SSM Referendum Spring 2015

AtomicHorror

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.

Calling someone a homophobe is not name-calling. It's a shorthand for claiming that an opponents argument is based on prejudice and therefore does not have a rational foundation. They needn't bother, since "Christian" already has that covered.

fran17

Corkfeen wrote: »

If anyone wishes to take a moment to look through your posting history, it is pretty accurate.

Your so predictable it's comical.always the man,never the ball

eviltwin

hoodwinked wrote: »

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...

I very much doubt the RCC will ever allow ssm in churches seeing as the whole homosexuality is wrong is a fundamental part of the faith. And that's their opinion, I don't judge them for it but seeing as they won't be conducting ssm why is it assumed they have a right to a place in the debate?

Having an involvement in their lives means what exactly? How much involvement do you think there will be? Most people don't have a relationship with their priest, even in rural areas most priests won't have anything other than a passing knowledge of their church members. The day of the priest being the go to guy for all and any problems in the community is well gone.

bennyl10

padd b1975 wrote: »

Generally speaking....

A freewheeling attitude to sexual promiscuity, a lot of gay men would have little or no concept of monogamy and the figures for HIV/ AIDS amongst gays are beyond shocking-they are a disgrace with the amount of info and precautions freely available.


Obviously I accept there are exceptions, but unless attitudes to the above change drastically amongst gays, (can't see it happening myself any day soon) I will be voting no.

Read through the entire thread..

This is without a,doubt the most homophobic bull****e thing I think I've ever actually read?!..

Where can you even begin to justify any of this?!

SimonTemplar

denhaagenite wrote: »

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.

Exactly! The RCC can either accept the gay community and advise/debate on their issues, or they can keep their opinions to themselves and stand aside while people with more invested interest contribute.

They can't have it both ways.

hoodwinked

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Should train drivers take train driving advice from trainspotters?

.

if those train spotters also studied the same content of the drivers the exact same way, then yes, people seem to forget, that priests also study social science and psychology, just like counsellors do, you wouldn't disregard a counsellor due to their relationship status so why a priest?

these priests are members of irish society with a vote on constitutional change, just like their parents, just like their siblings, just like their friends, so they too should be allowed an opinion, and like i said just because the church (and some priests) disagree on gay marriage, doesn't invalidate every priests opinion there are plenty of them who would love to marry their brother to his boyfriend or their niece to her girlfriend.

Delirium

NewCorkLad wrote: »

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.

And why should a same-sex couple not be allowed marry since they don't share your belief?

RobertKK

SimonTemplar wrote: »

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.

But Catholics are voters too.

denhaagenite

hoodwinked wrote: »

if those train spotters also studied the same content of the drivers the exact same way, then yes, people seem to forget, that priests also study social science and psychology, just like counsellors do, you wouldn't disregard a counsellor due to their relationship status so why a priest?

these priests are members of irish society with a vote on constitutional change, just like their parents, just like their siblings, just like their friends, so they too should be allowed an opinion, and like i said just because the church (and some priests) disagree on gay marriage, doesn't invalidate every priests opinion there are plenty of them who would love to marry their brother to his boyfriend or their niece to her girlfriend.

They have a vote- they just don't have a right to impose a religious standpoint on something which is a secular exercise.

eviltwin

hoodwinked wrote: »

if those train spotters also studied the same content of the drivers the exact same way, then yes, people seem to forget, that priests also study social science and psychology, just like counsellors do, you wouldn't disregard a counsellor due to their relationship status so why a priest?

these priests are members of irish society with a vote on constitutional change, just like their parents, just like their siblings, just like their friends, so they too should be allowed an opinion, and like i said just because the church (and some priests) disagree on gay marriage, doesn't invalidate every priests opinion there are plenty of them who would love to marry their brother to his boyfriend or their niece to her girlfriend.

I'm a counsellor, the first thing we learn is not to judge. Priests work for an organisation that has made judging a fine art. They are not counsellors.

fran17

bennyl10 wrote: »

Read through the entire thread..

This is without a,doubt the most homophobic bull****e thing I think I've ever actually read?!..

Where can you even begin to justify any of this?!

I believe that fellow panty spoke about the alarmingly high rate of std's recently in an attempt to highlight it.but unfortunately it went largely ignored

jill_valentine

NewCorkLad wrote: »

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.

They can't offer a single rational argument against it. Not one.

