Gay marriage criminalises belief in God...

Einhard

Man on the radio just now explaining his opposition to the Civil Partnership by claiming it makes him a criminal for believing in God. That he has "God given freedoms and rights" and allowing gay couples to inherit denies him those rights and criminalises his belief. How on earth can one reason with these people?? At least if gives the lie to the "think of the children" nonsense that opponents spout so often; homophobia and religiously inspired intolerance is the real driving facor behind such opposition, not concern for children's welfare. At least that man on the radio was honest about it.

fontanalis

Einhard wrote: »

Man on the radio just now explaining his opposition to the Civil Partnership by claiming it makes him a criminal for believing in God. That he has "God given freedoms and rights" and allowing gay couples to inherit denies him those rights and criminalises his belief. How on earth can one reason with these people?? At least if gives the lie to the "think of the children" nonsense that opponents spout so often; homophobia and religiously inspired intolerance is the real driving facor behind such opposition, not concern for children's welfare. At least that man on the radio was honest about it.

Just a pity he's a muppet.

Einhard

fontanalis wrote: »

Just a pity he's a muppet.

An honest muppet though. You know he's just saying what the likes of David Quinn, and other prominent opponents, are thinking but can't express because unfortunately, for them, we're a tad more tolerant society these days.

dr.bollocko

I believe they actually had protestors outside the Dail on religious grounds. That they weren't run out of Dublin saddens me tbh.

derfderf

What exactly has a civil partnership got to do with religion though?
Is it not basically a marriage recognised by the state but not the church?

Ostrom

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I believe they actually had protestors outside the Dail on religious grounds. That they weren't run out of Dublin saddens me tbh.

They seem to be out every two weeks, they last around an hour before moving on.

Einhard

derfderf wrote: »

What exactly has a civil partnership got to do with religion though?
Is it not basically a marriage recognised by the state but not the church?

Nothing. But unfortunately those of a religious bent often fail to realise that faith is a private matter and their personal beliefs are just that, personal, and should not become state policy and imposed on the rest of the population. At least they have the satisfaction of knowing the rest of us are gonna burn in Hell while they enjoy tea and biccies with JC and sneer down on us.

Born in the hay
On a cold christmas day
Rumours were rife
That Jesus was gay

Wazdakka

I bloody hate religious nutjobs.

All the diehard religious types seem to do is either, make life difficult for some group of people or another, stunt our development as a species, or start wars and kill people.

What the hell man??
How does somebody getting involved in a civil partnership have anything whosoever to do with your right to have an imaginary friend?

Manach

And with postings like rarnes1 show religious nutjobs like myself the true meaning of toleration and open-mindedness

Donkey Oaty

I believe we should respect the rights of religious people and they should not be forced into gay marriage against their beliefs.

Dennis the Stone

Nobody is forcing him to enter a gay partnership. Let him believe what he likes, but let him also mind his own business about what other people do.

derfderf

Einhard wrote: »

Nothing. But unfortunately those of a religious bent often fail to realise that faith is a private matter and their personal beliefs are just that, personal, and should not become state policy and imposed on the rest of the population. At least they have the satisfaction of knowing the rest of us are gonna burn in Hell while they enjoy tea and biccies with JC and sneer down on us.

So basically it a bunch of old married biddies protesting that they don't want the gheys in their club? Even though they're not getting in their club, just in one that's kinda similar.
The thing that confuses me most about this is the fact that there's always gonna be people that grumble under their breath about things like this, but to actually go out and protest because some other couples want their relationship recognised, in a way that has no effect on the people complaining.
The only thing i can see here that has anything to do with religion is the fact jesus wept.

rovert

Rationalising with people who have irrational beliefs is irrational

stimpson

If you could reason with religous people there would be no religous people.

Max Power1

how does this even effect the religious bigots anyway?

Fine - you dont want gay marriage. Grand. This ISNT marriage its a civil partnership - it doesnt effect your church marriages etc.

WHY DOES IT MATTER WHAT TWO CONSENTING ADULTS DECIDE TO DO WITH THERE LIFE - IT DOESNT CONCERN YOU

I also think its ridiculous that the catholic church are allowed to take the moral line on any issue after the amount of kids they raped.

HavingCrack

derfderf wrote: »

What exactly has a civil partnership got to do with religion though?
Is it not basically a marriage recognised by the state but not the church?

It's to do with if a civil registar holds religious beliefs that are against homosexuality (such as Christians or Muslims) he/she should be entitled to opt out of conducting the civil ceromonies. At least thats my understanding of it.

Agent J

Which God?

Donkey Oaty

HavingCrack wrote: »

It's to do with if a civil registar holds religious beliefs that are against homosexuality (such as Christians or Muslims) he/she should be entitled to opt out of conducting the civil ceromonies. At least thats my understanding of it.

How about this: if a civil registrar holds religious beliefs that are incompatible with carrying out the job, they should resign immediately.

HavingCrack

Max Power1 wrote: »

how does this even effect the religious bigots anyway?

Fine - you dont want gay marriage. Grand. This ISNT marriage its a civil partnership - it doesnt effect your church marriages etc.

