SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Muise...

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Total invention. Not the first time.

Thought so - especially given the history of the Catholic church and adoptions - I'd have thought it'd be the last place anyone would go with an unwanted pregnancy.

Legs.Eleven

Muise... wrote: »

Thought so - especially given the history of the Catholic church and adoptions - I'd have thought it'd be the last place anyone would go with an unwanted pregnancy.

Woops! Thought you were quoting a different post! Ignore my previous one!

Corkfeen

On an ongoing break from boards but can't restrain self from calling calling up bull****.

Woodville56 wrote: »

Trivialising and smoke-screening the issue here ! Where did I say or suggest that voters were being forced into gay marriage - please point out where I said that or otherwise retract it It's this type of silly allegation and innuendo that detracts from the LGBT argument in my view! My point all along in my postings is that both sides should respect the others reasoned arguments in the debate without resorting to name calling and insults.
I believe that someone who would campaign against this referendum to have questions to answer as regards their motives but I cannot accept that someone who, in the privacy of the polling booth, for their own considered reasons, votes no, could be deemed to be homophobic or stupid - it's just to much of a generalisation and there's where I differ with LGBT. My contribution to this debate closed now - it's past my bedtime !

Firstly, I would like you to point to the opposition's reasoned arguments. An argument doesn't automatically gain respect, it has to be decent rather than bigoted. Should I also respect racist arguments? But surely you should be able to point out some of these reasoned arguments.

If someone uses their religious to dictate the rights of gay people,they are by definition being homophobic. For example Switzerland is a direct democracy, in some areas of Switzerland, people continuously voted against a woman's right to vote resulting in one area where women could not vote till the end of the eighties. Would you say the way in which these people voted was in fact sexist and misogynistic?

Woodville56 wrote: »

That's a very principalled position allrite !
I can see this referendum as a bit of a "catch all" protest vote for anti Catholic / anti organised religion factions

Anti religion to respect other people as equal? That's utterly mad Ted.

Stinicker

I will be voting against it as will most of my family and those I know, hopefully it will be defeated.

iwantmydinner

Woodville56 wrote: »

And the above from a supporter of a movement that whinges incessantly about intolerance ! So everyone who doesn't agree with gay marriage is a homophobe yeah ?? Peddle that yarn around the debates over the coming months and see where it gets ya !! Foot in mouth comes to mind ! I'm not committed either way at this point but ur well on the way to making my mind up for me , I can make my own mind up thank you and branding me and others undecided as homophobes won't help your cause ! Might go down well at the Pride gigs alright but the world doesn't revolve around SSM ya know !

YES everyone - EVERYONE - who would deny another human being an important civil right they themselves enjoy, simply because that other human being wants to marry someone of the same gender, is a homophobe. Just because they don't like that term doesn't mean it's inaccurate.

PS your boringly oft-repeated threat to change a potential yes vote to a no unless everyone stops "name calling" is ridiculous. If that's what you base your voting decisions on...

Woodville56

Canard wrote: »

As with all your posts (and posts by the other homophobes), you can do nothing but whinge and moan that the people who want equality are intolerant and aggressive. Boo hoo. :(:( Get a new line. Let me take one of yours:


"wer did i say dat?!!??! :(:( "
Oh yeah, I didn't. But given that in the run-up to these votes the no side's lives revolve around blocking a yes at all costs, I found it funny that you made that remark. So what will help the cause? People have given VERY good reasons why voting yes makes sense, and why voting no does not, but by all means let's totally ignore that.

Can you show one example where I made any homophobic comment or incitement - I repeatedly said I didn't like the term used to describe someone who didn't support the SSM cause . I also said that I had not made any decision as to how I would vote in the referendum but that I didn't like the aggressive name calling on either side !
I have a problem where people's religion or religious beliefs are used to castigate or insult them, be they Catholic, Protestant or any other faith. Now if that makes me a homophobe you must be using the LGBT version of the Oxford dictionary. I would respectfully request that you withdraw your allegation of homophobia levelled at me in your post or I will be reporting your comment against me to Boards admin. And just for clarity - I do not belong to any anti SSM lobby, never have, never will !

suicide_circus

The thought-police are out in force

Woodville56

suicide_circus wrote: »

The thought-police are out in force

Would you like to be name called or is it ok long as it's a dissenting voice ??

Shakespeare's Sister

fleet_admiral wrote: »

When is there going to be a change in the law to give single fathers the same rights as single mothers

Wrong thread. A good topic though, you should start a thread on it.

20Cent

If being called a homophobe is upsetting imagine being told your relationships and family are Inferior to others.

Canard

I apologize if I got a little too riled up initially. It's an emotive topic. Woodville, I just wanted to give you some food for thought. You dislike that people are labelled on religion, I dislike that people are discriminated against on sexuality. Do you not see that it's similar? Intolerance can go both ways.

I'm going to leave this thread now, they end up frustrating me a bit too much, but hopefully some no voters will change their minds by the end of it.

