pm

anonyanony wrote: »

The fact they are forced to do something they do want makes me want to spite the group the removed that freedom of choice.

You don't win respect of people by forcing them to do something they don't want, that just make you hate that group more.

I dont know what you want here.

If you just want to spite lgbt people. Fair enough. Thanks for being honest.

eviltwin · 16-12-2014 11:54pm

anonyanony wrote: »

Ireland is not like there are no other options and I have been refused entry to a place for being straight but that's the right of the establishment to me.

Is that what they said to you?

How did they know you were straight?

anonyanony · 16-12-2014 11:57pm

eviltwin wrote: »

A parent at least has the option to leave a child at home, a gay person can't exactly un-gay themselves for a night. If that is your only reason to vote no, to spite the gay community, it's a very immature reason.

It would be the only form of protest to me. I guess it's from a lot of things recently where the sjw crowd have been trying to remove so much personal freedoms to suit their agenda that any protest I could do seems like a good option to say I don't like the way they are trying to remove freedoms

eviltwin · 16-12-2014 11:59pm

anonyanony wrote: »

It would be the only form of protest to me. I guess it's from a lot of things recently where the sjw crowd have been trying to remove so much personal freedoms to suit their agenda that any protest I could do seems like a good option to say I don't like the way they are trying to remove freedoms

But you're happy to remove their freedom to marry. That makes sense.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:00am

eviltwin wrote: »

Is that what they said to you?

How did they know you were straight?

I was going into the place with my GF, it was chambers in cork if that matters during freshers week everywhere else was packed, the bouncers didn't even try to say I was too drunk just asked if we where together then said no straights tonight.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:03am

eviltwin wrote: »

But you're happy to remove their freedom to marry. That makes sense.

I am not removing it as you never had it, I am not saying yes to it when it might remove other peoples.

Ten of Swords · 17-12-2014 12:05am

anonyanony wrote: »

I was going into the place with my GF, it was chambers in cork if that matters during freshers week everywhere else was packed, the bouncers didn't even try to say I was too drunk just asked if we where together then said no straights tonight.

Did you stand up for yourself? Either at the time with the bouncer or soon afterwards with management?

Annasopra · 17-12-2014 12:05am

anonyanony wrote: »

I was going into the place with my GF, it was chambers in cork if that matters during freshers week everywhere else was packed, the bouncers didn't even try to say I was too drunk just asked if we where together then said no straights tonight.

I dont believe you to be honest.

This thread is supposed to be about equal civil marriage. Its fascinating how many different directions you have tried to derail it.

Last week in AH you showed some real honesty comparing lgbt people to paedophiles.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:06am

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Did you stand up for yourself? Either at the time with the bouncer or soon afterwards with management?

No as I believe it's the right of the establishment to say who they want in their business

Ten of Swords · 17-12-2014 12:08am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont believe you to be honest.

This thread is supposed to be about equal civil marriage. Its fascinating how many different directions you have tried to derail it.

Last week in AH you showed some real honesty comparing lgbt people to paedophiles.

Distractionary nonsense and white noise, there will be a lot of this over the next few months

eviltwin · 17-12-2014 12:09am

anonyanony wrote: »

I am not removing it as you never had it, I am not saying yes to it when it might remove other peoples.

You have an opportunity to give thousands of gay people now and into the future the chance to marry and you'll deny that out of spite and hate - your words. There is no point trying to convince you when you feel that way. Btw I'm not gay, I'm a married straight person who believes in doing the right thing.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:09am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont believe you to be honest.

This thread is supposed to be about equal civil marriage. Its fascinating how many different directions you have tried to derail it.

Last week in AH you showed some real honesty comparing lgbt people to paedophiles.

Want me to describe chambers for you been in there plenty of times my gf at the time liked the place.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:12am

eviltwin wrote: »

You have an opportunity to give thousands of gay people now and into the future the chance to marry and you'll deny that out of spite and hate - your words. There is no point trying to convince you when you feel that way. Btw I'm not gay, I'm a married straight person who believes in doing the right thing.

5 years ago yeah no problem definite yes, but sjw have tainted my opinion on anything that has a chance on me losing any more freedom, I will more then likely vote yes are we have already lost those freedom but am weary of losing more.

eviltwin · 17-12-2014 12:13am

anonyanony wrote: »

5 years ago yeah no problem definite yes, but sjw have tainted my opinion on anything that has a chance on me losing any more freedom, I will more then likely vote yes are we have already lost those freedom but am weary of losing more.