WHY DOES IT MATTER WHAT TWO CONSENTING ADULTS DECIDE TO DO WITH THERE LIFE - IT DOESNT CONCERN YOU

I also think its ridiculous that the catholic church are allowed to take the moral line on any issue after the amount of kids they raped.

It doesn't directly affect religious bigots but their religion dictates that homosexuality is inherently wrong and should be stopped at all costs. Therefore they see it as their duty to interfere in sexual relationships.

Einhard

HavingCrack wrote: »

It's to do with if a civil registar holds religious beliefs that are against homosexuality (such as Christians or Muslims) he/she should be entitled to opt out of conducting the civil ceromonies. At least thats my understanding of it.

Well they shouldn't. If they're paid by the state, then they abide by the wishes of the state. If their religious beliefs mean so much to them, then they should have no problem leaving their jobs in order to adhere to them.

HavingCrack

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

How about this: if a civil registrar holds religious beliefs that are incompatible with carrying out the job, they should resign immediately.

I'd agree completely with you there.

HavingCrack

Einhard wrote: »

Well they shouldn't. If they're paid by the state, then they abide by the wishes of the state. If their religious beliefs mean so much to them, then they should have no problem leaving their jobs in order to adhere to them.

As I said previously I'd agree completely with you.

Hank_Jones

Love thy neighbour, unless he's gay...

These people really need a reality check.
They should all just move to Iran or somewhere.

southsiderosie

HavingCrack wrote: »

It's to do with if a civil registar holds religious beliefs that are against homosexuality (such as Christians or Muslims) he/she should be entitled to opt out of conducting the civil ceromonies. At least thats my understanding of it.

They are being paid to carry out civil law, not God's Law. If they don't like it then they should get another job; there are plenty of people in Ireland right now who would be happy to marry a chicken and an ox if it meant that they would get a weekly paycheck. The same thing applies to pharmacists (or should anyway): yes it's legal, so give me my damn birth control pills and keep your moralizing to yourself, hmph. :mad:

Bonavox

I find it ironic that the church is against homosexuality and gay marriage, even though hundreds (if not thousands) of priests were proven somewhat gay. The only difference is they were with ten year olds.

HavingCrack

Bonavox wrote: »

I find it ironic that the church is against homosexuality and gay marriage, even though hundreds (if not thousands) of priests were proven somewhat gay. The only difference is they were with ten year olds.

This is a serious slur on countless decent gay men and women out there. Those priests were paedophiles not homosexuals. I know you weren't attempting to make that comparison but thats how it came across as-just important to note the two aren't mutually inclusive.

myflipflops

They may go f**k themselves.

How does the disgraced vestiges of the Catholic Church still have a voice in this country??

Hopefully this crap will die out along with the generation who keep making it an issue.

jimmycrackcorm

There are oddballs objecting to something all the time. Lets move on - we need more useless threads.

Wagon

The catholic church thinks homosexuality is an abomination. This is why they are protesting outside the gates. Even though two gay adults can get married and have their partnership recognised by the state, the chuch and it's followers will still ALWAYS step in because that's what the religion is basically about. Spreading the word of God.

The irony of it all is that Jesus preached never to judge anyone at all and love everyone as well and helped those regardless of what they were like. Beggers, whores, you name it. The man did his work. Yet now, these arseholes are standing outside out government buildings and telling us all that gays are less important than the rest of us.

Why exactly do we tolorate these people?

raah!

Tbh I don't think a solid argument from the bible can me made to support this type of anti-homosexual sentiment. As far as my knowledge of the bible goes it is on the same peg as heterosexuals having extra-marital sex, but you don't see them giving out about heterosexual sex to the same degree. If it's derived from the old testament then it's on the same level as sea shells.

Then again I haven't read the bible, so my opinions on it are not of much worth.

Sulmac

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I believe we should respect the rights of religious people and they should not be forced into gay marriage against their beliefs.

What a load of nonsense.

First of all, it's not gay marriage - it's civil partnership. They aren't the same, unfortunately.

Second of all, they represent the State, not their religion.

I think Dermot Ahern got it right when he said this:

However, Dermot Ahern, the Minister for Justice, has already ruled out introducing a freedom of conscience clause. In a recent debate in the Seanad, he said: ‘‘I agree with the view that there is no basis for providing a right to discriminate against a class of persons on the grounds of freedom of religion or conscience."

Ahern warned about the ‘‘unintended consequences’’ that could follow such an amendment to the bill, such as a registrar refusing to register the marriage of a person who had been divorced.

‘‘Other possible consequences could include a court clerk refusing to issue divorce orders; a science teacher refusing to teach about evolution; a fundamentalist Christian Garda refusing to arrest a husband who is breaching a safety order on the basis that he is entitled to chastise his wife; a judge refusing to register a power of attorney in favour of a person’s civil partner; a Muslim or Mormon accident and emergency doctor refusing to treat someone presenting with alcohol poisoning; an official of the Department of Social and Family Affairs refusing to pay carer’s allowance to a person’s civil partner; or a probate officer refusing to issue a grant of administration to a deceased person’s civil partner," the minister said.