_Redzer_

Woodville56 wrote: »

So what else has the Catholic Church done to YOU apart from opposing gay marriage ??
Populist rant more like !!

Label me a deviant, liken me to a pedophile and fought at every opportunity to keep me a second class citizen. To be honest, the church would rather I did not exist for a start. They've made it clear over the years, it's only now that they're in danger of majorly alienating the western world have their views softened...slightly.

So I think my 'rant', or in actuality, me standing up for myself as human being asking I be treated as equal to you, is very much justified and rational.

RDM_83 again

Muise... wrote: »

Is it something you have had to do yourself, or are you just imagining it for the sake of argument?

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Total invention. Not the first time.

Of course I haven't did I forget the memo where unless it directly impacts you your not allowed to care.

Empathy is the experience of understanding another person's condition from their perspective

How is it a invention or you saying this isn't the situation in the UK at present? Or that people with strong religious beliefs are not going to avail of adoption services?
Therefore its logical that some (maybe just a small number) of these religious people are going to want a religious adoption service to be available.
Please point any flaw in what I just stated or are you going to categorically say that you clearly understand the feelings of every person that is giving up their child.

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I'm a law abider and a good citizen but I'll vote in that referendum next year and as I said, if that displeases some people, I don't care.

You do under stand that being law abiding means abiding by the law right?

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

You're simply gagging for an argument with me RD

Nah it pisses me of that your boasting subverting our democratic system, you do know if the franchise was extended to every Irish citizen with the strong conservative element in Irish American society what you want would probably actually mean the referendum would fail.

Shakespeare's Sister

Woodville56 wrote: »

Would you like to be name called or is it ok long as it's a dissenting voice ??

I think "thought police" is in reference to the yes lobby here.
People can think all they like that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, but seeing as this has a very significant impact on people with same-sex partners whom they just want to marry, nothing more, they're going to have to expect people asking why.
Voting no to other people having a choice to be happy seems rather... meanspirited to say the least.

Amirani

Stinicker wrote: »

I will be voting against it as will most of my family and those I know, hopefully it will be defeated.

This referendum is a big deal to me and I really hope it passes. I know for certain that it will come at some point, it's pretty much inevitable - intolerant homophobes are dying out.

The day the referendum passes will give me great satisfaction, it will mean a lot. The icing on the cake though, will be thinking of people like you and your family. That'll give me a good auld chuckle. Hope you enjoy the party.

Muise...

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Of course I haven't did I forget the memo where unless it directly impacts you your not allowed to care.


How is it a invention or you saying this isn't the situation in the UK at present? Or that people with strong religious beliefs are not going to avail of adoption services?
Therefore its logical that some (maybe just a small number) of these religious people are going to want a religious adoption service to be available.
Please point any flaw in what I just stated or are you going to categorically say that you clearly understand the feelings of every person that is giving up their child.

It's the stretchiest of stretchy arguments that the possible feelings of a Catholic woman who doesn't want to give a baby up for adoption to a non-Catholic family should be in any way considered as grounds to stop the progress of same sex marriage because the church, in a fit of pique and sour grapes, will refuse to act as an adoption agency if gay people can get married.

If I was going to empathise, I'd think "poor woman giving up her baby" not "poor woman can't give up her baby now in case some gays get it."

Nodin

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Of course I haven't did I forget the memo where unless it directly impacts you your not allowed to care.


How is it a invention or you saying this isn't the situation in the UK at present? Or that people with strong religious beliefs are not going to avail of adoption services?
Therefore its logical that some (maybe just a small number) of these religious people are going to want a religious adoption service to be available.
Please point any flaw in what I just stated or are you going to categorically say that you clearly understand the feelings of every person that is giving up their child.
.

Gay couples are to be allowed adopt, regardless of the result of the referendum on gay marriage. Separate issue entirely.

Zed Bank

Woodville56 wrote: »

but the world doesn't revolve around SSM ya know !

Exactly the point I'm making. SSM will be passed and life will go on as normal.

freshpopcorn

Stinicker wrote: »

I will be voting against it as will most of my family and those I know, hopefully it will be defeated.

Why do you and your family oppose the referendum?

Legs.Eleven

You do under stand that being law abiding means abiding by the law right?

Let's say I abide the law 99% of the time then.;)

Nah it pisses me of that your boasting subverting our democratic system

I'm not boasting, I'm stating my intentions. I feel VERY strongly about this topic and I don't believe it should be put to a referendum at all.

This has nothing to do with the topic and I don't want to sidetrack it anymore (feel free to PM me if you want) but there's nothing democratic about not allowing your citizens to vote in elections and taking away their voice. Thousands of Irish have left to find work elsewhere and not because they ever wanted to leave in many cases (it was the reason I left a second time in 2008). I don't believe it's fair that they have had the right to decide on the future of their country taken away from them simply because they couldn't stay.