Therefore, they're coming from somewhere irrational. Depriving an entire swathe of society of a legal mechanism available to others for absolutely no rational reason is indisputably bigoted.

Therefore, they're bigots.

Doesn't matter if they're uncomfortable hearing it. It's no less true. These are the very chaps we get to hear witter on about inflexible, traditional definitions of things, so there you have it.

If you want the law to treat gay people - just gay people - with the back of its hand, for no reason, then yes indeed, you are a bigot and a homophobe.

Maybe there's an argument for the idea that we should stop pointing this out for purposes of diplomacy, but a fact it is, and a fact it would remain, for all to see.

_Redzer_

NewCorkLad wrote: »

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.

But it's still idiotic. It's like feeling that way about black people but still insisting on different toilets.

Delirium

RobertKK wrote: »

But Catholics are voters too.

and a lot of Catholics support marriage equality.

SimonTemplar

RobertKK wrote: »

But Catholics are voters too.

At an individual level, yes. But at a national level, the RCC as an organisation has little to contribute.

A lot of people are members of trade unions, but I doubt we'll see someone from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions contributing to the debate.

Daith

fran17 wrote: »

I believe that fellow panty spoke about the alarmingly high rate of std's recently in an attempt to highlight it.but unfortunately it went largely ignored

This is a fact? How are you so sure?

hoodwinked

denhaagenite wrote: »

They have a vote- they just don't have a right to impose a religious standpoint on something which is a secular exercise.

Marriage is related to religion by the fact we are a catholic country, until that changes religion is involved, it is why i support either

a: the catholic church changes faster, and moves with the times, (like the world is flat debate all over again)

or

b: we officially separate church from state, (which lets be honest is probably what will end up happening)

until either happen religion and marriage are linked

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm a counsellor, the first thing we learn is not to judge. Priests work for an organisation that has made judging a fine art. They are not counsellors.

you are judging all priests by saying what you are saying though?

AtomicHorror

hoodwinked wrote: »

if those train spotters also studied the same content of the drivers the exact same way, then yes, people seem to forget, that priests also study social science and psychology, just like counsellors do, you wouldn't disregard a counsellor due to their relationship status so why a priest?

Don't assume what I would accept. I would take the opinion of any counsellor who has not been in a long term sexual relationship with similar, though lesser, suspicion. The lack of personal experience is one problem shared by both. The argument originating either from prejudice or irrational dogma (or both) is unique to the priest. So the counsellor does better in my view, but still doesn't get to have their opinion accepted without caveats.

hoodwinked wrote: »

these priests are members of irish society with a vote on constitutional change, just like their parents, just like their siblings, just like their friends, so they too should be allowed an opinion, and like i said just because the church (and some priests) disagree on gay marriage, doesn't invalidate every priests opinion there are plenty of them who would love to marry their brother to his boyfriend or their niece to her girlfriend.

They have the right to their opinion, but not to a platform for it nor to have us accept it as "expert" opinion. It is amateur, uninformed and irrelevant. Nobody is stopping them from voicing it, just as the trainspotter is free to say whatever he likes down the pub. We'll ignore both, and that is our right.

AtomicHorror

fran17 wrote: »

I believe that fellow panty spoke about the alarmingly high rate of std's recently in an attempt to highlight it.but unfortunately it went largely ignored

What is the relevance of STD rates (high or low) amongst homosexuals to the discussion about marriage equality?

eviltwin

NewCorkLad wrote: »

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.

I never said everyone who is against SSM is a bigot but Quinn and co are not most people. In my opinion, from comments he has made or written in the past on this issue and others he is a bigot. He comes across as someone who thinks gay people are a lower class of human.

Daith

hoodwinked wrote: »

Marriage is related to religion by the fact we are a catholic country, until that changes religion is involved, it is why i support either

What does religion have to do with civil marriage?

Daith

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What is the relevance of STD rates (high or low) amongst homosexuals to the discussion about marriage equality?

This is the second time STDs have come up. Have the anti-equality agenda moved to "de gays are bleeding riddled and shouldn't be married" now?

Delirium

hoodwinked wrote: »

Marriage is related to religion by the fact we are a catholic country, until that changes religion is involved, it is why i support either

a: the catholic church changes faster, and moves with the times, (like the world is flat debate all over again)

or

b: we officially separate church from state, (which lets be honest is probably what will end up happening)

until either happen religion and marriage are linked



you are judging all priests by saying what you are saying though?