If they don't like it, they can always resign.

v2

myflipflops wrote: »

They may go f**k themselves.

How does the disgraced vestiges of the HSE still have a voice in this country??

Hopefully this crap will die out along with the generation who keep making it an issue.

There. Fixed that for ya...

laugh

HavingCrack wrote: »

This is a serious slur on countless decent gay men and women out there.

They are obviously gay pedophiles or their victims would be small girls?

Max Power1

raah! wrote: »

Tbh I don't think a solid argument from the bible can me made to support this type of anti-homosexual sentiment. As far as my knowledge of the bible goes it is on the same peg as heterosexuals having extra-marital sex, but you don't see them giving out about heterosexual sex to the same degree. If it's derived from the old testament then it's on the same level as sea shells.

Then again I haven't read the bible, so my opinions on it are not of much worth.

I think the real question is why has the bible (a religious text with no legal weight) any influence over law or decision making in this country?

Max Power1

laugh wrote: »

They are obviously gay pedophiles or their victims would be small girls?

woah. Big difference there.

gay is most certainly not in the same line as paedophilia FFS.

laugh

Max Power1 wrote: »

woah. Big difference there.

gay is most certainly not in the same line as paedophilia FFS.

No but the priests who abuse small boys are obviously homosexual.

Bonavox

HavingCrack wrote: »

This is a serious slur on countless decent gay men and women out there. Those priests were paedophiles not homosexuals. I know you weren't attempting to make that comparison but thats how it came across as-just important to note the two aren't mutually inclusive.

Yeah, sorry if it came across as comparable. I just find that think they can criticise two grown adults for being together while they sit on their moral high-horse a bit ridiculous and it kinda sickens me considering recent events.

fontanalis

Max Power1 wrote: »

woah. Big difference there.

gay is most certainly not in the same line as paedophilia FFS.

Good luck with tryign to get the idea of consenting adults and preying on minors through to this crowd.

Max Power1

laugh wrote: »

No but the priests who abuse small boys are obviously homosexual.

i would respectfully ask that you delete or edit that post please. Your opinions are so ill informed and offensive it is ridiculous

laugh

Max Power1 wrote: »

i would respectfully ask that you delete or edit that post please. Your opinions are so ill informed and offensive it is ridiculous

I'm not saying that all homosexuals are pedophiles, but that some pedophiles are homosexuals.

Liam Byrne

Einhard wrote: »

At least if gives the lie to the "think of the children" nonsense that opponents spout so often; homophobia and religiously inspired intolerance is the real driving facor behind such opposition, not concern for children's welfare. At least that man on the radio was honest about it.

OK - so you're saying that I'm not honest about my views ?

Why do you feel the need to write off concerns as homophobia or "religiously inspired intolerance" ?

I'm neither, and I still have concerns.

Maybe that fact doesn't suit your mindset, though.....

Liam Byrne

laugh wrote: »

I'm not saying that all homosexuals are pedophiles, but that some pedophiles are homosexuals.

Which means the remaining paedophiles are straight, so the point is irrelevant.

Max Power1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK - so you're saying that I'm not honest about my views ?

Why do you feel the need to write off concerns as homophobia or "religiously inspired intolerance" ?

I'm neither, and I still have concerns.

Maybe that fact doesn't suit your mindset, though.....

Fine. Please post a logical reason why 2 consenting adults cannot have a civil partnership?

rainbow kirby

They would be hilarious if some of our representatives weren't saying almost the same things as them :mad:

Some of the pics from the Civil Partnership bill live blog:






Someone I know got manhandled and got a caution from the guards for arguing with those idiots this afternoon...

laugh

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Which means the remaining paedophiles are straight, so the point is irrelevant.

Go back to the original point, there is a good chance that a priest with a penchant for boys is a homosexual or at least bisexual.

fontanalis

laugh wrote: »

I'm not saying that all homosexuals are pedophiles, but that some pedophiles are homosexuals.

Some have blue eyes, even others have brown eyes.

laugh

fontanalis wrote: »

Some have blue eyes, even others have brown eyes.

What has that got to do with the original point?

twinQuins

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK - so you're saying that I'm not honest about my views ?

Why do you feel the need to write off concerns as homophobia or "religiously inspired intolerance" ?

Maybe because that's all it boils down to? It's one or the other.

I'm neither, and I still have concerns.

Which are?

Wagon

Max Power1 wrote: »

i would respectfully ask that you delete or edit that post please. Your opinions are so ill informed and offensive it is ridiculous

i think he just means that they are homosexual as in they are attracted to their own gender, and finds the whole stand on the catholic church's view of homosexuality ironic considering the priests engaged in acts with their own gender. I don't think the chap was painting all homosexuals to be pedophiles!

Unless you mean that having sex with a child just makes you a pedophile, regardless of sexual preference. Which also makes sense.

Boards is a confusing place sometimes.

Liam Byrne

Morkarleth wrote: »

Maybe because that's all it boils down to? It's one or the other.

No, it's not. But you don't want to acknowledge that.