And it begins... (bigot brigade anti-SSM leaflets) - ### Mod Warning in 1st Post ###

Slicemeister

smash wrote: »

Anyone want to throw in a few quid and we'll print a load of flyers about how god doesn't exist and how the bible is b0llox and about how religion destroys lives and we'll post a few rounds of them to every church and religious organisation in the country?

To see how they like getting letters forcing beliefs down peoples throats...

Pizza Hut know I've a wheat allergy but yet they still put the flyers in the door. Bastards.

Good job I know it myself.

keithclancy

I'll be voting for Same Sex Marriage.

However I think the situation in Ireland regarding marriage and Civil Partnerships is a bit wrong.

House ownership is something that people still strive for, automatically it seems to go

GF/BF Want to buy a house
Get Married
Buy House

Of course people get married because they love each other, but in many cases I think the decision of marriage is rushed into because of the want to buy a house.

The Dutch Way:

GF/BF or GF/GF or BF/BF or even BF/BF/BF want to buy a house

Enter into a Civil Partnership where the terms of living together are defined (e.g. who pays what share and what is the property of each person going into the contract)

Live together for some years.

GF/BF or GF/GF or BF/BF get married, or never get married because they don't see the need to.

If they do get married, Marriage Contract overrides Civil Partnership contract

IMO Civil Partnership should be possible for Non-Same sex couples as well, for situations where people want to live together but do not want to enter fully into Marriage because they are still unsure if they are right for each other.

Colm R

keithclancy wrote: »

I'll be voting for Same Sex Marriage.

However I think the situation in Ireland regarding marriage and Civil Partnerships is a bit wrong.

House ownership is something that people still strive for, automatically it seems to go

GF/BF Want to buy a house
Get Married
Buy House

Of course people get married because they love each other, but in many cases I think the decision of marriage is rushed into because of the want to buy a house.

The Dutch Way:

GF/BF or GF/GF or BF/BF or even BF/BF/BF want to buy a house

Enter into a Civil Partnership where the terms of living together are defined (e.g. who pays what share and what is the property of each person going into the contract)

Live together for some years.

GF/BF or GF/GF or BF/BF get married, or never get married because they don't see the need to.

If they do get married, Marriage Contract overrides Civil Partnership contract

IMO Civil Partnership should be possible for Non-Same sex couples as well, for situations where people want to live together but do not want to enter fully into Marriage because they are still unsure if they are right for each other.

Was chatting to a guy at work the other day. They don't want to get married (yet), but they have a kid and are very happy. But she is not working as she is looking after the kid.
I was saying to them, to tell nobody, and go and get a civil partnership together. No big ceremony, just registry office, and maybe a dirty weekend down the country.

The point I was getting to was, if they did do that, he could be taking home an extra 3600* a year. Happy days.

*Something like that anyway.

Daith

Colm R wrote: »

I was saying to them, to tell nobody, and go and get a civil partnership together. No big ceremony, just registry office, and maybe a dirty weekend down the country.

The point I was getting to was, if they did do that, he could be taking home an extra 3600* a year. Happy days.

*Something like that anyway.

Which is why they can't get a civil partnership because it would undermine marriage as the foundation on which the family is built according to the constitution.

Except for families with same sex parents we just ignore the Constitution then apparently.

Beano

Colm R wrote: »

Was chatting to a guy at work the other day. They don't want to get married (yet), but they have a kid and are very happy. But she is not working as she is looking after the kid.
I was saying to them, to tell nobody, and go and get a civil partnership together. No big ceremony, just registry office, and maybe a dirty weekend down the country.

The point I was getting to was, if they did do that, he could be taking home an extra 3600* a year. Happy days.

*Something like that anyway.

they cant get a civil partnership. that is for same sex couples only

LorMal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Then again, that rag "Nearly Dead! Alive!" which uses inflammatory language similar to that used in this leaflet hasn't been disowned by the RCC yet.

My point was that the leaflet was not published by the RCC nor is the extreme viewpoint portrayed and the caustic language used in it reflective of the general view of the RCC.
I think it would be better for those on the Yes side to avoid using extremes also when setting out their position. It really gets my back up when those who have sincerely held viewpoints contrary to the majority view are mocked, ridiculed and generally denigrated.
Reminds me of the intolerance of difference we used to experience in the old Holy Catholic Ireland.