What freedom will you lose?

Annasopra · 17-12-2014 12:17am

anonyanony wrote: »

Want me to describe chambers for you been in there plenty of times my gf at the time liked the place.

Nope. Its not relevant at all.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:20am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont believe you to be honest.

This thread is supposed to be about equal civil marriage. Its fascinating how many different directions you have tried to derail it.

Last week in AH you showed some real honesty comparing lgbt people to paedophiles.

Paedophiles that have not done anything illegal have no reason to be discriminated against, they have a minority sexual tendency, lbgt is for fighting fighting minority sexual tendencies. Paedophiles need a more vocal platform from bigoted views and face huge discrimination when most don't do anything illegal and want help.

Lgbt should be fighting for more understanding of the minority sexuality and they don't all do illegal ****.

lyinghere · 17-12-2014 12:22am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont believe you to be honest.

This thread is supposed to be about equal civil marriage. Its fascinating how many different directions you have tried to derail it.

Last week in AH you showed some real honesty comparing lgbt people to paedophiles.

I agree this is gone wildly off track. But interestingly this is the sort of thing i want to be prepared for.

Some things to factor into my thoughts based on this thread alone:

1) Adoption issues
2) Businesses right to refuse custom based on their own personal beliefs
3) Straight people feeling that LGBT campaigning for equal rights is part of an agenda that is being foreced upon straight people
4) People associating Paedophelia and Homosexuality
5) Gay double standards refusing straight people admission to gay bars

I'm not saying they should be relevant to the argument, but they do seem to be things that come up in the conversation.

Thanks anonyanony for the insight into what we're up against here.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:28am

lyinghere wrote: »

I agree this is gone wildly off track. But interestingly this is the sort of thing i want to be prepared for.

Some things to factor into my thoughts based on this thread alone:

1) Adoption issues
2) Businesses right to refuse custom based on their own personal beliefs
3) Straight people feeling that LGBT campaigning for equal rights is part of an agenda that is being foreced upon straight people
4) People associating Paedophelia and Homosexuality
5) Gay double standards refusing straight people admission to gay bars

I'm not saying they should be relevant to the argument, but they do seem to be things that come up in the conversation.

Thanks anonyanony for the insight into we're up against here.

just so you know I don't associate paedophilia with homosexuality, I would say the majority of them are straight, just they need to fight for more understanding of there sexual tendencies and they don't all do illegal **** and wan't help, lgbt is the best fit for that voice as they fight for understanding of minority sexualities

marienbad · 17-12-2014 12:28am

anonyanony wrote: »

Well if the marriage proposal goes through it will mean more after parties and if businesses are forced to do something they don't wan't to it effects how I would chose to vote.

would you say the same if they objected to inter racial marriage ?

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:31am

marienbad wrote: »

would you say the same if they objected to inter racial marriage ?

Yes, as I said nowadays there is plenty of businesses that would take the money, the right of a private business to pick their own clientele is something I believe very strongly in.

Ave Sodalis · 17-12-2014 12:35am

anonyanony wrote: »

Yes, as I said nowadays there is plenty of businesses that would take the money, the right of a private business to pick their own clientele is something I believe very strongly in.

Still not seeing what this has to do with anything...

Ten of Swords · 17-12-2014 12:36am

anonyanony wrote: »

the right of a private business to pick their own clientele is something I believe very strongly in.

but have a limited understanding of, it seems.

Now, do you have any questions to ask or statements to make relating to the referendum next year?

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:40am

lyinghere wrote: »

No. Paedophilia is illegal - and should be.

Homosexuality is legal.

We don't want any association.

But you have effectively made the association now. Something we need to consider even if its a completely unfair association.

Did you see the paedophile next door, most of them don't do anything illegal they just want to get help and understanding so are not discriminated against if they try to get help.

If someone went to get help for the thoughts not doing anything illegal, their local community would want them out. Only the acting upon it is illegal, they face bigotry trying to get help before doing anything and cause there is no one listing and then they might end up acting on it.

eviltwin · 17-12-2014 12:46am

anonyanony wrote: »

Did you see the paedophile next door, most of them don't do anything illegal they just want to get help and understanding so are not discriminated against if they try to get help.

If someone went to get help for the thoughts not doing anything illegal, their local community would want them out. Only the acting upon it is illegal, they face bigotry trying to get help before doing anything and cause there is no one listing and then they might end up acting on it.

That's an issue for another thread. Most child abuse is carried out by straight people anyway so it's not really appropriate here.

