SSM Referendum Spring 2015

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

RobertKK wrote: »

Calling people names is outlandish because a person doesn't agree with your views.

You are not being called homophobic for the bare fact of having a different opinion, you are being called homophobic because your views (and if you vote no, your actions) are homophobic.

RobertKK wrote: »

What is the point of having a belief if you don't believe it and do the opposite?

Doing the opposite would be getting gay married. None of this is complicated.

P_1

RobertKK wrote: »

What is the point of having a belief if you don't believe it and do the opposite?

You apply it to yourself and to how you live your life. You don't seek to impose it on others who don't hold the same views as yourself. Not too difficult a concept I would have thought.

I Heart Internet

SW wrote: »

That's fair enough. you have your beliefs but aren't going to say that others have to live according to those beliefs.

They would if they knew what was good for them though.

Legs.Eleven

RobertKK wrote: »

Enda Kenny said he is Catholic too, but he doesn't believe Jesus was the son of God...or God for that matter.

My stepmother is a believer. She's a regular mass goer, involved in church stuff/charity etc. She's an incredibly kind person and would never talk about gay people like you have on this thread, which is a little more in line with the fundamental teachings of christ.


The fact is, much of what is preached within christian religions is contradicted repeatedly ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "we are all equal in the eyes of god", "he who casts the first stone..."etc UNLESS you're gay or a woman). She chooses to stick to bits that promote kindness and a common sense of decency and respect for humankind regardless of what they choose to do in bed. You choose to focus on some of the bits that contradict the fundamentals. That's your prerogative but it doesn't make you anymore Catholic than her.

hoodwinked

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't see that as committed, if he believes what he believes but then puts it aside, it shows what he believes has weak foundations.

then clearly you have no idea of how much he believes in his religion, i thought by saying our daughter is a catholic would show you how important his religion is to him in his life. he fought so hard to have us be married in a church (even though i am agnostic) because to him we weren't married if it wasn't in the eyes of the church,

he also recognises not everyone lives or believes like he does, (hence he married me ) and he also thinks voting yes is the right thing to do so other people can choose marriage in their lives like he did in his, he does recognise others go for civil marriages and he recognises they are married,

RobertKK

Camron Stale Witch wrote: »

You are not being called homophobic for the bare fact of having a different opinion, you are being called homophobic because your views (and if you vote no, your actions) are homophobic.



Doing the opposite would be getting gay married. None of this is complicated.

So if one doesn't support gay marriage they are homophobic?

Doing the opposite is one saying they are committed to their religion and then supporting something that is contrary to it.

I Heart Internet

Camron Stale Witch wrote: »

Doing the opposite would be getting gay married. None of this is complicated.

I don't buy the "if you're against gay marriage, don't have one." Or it's older brother, "if you're against abortion, don't have one."

People are perfectly entitled to oppose things they don't agree with in the public realm. It is not jsut a case of not doing those things themselves.

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't see that as committed, if he believes what he believes but then puts it aside, it shows what he believes has weak foundations.
It is not like Lucinda Creighton who believes what she believes and sacrificed a good job for it, when many in her party put aside beliefs for power and influence within the party.

Sorry, but who are you to say whether his beliefs have wreak foundations?

And it is very possible for somebody to be personally against something on religious grounds while recognising that others should have the right to do so if they wish.

E.g. pork. Many Christians, Jews and Muslims can't consume it for religious reasons but they don't seek to prevent others consuming it if they wish.

Do you think they aren't committed to their religion for not seeking to have pork banned?

Lyaiera

RobertKK wrote: »

What is the point of having a belief if you don't believe it and do the opposite?

Because his belief is about church marriage and not marriages conducted by the state. If you're as catholic as you say you are you'll know what Jesus had to say about religion getting involved with politics and statehood.

P_1

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I don't buy the "if you're against gay marriage, don't have one." Or it's older brother, "if you're against abortion, don't have one."

People are perfectly entitled to oppose things they don't agree with in the public realm. It is not jsut a case of not doing those things themselves.

And there's where we differ. If somebody does something that they want to do and it doesn't harm anybody else in the process then what business is it of the other person's to tell them what they can and cannot do?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

RobertKK wrote: »

So if one doesn't support gay marriage they are homophobic?

How many times? YES.

Doing the opposite is one saying they are committed to their religion and then supporting something that is contrary to it.

Yeah, because Christianity is all about the gay marriage. Not humility, charitableness, kindness etc. Also I assume that since you feel so strongly about this stuff you're not sitting by and tacitly supporting divorce or contraception or any of that? You're out protesting that on the streets I suppose.

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

Calling people names is outlandish because a person doesn't agree with your views.

Yea, good thing im not doing that. In this context Homophobic isn't a name, it's an accurate descriptor.

