SSM Referendum Spring 2015

denhaagenite

floggg wrote: »

Honestly, it's like you decided your narrative and don't care whether the facts fit them. The criticisms you have of the noble call speech just don't fit at all.

Sorry that my opinion offends you. I could say the same about you but I respect your opinion is yours and I'm not here to change it. As a matter of fact, I also agree with him, just don't agree with his methods and I question if his motives (not just in "The Noble Call" instance) are for the good of the gay community or just for the good of his gay bar.

Again, apologies for my misinformation on what the speech was actually in aid of, but I have seen it numerous times in full. Need to whatsapp my friend and tell her I mistook her and that instead of "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" I thought she was at "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert"

RobertKK

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Then you're actually hugely, hugely ignorant about the origin of marriage and the actual fact that heterosexually exclusive marriage is a modern thing brought about by organised religions, like Christianity, that originated in the Middle East.

Ancient Rome, Mayan and Aztec culture, as well as Viking culture all practiced same sex marriage. That's only naming a few.

Also homosexuality is profoundly found in pack animals, and social animals. Our second closest cousins, the bonobo, is exclusively bisexual -this has evolved to give them an evolutionary advantage as it resolves conflict in times of food shortage when tempers run high.

Also, humans are pack animals. Having gay members in the pack at as back ups, ensuring more food for the rest because they're not waited down with children of their own, so they can help increase survival rates and strengthen the group.

Never claim to knew what you're talking about without any deep understanding of evolution and history that stretches beyond the 1000 year marker you're stuck at.

Homophobia and prosecution of gay people is an entirely modern thing which was brought in by religion in order to better control the population for their own gain by eradicating avenues where there wouldn't be children -as they needed all the children they could get to lead to greater power and influence.

I guess you're not a student of history, as well as biology, either?

Can you give me the legal phrasing the Romans, the Mayans and other ancient groups used?
Afterall this is what the state is planning here, a legal change, as we already have civil unions which some choose to say they are getting 'married'.

Homosexuality is natural, I said that already, but while it is natural, nature also has put up boundaries that make the differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality unequal.
I don't see the equality in same sex marriage, I just see people viewing the name as being the same and same legal rights but with still the natural barriers in place if one wants a family, at least a heterosexual couple of child bearing age have the possibility of biological children.
It can never be true equality.

I think it is wrong to attack anyone whether physically or mentally based on how they were born, or for any reason for that matter. We all want to be accepted for who we are.
The thing is I don't see marriage as this right. I would actually get rid of it if I had the power, remove it from the state's control and put it in the power of the people. Marriage shouldn't be a legal thing, it should be a moral union between two people, not a legal union. A person dedicating themselves to the one they love.
Yes this would allow same sex marriage, I just don't view civil marriage as real marriage despite what the law says it is whether it heterosexual or homosexual...
The less state involvement in one's life the better. I am not going to vote for more of something I disagree with.

Annasopra

padd b1975 wrote: »

Good for REdz.

From your experiences in the gay community, do you ever meet any gay guys that couldn't care less about marriage and what it brings to a relationship?

At a guess, I would say the numbers who feel that way could be surprisingly high.

Cool

Lots of straight guys couldnt care less about marriage therefore lets ban heterosexual marriage

SimonTemplar

I would love if the catholic church kept out of all the media debates that will happen between now and Spring 2015. They have absolutely no moral authority left in this country as far a lot of people are concerned.

But no doubt we'll end up hearing some bishop on Prime Time defending the church's archaic and unjustifiable position. I remember Dara O'Briain once said in his standup that priests have as much experience of marriage as they do of submarine captaincy. Why then should they be invited to participate in a debate which has no real effect on the organization to which they belong.

RobertKK

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I would love if the catholic church kept out of all the media debates that will happen between now and Spring 2015. They have absolutely no moral authority left in this country as far a lot of people are concerned.

But no doubt we'll end up hearing some bishop on Prime Time defending the church's archaic and unjustifiable position. I remember Dara O'Briain once said in his standup that priests have as much experience of marriage as they do of submarine captaincy. Why then should they be invited to participate in a debate which has no real effect on the organization to which they belong.

I don't think we should be looking for any group in society to be silenced.