Aard · 17-12-2014 12:50am

anonyanony wrote: »

just so you know I don't associate paedophilia with homosexuality, I would say the majority of them are straight, just they need to fight for more understanding of there sexual tendencies and they don't all do illegal **** and wan't help, lgbt is the best fit for that voice as they fight for understanding of minority sexualities

So we're just gonna let this one slide......ok then

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:50am

eviltwin wrote: »

That's an issue for another thread. Most child abuse is carried out by straight people anyway so it's not really appropriate here.

I never said it was a gay thing, but a minority sexuality thing, kinda the same situation as the T. I agree most paedophiles are straight.

Child abuse should never be protected, I am saying fighting for the removal of the bigotry of the ones looking for help so they don't ever abuse in the first place.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:51am

Aard wrote: »

So we're just gonna let this one slide......ok then

What's the issue they do fight for rights of minority sexualities.

eviltwin · 17-12-2014 12:52am

anonyanony wrote: »

I never said it was a gay thing, but a minority sexuality thing, kinda the same situation as the T. I agree most paedophiles are straight.

Child abuse should never be protected, I am saying fighting for the removal of the bigotry of the ones looking for help so they don't abuse.

I think paedophiles are well able to argue their own rights, they don't need anyone else to fight their cause. The LGBT community have enough to be getting on with.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:56am

eviltwin wrote: »

I think paedophiles are well able to argue their own rights, they don't need anyone else to fight their cause. The LGBT community have enough to be getting on with.

They aren't they face the most bigotry anyone could imagine, most of the lgb community said that of the T too not so long ago.

You should watch the paedophile next door it was an eye opener.

spurious · 17-12-2014 1:13am

anonyanony wrote: »

They aren't they face the most bigotry anyone could imagine, most of the lgb community said that of the T too not so long ago.

You should watch the paedophile next door it was an eye opener.

Seems to be your cup of tea. Maybe go watch it again instead of trying to derail this thread?

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 1:18am

spurious wrote: »

Seems to be your cup of tea. Maybe go watch it again instead of trying to derail this thread?

I didn't bring it up first someone else brought the topic into the thread

Annasopra · 17-12-2014 8:24am

Mod note

The issue of lgbt campaigning for paedophile rights is wildly off topic. Please stay on topic.

rochey84 · 17-12-2014 9:34am

Hey Guys,

OK! This has gotten quite the response and anonyanony has raised the main points that may work against SSM so if no one minds I'm going to attempt to address them each individually:

Adoption
This is going to be dealt with BEFORE the referendum. At the moment the cabinet are working on a bill that will afford equal rights to ANYONE who is in a civil partnership but is not married that includes the straight people that may for whatever reason opt for civil partnership instead of civil marriage.

Infringing on the rights of business owners moral beliefs
This is a bit of a tricky one to be honest, the reality is that there is already a law in place that bans discrimination on the grounds of ethnic, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc, however we all know that if a place wants to refuse business based on any of the above they can do so by using misdirection i.e. "Oh I'm sorry we wouldn't be able to cater for a party that size", "Oh I'm sorry we're fully booked that day". Only a very silly business would say "Oh I'm sorry I don't like gay people" or "Oh I'm sorry I had a traveler party here before and they wrecked the place" personally I live by the motto that if somewhere doesn't want my money, they aren't getting it and I won't make the law force them to take it, but I know not everyone feels this way.

I've probably made it all too simplistic but in my mind that's what it boils down to!

Thanks

Daith · 17-12-2014 9:44am

rochey84 wrote: »

Adoption
This is going to be dealt with BEFORE the referendum. At the moment the cabinet are working on a bill that will afford equal rights to ANYONE who is in a civil partnership but is not married that includes the straight people that may for whatever reason opt for civil partnership instead of civil marriage.

The biggest fear is that same sex marriage will introduce adoption by gay people. It needs to be said that gay people can already adopt. There are already gay people raising children.

This referendum will have no impact on this whatsoever.

rochey84 wrote: »

Infringing on the rights of business owners moral beliefs
This is a bit of a tricky one to be honest, the reality is that there is already a law in place that bans discrimination on the grounds of ethnic, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc,

These laws won't change either as a result of civil equal marriage passing.

marienbad · 17-12-2014 10:56am

anonyanony wrote: »

Yes, as I said nowadays there is plenty of businesses that would take the money, the right of a private business to pick their own clientele is something I believe very strongly in.

Why not scrap all the equality legislation as you are at it ?

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 11:04am

marienbad wrote: »

Why not scrap all the equality legislation as you are at it ?