Baggy Trousers

LorMal wrote: »

My point was that the leaflet was not published by the RCC nor is the extreme viewpoint portrayed and the caustic language used in it reflective of the general view of the RCC.
I think it would be better for those on the Yes side to avoid using extremes also when setting out their position. It really gets my back up when those who have sincerely held viewpoints contrary to the majority view are mocked, ridiculed and generally denigrated.
Reminds me of the intolerance of difference we used to experience in the old Holy Catholic Ireland.

You make it sound like it was centuries ago...:)

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

My point was that the leaflet was not published by the RCC nor is the extreme viewpoint portrayed and the caustic language used in it reflective of the general view of the RCC.

Are you speaking on behalf of the RCC?

Allowing same-sex marriage would be a “grave injustice” and a disservice to society, according to members of a representative body for Catholic bishops in Ireland.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/bishops-say-same-sex-marriage-would-be-grave-injustice-1.2024464

LorMal wrote: »

I think it would be better for those on the Yes side to avoid using extremes also when setting out their position. It really gets my back up when those who have sincerely held viewpoints contrary to the majority view are mocked, ridiculed and generally denigrated.

Holding sincerely held viewpoints is not a shield. You are not immune from anyone having an opinion about your views.

That leaflet is as extreme as anything but you seems to dismiss it in order to focus on the Yes side mocking people.

boombang

"Sounds of Sodomy"

That made me laugh. I have gay neighbours and I can here them enjoying themselves sometimes. Sounds pretty much the same as my hetero neighbours when I hear them too.

I suggest bigots buy noise cancelling headphones.

Daith

Sincerely held viewpoints

PeteFalk78

Peist2007 wrote: »

Agreed. I think Stephen Fry would be mentioned a whole lot less in the SSM debate if he werent gay.

She wasn't debating SSM. She just used him as a means to tell the country how open minded, progressive and populist her views are.
That's the way people are nowadays - looking for stuff to be outraged about - even though it doesn't affect them.

B_Wayne

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

She wasn't debating SSM. She just used him as a means to tell the country how open minded, progressive and populist her views are.
That's the way people are nowadays - looking for stuff to be outraged about - even though it doesn't affect them.

But same sex marriage isn't going to affect anyone except for gay people and their families in positive ways... But still we have objectors or people who wish to complain about even discussing the topic,looking for stuff to be outraged about!

Wossack

keithclancy wrote: »

I'll be voting for Same Sex Marriage.

However I think the situation in Ireland regarding marriage and Civil Partnerships is a bit wrong.

House ownership is something that people still strive for, automatically it seems to go

GF/BF Want to buy a house
Get Married
Buy House

Of course people get married because they love each other, but in many cases I think the decision of marriage is rushed into because of the want to buy a house.

The Dutch Way:

GF/BF or GF/GF or BF/BF or even BF/BF/BF want to buy a house

Enter into a Civil Partnership where the terms of living together are defined (e.g. who pays what share and what is the property of each person going into the contract)

Live together for some years.

GF/BF or GF/GF or BF/BF get married, or never get married because they don't see the need to.

If they do get married, Marriage Contract overrides Civil Partnership contract

IMO Civil Partnership should be possible for Non-Same sex couples as well, for situations where people want to live together but do not want to enter fully into Marriage because they are still unsure if they are right for each other.

theres a more sensible middle ground between the two, and thats cohabitation agreements (imo)

mrsbyrne

Grayson wrote: »

Contraception doesn't need a vagina if you have two cocks (On two people. Not on one person)

I never mentioned contraception.

LorMal

Daith wrote: »

Are you speaking on behalf of the RCC?

Holding sincerely held viewpoints is not a shield. You are not immune from anyone having an opinion about your views.

That leaflet is as extreme as anything but you seems to dismiss it in order to focus on the Yes side mocking people.

Of course I am not speaking on behalf of the RCC??

I do not have a problem with 'anyone having an opinion' about my views. I was suggesting that both sides would be more convincing in their arguments if they avoided supporting extremes and using intolerant language.
So - please argue with anything I have said by all means. Just don't make stuff up to be offended about.

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

Just don't make stuff up to be offended about.

Eh, the leaflet is right there. And it deserves to be mocked.