I'm calling people who express homophobic views and vote in favour of homophobia homophobes.

It's about as outlandish as calling a vegetarian a vegetarian.

RobertKK

hoodwinked wrote: »

then clearly you have no idea of how much he believes in his religion, i thought by saying our daughter is a catholic would show you how important his religion is to him in his life. he fought so hard to have us be married in a church (even though i am agnostic) because to him we weren't married if it wasn't in the eyes of the church,

he also recognises not everyone lives or believes like he does, (hence he married me ) and he also thinks voting yes is the right thing to do so other people can choose marriage in their lives like he did in his, he does recognise others go for civil marriages and he recognises they are married,

I have no problem with others believing different, but people should vote for what they believe and not what others believe.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't see that as committed, if he believes what he believes but then puts it aside, it shows what he believes has weak foundations.

And stop calling that guy names for having a different opinion to you.

RobertKK

floggg wrote: »

Yea, good thing im not doing that. In this context Homophobic isn't a name, it's an accurate descriptor.

I'm calling people who express homophobic views and vote in favour of homophobia homophobes.

It's about as outlandish as calling a vegetarian a vegetarian.

Namecalling is used when a debate is lost or very weak.

I Heart Internet

P_1 wrote: »

And there's where we differ. If somebody does something that they want to do and it doesn't harm anybody else in the process then what business is it of the other person's to tell them what they can and cannot do?

I have a less individualistic view of the world. Like it or not, marriage is (amongst other things) a public/civic institution. Therefore we all have a right (a duty indeed) to ensure it is maintained and protected as best we see fit. People differ on what this means - hence a healthy, public debate.

Legs.Eleven

Lyaiera wrote: »

Because his belief is about church marriage and not marriages conducted by the state. If you're as catholic as you say you are you'll know what Jesus had to say about religion getting involved with politics and statehood.

As I said, multiple contradictions. Using your religion as an excuse to vote no is a pretty flimsy defence as almost everything can be contradicted and a justification for any viewpoint can be pulled out of the bag for absolutely anything.

Delirium

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They would if they knew what was good for them though.

well if they're an LGBT couple, not sharing your belief would be a good thing IMHO as this allows them to marry rather than be celibates for their whole life.

RobertKK

Camron Stale Witch wrote: »

And stop calling that guy names for having a different opinion to you.

I didn't call anyone names.

'weak foundations' is not a name.

Delirium

RobertKK wrote: »

Namecalling is used when a debate is lost or very weak.

as is scaremongering

hoodwinked

RobertKK wrote: »

I have no problem with others believing different, but people should vote for what they believe and not what others believe.

he believes as he was told last Sunday in peter and paul related mass (i don't pay too much attention as i am only there to support him and our daughter), that christ's message is we should love one another, and be kind to one another, and look out for one another, and that was said by the priest, who accepts me and loves me even though i don't believe in god, or jesus, but as he says when it comes up "i'm not at work now", he doesn't judge me for my past as some people do, and he's the priest, it is his opinion that people should let others make their own choices and it's a pity you aren't in his parish as i reckon he could teach you a lot about your religion.

how is stopping people you don't even know getting married being kind or loving?

my husband practices what is preached, and try's not to imput negatively on anyone else, obviously at times thats hard to avoid, but he see's this as i do, a chance to put right a wrong, and allow everyone to get married in a civil ceremony.

Links234

RobertKK wrote: »

Doing the opposite is one saying they are committed to their religion and then supporting something that is contrary to it.

It has nothing to do with religion. Nothing. Zilch, zip, nada. The vote will not effect the religion in question, because what the vote is about has nothing to do with the religion, it has to do with factors outside of the religion. What the religion defines as marriage, etc, stays the same, what the believers of the religion believe marriage to be, stays the same. Someone voting yes, is no more contrary to their religion than it is contrary to their ****ing book club, or contrary to where they shop. It has nothing what so ever to do with their religion, and they can vote yes without it being contrary to their religion because it has nothing to do with their religion.

This has been explained exhaustively not only on this thread, but several others before, so please stop hiding your bigotry behind the excuse of religion.

I Heart Internet

SW wrote: »

well if they're an LGBT couple, not sharing your belief would be a good thing IMHO as this allows them to marry rather than be celibates for their whole life.

That was said mainly in jest SW.

RayM

RobertKK wrote: »

Namecalling is used when a debate is lost or very weak.

That's a total cliché. You can still have a strong argument and win a debate while calling a homophobe a homophobe. Sometimes it's necessary. Imagine trying to debate with someone from the BNP or UKIP and not being able to state the bleeding obvious about their attitude towards race.

RobertKK

Lyaiera wrote: »

Because his belief is about church marriage and not marriages conducted by the state. If you're as catholic as you say you are you'll know what Jesus had to say about religion getting involved with politics and statehood.