It's fine and good for state businesses, private business should be allowed to set their own clientele and the free market will decide if it's ok.

Also how does curves get around this, I am all for them being allowed to just allow women but according to you it should not and men should be allowed in.

jobbridge4life · 17-12-2014 11:06am

Thread is destroyed.

Daith · 17-12-2014 11:13am

anonyanony wrote: »

It's fine and good for state businesses, private business should be allowed to set their own clientele and the free market will decide if it's ok.

This has what to do with marriage? All of your examples can already happen for any type of discrimination.

I'm failing to see your point.

floggg · 17-12-2014 11:14am

anonyanony wrote: »

I am all for personal rights as long as it does not infringe on others, I don't think the two getting married impacts on anyone other then themselves, but in things after if places are forced to do something then there freedom is being infringed I will say there will be plenty of places wanting to do gay after parties as it will be very good money, but if a place has a moral objection I want that to be respected.

Honest question - do you think a baker not being allowed to discriminate against or refuse service to gay people as a bigger injustice than gay people not being treated equally as a matter of law or having their relationship recognised as equal to a straight persons?

Is that really a good reason to vote in favour of continued discrimination against me?

Also, you could flip your argument around fairly easier and say that the bakers right to freedom of religion or expression is infringing the gay persons right to equality and family rights.

Human rights law is all about balancing competing interests.

You have to ask yourself whether the right of somebody to express their disdain for somebody else's private life should outweigh the right to equality and equal protection of law.

Daith · 17-12-2014 11:19am

Tis going to be a long few months.

Daith · 17-12-2014 11:22am

I do wonder what the actual referendum question is going to be.

Would it be too broad to say "any person regardless of their sexuality can marry?"

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 11:24am

floggg wrote: »

Honest question - do you think a baker not being allowed to discriminate against or refuse service to gay people as a bigger injustice than gay people not being treated equally as a matter of law or having their relationship recognised as equal to a straight persons?

Is that really a good reason to vote in favour of continued discrimination against me?

The bakers right of who to chose to serve in their private business is a big injustice to me.

My reason why I might vote no is I want to find out if a yes will not remove anymore rights from private individuals.

The way I go about deciding to vote on things are, the position that changes nothing is my default, I them go to a forum that's pro the change they have to convince me the change won't change any personal freedom which I and others already have, I also go to the no side and see if they say the changes will impact my rights.

It's up to the side changing the system to win me to their side as keeping it the same definitely won't effect me.

17-12-2014 11:25am

anonyanony wrote: »

Honestly I don't want to make it easier, I don't think gay or single straight or gay people should be allowed to adopt.

So your issues with the legilation being proposed next year are:

1) How it will affect adoption.
2) How it will affect businesses and their rights about refusal or trade.
3) What it might compel churches to do.

It has been pointed out to you multiple times however that the proposed changes have ZERO effect on these three things.

Now that this has been pointed out to you - and you can stop worrying about these three things entirely - have you any other concerns or questions about the proposed changes?

anonyanony wrote: »

You cannot provide a male and female upbringing for the kid

There is no such thing. That is a fabrication of a reality that simply is not there. By all means start a thread on the topic and I will engage with you on the error you have made.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 11:28am

Deleted User wrote: »

So your issues with the legilation being proposed next year are:

1) How it will affect adoption.
2) How it will affect businesses and their rights about refusal or trade.
3) What it might compel churches to do.

It has been pointed out to you multiple times however that the proposed changes have ZERO effect on these three things.

Now that this has been pointed out to you - and you can stop worrying about these three things entirely - have you any other concerns or questions about the proposed changes?

There is no such thing. That is a fabrication of a reality that simply is not there. By all means start a thread on the topic and I will engage with you on the error you have made.

My main question is will this change cause the loss of any freedoms I know have atm. I am asking this of the no side too, I default to no change and the yes side have to convince me it won't more then the no.

17-12-2014 11:28am

Daith wrote: »

Would it be too broad to say "any person regardless of their sexuality can marry?"

Probably too broad yes. The reason being that one of the arguments the anti gay marriage lobby level against gay marriage is to point out that the above -are the rights they have already-.

I have lost count of how many times someone has said "Gay people just want equal rights to marry" and been responded to "They already do have equal rights to marry - they have the same right as everyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex".

And your wording would like feed into that non-argument. The fact is that _right now_ any person can marry regardless of their sexuality. The issue is WHO they can marry.

Month and Week Decided this is getting Real

Comments