Last I checked protestants, Jews, Muslims, atheists etc. can all marry.

fran17

Daith wrote: »

This is a fact? How are you so sure?

Well the only article in the mainstream media I'm aware of was a small one in the irish times.maybe others picked up on it,i not aware of any though.but in proportion to the media fest when rte paid damages to a man who was defamed by him then it really went unnoticed.of course though it's not politically correct to talk about homosexuality and std's in the same sentence anymore

Daith

fran17 wrote: »

Well the only article in the mainstream media I'm aware of was a small one in the irish times.maybe others picked up on it,i not aware of any though.but in proportion to the media fest when rte paid damages to a man who was defamed by him then it really went unnoticed.of course though it's not politically correct to talk about homosexuality and std's in the same sentence anymore

Except for Panti talking about it? The fact that it didn't pickup mainstream media is an issue with mainstream media.

When's the last time you went for an STI check btw?

eviltwin

hoodwinked wrote: »

you are judging all priests by saying what you are saying though?

I am not judging anyone Hoodwinked. I think you are misinterpreting my comments. I don't think the average lay person would go to a priest for support unless they knew that person quite well on a personal level. That might have been the way of things in the past but with so many organisations out there dedicated to various issues it would make more sense to seek help from them. Priests also work for an organisation that has very strong objections to a lot of the things people do in their lives, its not an atmosphere that would encourage a lot of people to be open about those things. That is not judging the priests who possibly would make a great listener but when I want advice most people will go to the experts.

NewCorkLad

jill_valentine wrote: »

They can't offer a single rational argument against it. Not one.

Therefore, they're coming from somewhere irrational. Depriving an entire swathe of society of a legal mechanism available to others for absolutely no rational reason is indisputably bigoted.

Therefore, they're bigots.

Doesn't matter if they're uncomfortable hearing it. It's no less true. These are the very chaps we get to hear witter on about inflexible, traditional definitions of things, so there you have it.

If you want the law to treat gay people - just gay people - with the back of its hand, for no reason, then yes indeed, you are a bigot and a homophobe.

Maybe there's an argument for the idea that we should stop pointing this out for purposes of diplomacy, but a fact it is, and a fact it would remain, for all to see.

Yes it is completely irrational but to them it is not depriving a swath of people the opportunity to get married, marriage is something that happens between a man and a woman. To them the law doesnt come into it.

So if everytime someone like this speaks out they are accused of being a homophobic bigot they are just going to start shutting up and holding to their beliefs instead of becoming engaged in a open debate where hopefully their outdated beliefs can be changed.

cena

Brother has told everyone on his Facebook page that anyone that votes no well no longer be his friend.

Not sure why he has to say this cause all his friends have no problem with gay people etc

jill_valentine

fran17 wrote: »

.of course though it's not politically correct to talk about homosexuality and std's in the same sentence anymore

Well, it's just that we feel it would be strange to keep bringing it up. I just don't see what the fact that straight people get more STDs than lesbians has to do with the marriage debate.

hoodwinked

Daith wrote: »

What does religion have to do with civil marriage?

its a tad off topic, but the largest amount of celebrants come from the catholic church, if the country had no religion we would have more celebrants registered to conduct civil ceremonies, as a larger amount of people would opt for civil ceremony's as they would become "the norm" as opposed to the current trend of

"i am not religious but my/his/her *insert relative* would disown him if we don't get married in a church"

it's not so long ago civil marriage was unheard of and done by very little, pre 2005 (wasn't it?) you simply had a choice of church or registry office room, and as alternatives are slowly becoming more popular but they are still constrained by the rules set down by the religious marriage, (recent no marriages outdoors for example)


i am of the opinion that religion shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, BUT it does and trying to argue just because it's a civil marriage means it has nothing to do with religion when civil marriage rules are being taken (incorrectly in my opinion) from religious marriage doesn't sit with me. when it first came to opening up civil marriages, that should have included gay marriage and outdoor weddings in my opinion

SW wrote: »

Last I checked protestants, Jews, Muslims, atheists etc. can all marry.

see my point above, i mean in Ireland because we are a catholic country (officially although i'd love to see a referendum to end that association) civil marriage is linked to religion by the way our government organises things in a "lets just copy them" mode!