Every person from outside the country who I've explained the situation to couldn't believe it and found it deeply unfair. It's completely UNdemocratic. I would have no problem relinquishing my right to vote in Ireland IF I could vote in the country I'm a resident in, but I can't. I can't vote in either country in major elections even though I've lived in Ireland for 24 years and Spain approaching 5. Fcuk that.


You said I have even less right to vote because I said once on a thread that I'll probably never live there again. Well the law doesn't discriminate between those who do intend on moving home and those who don't. If I'm a resident in another country for even 1 year, I can't, by law, vote in referendums and general elections. That's unjust.

I don't vote in general/local elections and I haven't voted in a referendum since leaving but I will vote in this one as it directly affects my relatives and friends. I feel very passionately about this and I want to do what I can for them.

you do know if the franchise was extended to every Irish citizen with the strong conservative element in Irish American society what you want would probably actually mean the referendum would fail.

They'd have to hold Irish passports to vote. If they did, fine.

I believe there's enough Irish living abroad who hold similar views to me that would outnumber them though. Thousands of Irish gay men and women left Ireland to live in London (among other cities including here in Madrid) because the country they lived in was intolerant towards them. I'd say they'd happily come home and vote.


By the way, you're obviously not aware of how many Irish living in Europe who return home to vote as it is.

J_E

Stinicker wrote: »

I will be voting against it as will most of my family and those I know, hopefully it will be defeated.

Why though? What do you have to gain by that?

Legs.Eleven

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Of course I haven't did I forget the memo where unless it directly impacts you your not allowed to care.

I mistook what Muise was referring to and the invention quote doesn't apply. My mistake.

P_1

Stinicker wrote: »

I will be voting against it as will most of my family and those I know, hopefully it will be defeated.

It's attitudes like this that sometimes make me feel a bit sad. Ok fine you might disagree with the lifestyle but is it actually causing you any harm?

_Redzer_

Stinicker wrote: »

I will be voting against it as will most of my family and those I know, hopefully it will be defeated.

As much as I disagree with your decision and as much as I think it'll be deserved when your kind are looked back on by the next generation and utterly mocked for your views, just like the racists of the 50s and 60s now, at least you're honest about your views.

I actually have more respect for people who air their views instead of the absolute cowards who hide their leanings until they are "safe" in their own privacy.

That's actually worse because those people actually know their views are wrong and controversial, yet still hold onto them when they're alone when it's easy to do so. Very little respect for such cowardly people.

RayM

Cydoniac wrote: »

Why though? What do you have to gain by that?

Usually a sense of satisfaction that they've stuck two fingers up at the teh liberuhls. Some people like to wear their obnoxious opinions like a badge of honour.

osarusan

"I'm not homophobic, I'm just going to vote in line with my Catholic beliefs....".

Hahahahahaha, yeah, nothing homophobic about the Catholic Church.

Anyhow, I realise that there legally needs to be a referendum about this, but I'd prefer that it be just legalised without a referendum, because I'd prefer the anti-SSM lobby groups to actually have to make their case in a court of law rather than spread scare-mongering lies during a campaign.

_Redzer_

RayM wrote: »

Usually a sense of satisfaction that they've stuck two fingers up at the teh liberuhls. Some people like to wear their obnoxious opinions like a badge of honour.

The funny and ironic thing being that they're ultra liberal in comparison to those 100 years prior. Social liberalism always leads to societal progress. It's kind of funny how if a pack of racist misogynists where to jump from the early 19th century to now, the current conservatives would be viewed as liberal, yet when future generations look back, they'll be seen as ridiculously conservative at the same time. It's like the future is always more liberal and the past is always conservative. It's like their badge of honour is a living parody.

Kinda off topic, but it amuses me when I see conservatives bitching about liberals when if you sat back and observed history, there'd be a huge amount of irony at play.

Karl Stein

Stinicker wrote: »

I will be voting against it..

Okay.

hopefully it will be defeated.

Why?

RayM

osarusan wrote: »

Anyhow, I realise that there legally needs to be a referendum about this, but I'd prefer that it be just legalised without a referendum, because I'd prefer the anti-SSM lobby groups to actually have to make their case in a court of law rather than spread scare-mongering lies during a campaign.

I'd sort of prefer that too. As a heterosexual, I don't feel very comfortable about being given the chance to decide what rights other people should have. It's a bit like being told I can vote in another country's general election.

krudler

Manach wrote: »

I'd say it will be closer than the media pundits expect, inspire of the ill will and name calling on behalf of those who would overturn traditional marriage. Hopefully given the judicial activism in other countries that have overturned democratic votes against this re-definition, there will be a no vote that will safeguard marriage.

Marriage isn't being overturned at all, just means more people who love each other can legally enjoy the same rights straight people can.

That's it.

You won't be snatched out of your bed and forced to marry a guy.

Families won't suddenly fall apart.

Current marriages won't suddently be rendered pointless.

There won't be zombies, world war or locusts descending on us.

Only thing that will happen is we'll have a more balanced society, oh and there might be a few more weddings to go to, but fuck me if they won't be fabulous.