Give unto Caesar what is Caesars...not sure marriage is Caesars...

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

RobertKK wrote: »

I didn't call anyone names.

'weak foundations' is not a name.

Oh you're right, casting aspersions on the strength of someone's faith because they have a different belief than you is totally different :rolleyes:

Stop describing him in derogatory terms so. And stop clutching at straws while you're at it.

AlanS181824

It will be passed, no doubt.

It's just a natural step forward for us as human beings.

Everyone deserves happiness regardless of who they love.

I hope there's also a referendum for trans rights.

Changing official gender, name changes and the like.

P_1

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I have a less individualistic view of the world. Like it or not, marriage is (amongst other things) a public/civic institution. Therefore we all have a right (a duty indeed) to ensure it is maintained and protected as best we see fit. People differ on what this means - hence a healthy, public debate.

That's fair enough, and I'd like to see that happen here, as opposed to scaremongering and yelling from either side

Solid_Shepard

RobertKK wrote: »

Under God we are all equal, it doesn't mean men can give birth to babies, one can marry the same sex, one can take human life, sleep around or whatever but we should treat others with respect.

If you are a Catholic and following you faith, though people like Enda Kenny make a joke of it (after watching him on the meaning of life) you can receive the Eucharist.

You ignored a sizeable part of the response towards towards this notion in the larger post, so I'm going to repeat it once more here. You state you are a Catholic, and follow your faith. Now, have you ever used contraceptives? Have you ever slept with an individual before marriage? Do you not beat any children you may have with a rod to discipline them? Do you stringently follow every single written command within the bible? If you do not stringently follow every single command, what gives you the right to proclaim yourself to be "a Catholic and following you[sic] faith" but does not give somebody else the right to call themselves a Catholic and similarly pick and choose the aspects that they wish to follow? If you don't follow every single command, arbitrarily, how can you keep on trying to insist that this is one of the primary reasons you are against same-sex marriage (as you place importance upon this, yet not other points, for no justifiable reason) and not your own personal prejudices? Even more than this, you are trying to use your religious beliefs as a flimsy justification for you prejudices which will negatively affect the lives of many already at-risk individuals, despite the legalisation of civil marriage for same-sex couples having absolutely no effect whatsoever upon the Catholic Church.

Even ignoring the Catholic aspect, which this vote will have absolutely no effect upon, you keep on saying 'but the children' yet you are ignoring all of the evidence that bluntly states your opinion is no more sensical than my belief that the world is a tetrahedron made of cheese orbitting the sun which is actually made out of flowers (and yes, this is purposely exagerrated so hopefully you can stop trying to just state it is your 'opinion' and that's thus infallible). Sexual orientation of parents does not have a statistical effect on children. Sexual orientation does not have any link with paedophilia or child sexual abuse. Sexual orientation does not have a sizeable impact upon whether a couple will have a child (79% of LGBT couples having a child in America). These are not opinions, there is an overwhelming array of congruent, reviewed, and widely accepted studies that demonstrate all of this, some of which I have already linked if you want to try and argue against (but let me state it again, you're not going to have an easy time).

Finally, homophobia is a prejudice based upon sexual orientation. You are making a straw man argument by focusing on the 'phobia' aspect and completely overlooking that this was to refer to to a fear of being perceived, while a heterosexual male, as a homosexual individual. The semantic argument that tries to warp what the word is is completely unfounded. I'm very sorry if it makes you upset that your beliefs, and those of the Catholic Church, are homophobic but any modern definition established by a governmental body is going to make it quite clear that these are, and that any belief, whether it's religious in nature, due to conscientious objection, or otherwise, that seeks to discriminate against homosexual individuals that is not well-justified and reasonable, is homophobic. I'm sorry that one person on the radio stated you should not go vote, yet when one option in this vote clearly seeks to restrict the rights of individuals on the sole basis that they are homosexual, there is very little grey area (and no, this isn't down to opinions, it's down to the modern, accepted understanding of what homophobia is relating to discrimination against homosexuals) about whether or not it is homophobic, a word that does not imply connotations of extremity.

RobertKK

Camron Stale Witch wrote: »

Oh you're right, casting aspersions on the strength of someone's faith because they have a different belief than you is totally different :rolleyes:

Stop describing him in derogatory terms so. And stop clutching at straws while you're at it.

I didn't see the same concern when I mentioned I was called a bigot and homophobic for being committed to my religion.

RayM wrote: »

That's a total cliché. You can still have a strong argument and win a debate while calling a homophobe a homophobe. Sometimes it's necessary. Imagine trying to debate with someone from the BNP or UKIP and not being able to state the bleeding obvious about their attitude towards race.

It is to silence debate.

I am finished posting in this thread.
I wish all well, whatever way one is voting.