Links234

denhaagenite wrote: »

We're not going to get anywhere by screaming at homophobes for being homophobic.

Panti's speech (and for that matter, Rory's words on RTE) were eloquent, measured and calm, and went a long way to not just show how subtle and persistant homophobia can be, but how detrimental it can be to a person's psyche. It's an utterly underhanded trick of revisionism on the part of anti-LGBT crowd that this was in any way 'screaming' at homophobes.

It's laughable that we've arrived at a situation where people can make sweeping derogatory statements about LGBT people, call us deviants, mentally disturbed, scaremonger that marriage equality will bring down some unspecified doom upon the country, and make so many other accussations and slanders against an entire demographic of people... yet someone suggest that the above is *shock horror* bigotry? Or homophobia? Then they're the ones who have the dogs set on them. How wonderfully absurd it is.

denhaagenite

RobertKK wrote: »

The state's role in all marriage should be abolished.

I really hope this is a joke.

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

I explained earlier.

No you really didn't.

eviltwin

Links234 wrote: »

It's laughable that we've arrived at a situation where people can make sweeping derogatory statements about LGBT people, call us deviants, mentally disturbed, scaremonger that marriage equality will bring down some unspecified doom upon the country, and make so many other accussations and slanders against an entire demographic of people... yet someone suggest that the above is *shock horror* bigotry? Or homophobia? Then they're the ones who have the dogs set on them. How wonderfully absurd it is.

My advice to the Quinn's of the world is that if you don't want to be called a homophobic bigot don't be a homophobic bigot. Simples.

SimonTemplar

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't think we should be looking for any group in society to be silenced.

The contributors to a debate need to be relevant to the subject being discussed. The relevance of the catholic church to state marriage for same sex couples in 2014 Ireland is very marginal, I would presume.

AtomicHorror

SimonTemplar wrote: »

But no doubt we'll end up hearing some bishop on Prime Time defending the church's archaic and unjustifiable position. I remember Dara O'Briain once said in his standup that priests have as much experience of marriage as they do of submarine captaincy. Why then should they be invited to participate in a debate which has no real effect on the organization to which they belong.

Well that's not entirely fair, some priests have plenty of experience in marriage, in practice if not legally. That said, the church seems almost as embarrassed about the few priests having healthy normal relationships as they they are about the ones who are simply perverts. Fair to say these guys have some hang ups about sex generally.

Zubeneschamali

Woodville56 wrote: »

I don't have a problem with gay marriage , my issue is with those who from their own conscience and convictions ( religious or otherwise) are being labelled as homophobic, stupid, looney, intolerant etc .

This referendum is about gay marriage, so presumably you'll be voting yes.

If we have a referendum on whether Christians should all be labelled stupid homophobic looneys, I promise I'll vote no.

Links234

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't think we should be looking for any group in society to be silenced.

Tell that to Iona.

One side of this debate is very, very good at complaining about being 'silenced' while at the same time silencing criticism of them, setting the lawyers at them. It's the good old "Help! I'm being oppressed!" act.

Daith

SimonTemplar wrote: »

The contributors to a debate need to be relevant to the subject being discussed. The relevance of the catholic church to state marriage for same sex couples in 2014 Ireland is very marginal, I would presume.

Likewise I would hope that any moderator will try and steer clear of the "children" issue. It's such a red herring.

hoodwinked

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I remember Dara O'Briain once said in his standup that priests have as much experience of marriage as they do of submarine captaincy. Why then should they be invited to participate in a debate which has no real effect on the organization to which they belong.

i hate to say it as i generally love Dara O Briain's comedy, but he really doesn't have a clue in that respect,

priests are around couples ALL their lives, from births, to marriages, to deaths they see the dynamic of relationships in their own families, their friends, they see the dynamics of relationships when they are working with members of the community on things, they act like counsellors to a lot of people, they experience relationships every day almost like a counsellor would and you wouldn't invalidate a counsellors opinion because they aren't married or in a relationship?!?

also not all members of an organisation agree with the stance of an organisation. remember a lot of people joined the priesthood because they were too afraid to come out to their families at the time and as a result choose a life of no (or very discrete) sex!

Corkfeen

RobertKK wrote: »

The referendum is why it is being changed whether people accept the fact or not.