LorMal wrote: »

I was suggesting that both sides would be more convincing in their arguments if they avoided supporting extremes and using intolerant language.

No, you specially said the Yes side. Not both sides.

LorMal wrote: »

I think it would be better for those on the Yes side to avoid using extremes also when setting out their position.

LorMal

Daith wrote: »

Eh, the leaflet is right there. And it deserves to be mocked.

Please - either read my posts or stop. I did not support that leaflet in any way whatsoever.
You are deciding what my opinion is.

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

Please - either read my posts or stop. I did not support that leaflet in any way whatsoever.
You are deciding what my opinion is.

No I'm not. You simply dismissed the leaflet because it wasn't RCC sanctioned then had a go at the YES side for their "extreme views"

What is your opinion of the leaflet then?

LorMal

Daith wrote: »

No I'm not. You simply dismissed the leaflet because it wasn't RCC sanctioned then had a go at the YES side for their "extreme views"

Honestly...wtf???

I said that I doubted it came from the RCC as the language used and the viewpoint expressed is too extreme for the RCC.

What is your problem with that???

Buona Fortuna

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Well a natural childbirth requires a vagina. Unassisted concepttion requires a vagina.heterosexual intercourse requires a vagina.

Love it when ya talk dirty to us

Peist2007

LorMal wrote: »

Of course I am not speaking on behalf of the RCC??

I do not have a problem with 'anyone having an opinion' about my views. I was suggesting that both sides would be more convincing in their arguments if they avoided supporting extremes and using intolerant language.
So - please argue with anything I have said by all means. Just don't make stuff up to be offended about.

What "extremes" are the yes side espousing in your opinion? I only see one side putting offensive materials in people's postboxes in the first week of January. Enlighten me.

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

Honestly...wtf???

I said that I doubted it came from the RCC as the language used and the viewpoint expressed is too extreme for the RCC.

What is your problem with that???

Except you didn't "doubt it"

LorMal wrote: »

My point was that the leaflet was not published by the RCC nor is the extreme viewpoint portrayed and the caustic language used in it reflective of the general view of the RCC.

Seeing as you made a fairly authoritative statement, I asked you if you represented the RCC.

I personally think same sex marriage as a grave injustice to society is fairly extreme though.

smash

Just looking into some bible crap here and it's interesting to note that the bible places homosexuality on the same level of sin as a petty shoplifter, or as a greedy person.

1 Corinthians 6:9–10

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

So lets face it, the RCC shouldn't let anyone with even a criminal record for a minor offence get married.

But the bottom line is this: We're not talking about a RCC wedding here, we're talking about legal marriage and in that case the religious nuts just shouldn't have a say. It shouldn't even need a referendum in my opinion.

shruikan2553

The language used could be from the RCC but their groups tend to be incredibly cheap, they would have had Mary print off a few pages in black and white with just a bit of text on them. 4 on a page and then cut up and dropped through the door.

Half of them would be lost in a fire due to the combustion problems the RCC has when it comes to paper and records.

LorMal

Daith wrote: »

Except you didn't "doubt it"


Seeing as you made a fairly authoritative statement, I asked you if you represented the RCC.

I personally think same sex marriage as a grave injustice to society is fairly extreme though.

Are you a tad simple? Where did I say that???

LorMal

Peist2007 wrote: »

What "extremes" are the yes side espousing in your opinion? I only see one side putting offensive materials in people's postboxes in the first week of January. Enlighten me.

Nope - 'one side' isn't putting offensive leaflets into your letter box. Some religious bigots are.
Enlightened?

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

Are you a tad simple? Where did I say that???

I didn't. I was using the phrase from Bishop Doran and what he actually said and thus reflective of the RCC.

LorMal wrote: »

It really gets my back up when those who have sincerely held viewpoints contrary to the majority view are mocked, ridiculed and generally denigrated..

Thanks for calling me simple though!

LorMal

Daith wrote: »

I didn't. I was using the phrase from Bishop Doran and what he actually said and thus reflective of the RCC.

Hilarious. And why are you quoting him to me?

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

Hilarious. And why are you quoting him to me?

Using an example of the RCC language? It's like your first point?

valoren

If that's the best anti-SSM reason that this group can conjure up then it's laughable.