If we didn't require a referendum for same sex marriage, I imagine we wouldn't and it would be just allowed. Adoption doesn't require referendum, it's pretty crap that a situation exists where we can vote against an individual's rights tbh.

eviltwin

hoodwinked wrote: »

i hate to say it as i generally love Dara O Briain's comedy, but he really doesn't have a clue in that respect,

priests are around couples ALL their lives, from births, to marriages, to deaths they see the dynamic of relationships in their own families, their friends, they see the dynamics of relationships when they are working with members of the community on things, they act like counsellors to a lot of people, they experience relationships every day almost like a counsellor would and you wouldn't invalidate a counsellors opinion because they aren't married or in a relationship?!?

also not all members of an organisation agree with the stance of an organisation. remember a lot of people joined the priesthood because they were too afraid to come out to their families at the time and as a result choose a life of no (or very discrete) sex!

The RCC won't be conducting same sex weddings anyway so what has it got to do with them?

denhaagenite

Links234 wrote: »

It's laughable that we've arrived at a situation where people can make sweeping derogatory statements about LGBT people, call us deviants, mentally disturbed, scaremonger that marriage equality will bring down some unspecified doom upon the country, and make so many other accussations and slanders against an entire demographic of people... yet someone suggest that the above is *shock horror* bigotry? Or homophobia? Then they're the ones who have the dogs set on them. How wonderfully absurd it is.

My brother and his friend were called a homophobic expletive when they crossed a street once. Neither of them are gay. Was it homophobia or bigotry? No- it was just some dragged up scut in a car. Same anecdote that Rory O Neill had, only difference is that they paid no attention to it and he did. I don't spend my whole day analysing what people have said to me in the past about being a woman, Irish, an immigrant, whatever else- I know that some people don't like it but tough. It's their problem, not mine.

Because wars were fought so that women were given an equal place in society alongside men (not 100% there yet but improving every day). Ireland fought for sovereignty and won. I wasn't treated equally when I moved to a strange country with a strange language but because of the internet, my own work at integration and the EU I have the freedom to live where I like and how I like in this country. And gay equality is also taking time- because that's how equality works.

A few small minded people might be homophobic but they are the minority. The referendum, I have no doubt, will lead to marriage equality. It is a bureaucracy, a formality, nothing else. Some people are still racist, sexist, xenophobic and always will be. It's a shame, but it's a fact and shouting at them won't change anything.

hoodwinked

Corkfeen wrote: »

If we didn't require a referendum for same sex marriage, I imagine we wouldn't and it would be just allowed. Adoption doesn't require referendum, it's pretty crap that a situation exists where we can vote against an individual's rights tbh.

the same thing happened with the divorce referendum, people who wanted out of their marriage couldn't until other people voted to say the could have an opt out option. because it's constitutional it has to be voted on,

RobertKK

SimonTemplar wrote: »

The contributors to a debate need to be relevant to the subject being discussed. The relevance of the catholic church to state marriage for same sex couples in 2014 Ireland is very marginal, I would presume.

So when it comes to producing children, we should silence men?

Everyone is entitled to put forward their view whether one agrees or disagrees with it, this is not North Korea.

edited that...

SimonTemplar

hoodwinked wrote: »

i hate to say it as i generally love Dara O Briain's comedy, but he really doesn't have a clue in that respect,

priests are around couples ALL their lives, from births, to marriages, to deaths they see the dynamic of relationships in their own families, their friends, they see the dynamics of relationships when they are working with members of the community on things, they act like counsellors to a lot of people, they experience relationships every day almost like a counsellor would and you wouldn't invalidate a counsellors opinion because they aren't married or in a relationship?!?

also not all members of an organisation agree with the stance of an organisation. remember a lot of people joined the priesthood because they were too afraid to come out to their families at the time and as a result choose a life of no (or very discrete) sex!

yeah, you make a good point, and of course all priests shouldn't be tarnished with the same brush. However, I still think the church shouldn't be a stakeholder in the debate. A priest could contribute in his role as a councellor much like a lecturer of psychology from a university offering his opinion. But the problem is that it is difficult to separate the priest from the church, regardless of the role he takes on in the debate.

AtomicHorror

Links234 wrote: »

Tell that to Iona.

One side of this debate is very, very good at complaining about being 'silenced' while at the same time silencing criticism of them, setting the lawyers at them. It's the good old "Help! I'm being oppressed!" act.

No, I get it- it's like when you really need to punch someone in the face but they're all "no you can't do that". What about what I want?

SimonTemplar

RobertKK wrote: »

So when it comes to producing children, we should silence male homosexuals since they can't have any naturally?

Everyone is entitled to put forward their view whether one agrees or disagrees with it, this is not North Korea.

No of course not. A lot of same sex couples want to adopt children. The legalities of adoption directly affect them and therefore they are stakeholders in that debate.

Sex same marriage has no impact on the church in real terms. They won't accommodate same sex marriage. They are not being asked to accommodate same sex marriage. Their relevancy to the debate is little or none.

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to put forward their view whether one agrees or disagrees with it, this is not North Korea.

Put across the view that someone is a homophobe and you'll get sued.

hoodwinked

eviltwin wrote: »

The RCC won't be conducting same sex weddings anyway so what has it got to do with them?

you never know if they will in the future, but i would say if it goes through we may see a lot of priests leaving the priesthood to get married to their partners rather than having to hide away...etc

also what has it got to do with them? everything, what if a gay married couple attend mass? get involved with community projects in towns and villages where these things are run by the local priest/parish? have children that are making sacraments like christenings, communion...etc just because they cannot legally conduct a marriage them doesn't mean a priest won't have any involvement in their lives...

AtomicHorror

hoodwinked wrote: »

i hate to say it as i generally love Dara O Briain's comedy, but he really doesn't have a clue in that respect,

priests are around couples ALL their lives, from births, to marriages, to deaths they see the dynamic of relationships in their own families, their friends, they see the dynamics of relationships when they are working with members of the community on things, they act like counsellors to a lot of people, they experience relationships every day almost like a counsellor would and you wouldn't invalidate a counsellors opinion because they aren't married or in a relationship?!?

Should train drivers take train driving advice from trainspotters?

Priests are, at best, amateur marriage enthusiasts.

Their views on contraception are a perfect example of their detachment from the reality of how a real marriage functions. Screw that even, from the scientific understanding of how bonding works biochemically. People working in a lab with test tubes have the edge on priests.

RobertKK

Daith wrote: »

Put across the view that someone is a homophobe and you'll get sued.

Well good, I am sick of people from any side having to resort to name calling as it shows their debate is weak.

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

Well good, I am sick of people from any side having to resort to name calling as it shows their debate is weak.

RobertKK wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to put forward their view whether one agrees or disagrees with it, this is not North Korea.

Oh so not everyone can put across their view then is it?

NewCorkLad

eviltwin wrote: »

My advice to the Quinn's of the world is that if you don't want to be called a homophobic bigot don't be a homophobic bigot. Simples.

At the same time not everyone who is against marraige equality is a homophobic bigot. There are people in this world who have no problem with the gay community and support it in every other way but who were brought up with the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman and this is a belief that is so ingrained it will never be changed.

This might not be right in your or most peoples opinion but this is how they feel and accusing people like this as homophobic bigots will take the debate nowhere.

denhaagenite

hoodwinked wrote: »

i hate to say it as i generally love Dara O Briain's comedy, but he really doesn't have a clue in that respect,

priests are around couples ALL their lives, from births, to marriages, to deaths they see the dynamic of relationships in their own families, their friends, they see the dynamics of relationships when they are working with members of the community on things, they act like counsellors to a lot of people, they experience relationships every day almost like a counsellor would and you wouldn't invalidate a counsellors opinion because they aren't married or in a relationship?!?

also not all members of an organisation agree with the stance of an organisation. remember a lot of people joined the priesthood because they were too afraid to come out to their families at the time and as a result choose a life of no (or very discrete) sex!

So am I, I'm married and yet I'm no expert and not qualified to comment! If a counsellor has studied marriage then I would put weight in their knowledge and expertise but if they are specialised in children or drug addiction then no, they're not qualified either. Religion has SFA to do with marriage.

Echoing an above poster aswell, gay marriage has nothing to do with the RCC as they have deemed the gay community as not officially allowed to participate in Catholicism. They can go on away with their opinions on it.