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

B_Wayne

Wossack wrote: »

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

By saying cohabitation agreements are good,it does classifying same sex couples as inferior and not good enough for marriage for no reason.

LorMal wrote: »

Sorry, I don't even know what you are talking about anymore.
All I was saying is that the level of intolerance seems to me to be high on both sides and it is generally counterproductive.
Some of those in favour of SSM are as intolerant of the 'sincerely held viewpoints' of religious people (which you mocked) as the bigots are intolerant of homosexuality.

The people who produced that pamphlet hold sincerely held beliefs, shouldn't we respect the contents of it by your own logic? The likes of Iona have no actual rational grounds to oppose it and their ultimate reasoning is based in the bible, based in the bible to limit the rights of other. Thankfully many Christians make the distinction that whatever one's religious belief, it should not dictate rights of others.


Anyone care to show me the rational basis for opposing same sex marriage or is it just going to continue to be vague?

Brian Shanahan

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Considering the types of parents who would allow their child to appear in such a leaflet it is little wonder she looks so unhappy. The unhappy appearance is probably genuine and caused by the 'sounds' of crazy religious fundie parenting! Never mind the 'sounds of sodomy'!

I wouldn't put it past the crowd who made this to have actually stolen a copyrighted work from another publication. It would be just their metiér.

Brian Shanahan

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Oh lord Jesus I made typo see my original post :mad:

So when your position is found to be baseless, you attempt to perform a reverse ferret?

How typical and low of you.

Brian Shanahan

Peist2007 wrote: »

If the Church are so concerned that children get parenting from a woman and a man, why arent they taking kids off single mothers? Why arent all one parent families illegitimate?

They were. Because of it 800 children were murdered in a religious institution in Tuam, a few thousand in one in Cork, and countless others around the country.

Don't be giving that shower ideas.

Bipolar Joe

Manach wrote: »

It begins, a masterclass on ad hominem by the PC brigade whose toleration for anything expect for those who disagree with progressive precepts.

Man, if you'd have managed to get "Strawman argument" in there, we could have called a hat trick.

RobertKK

The sound of sodomy, sounds like a porno sequel to the sound of music where the Nazis go hardcore.

Akrasia

Daith wrote: »

Do you not get that the leaflet represents someone's belief so by calling it a piece of **** you are doing the same thing you are giving out about!

Whoever wrote the leaflet obviously didn't feel that they could stand behind what was written because they didn't bother to put any contact details on it. The leaflet is beyond contempt from pretty much every perspective. Did MrsByrne say that every single religious belief is worthy of respect?

Lets not argue against straw men. There are more than enough points of difference between the pro and anti side without trying to force the no side to defend a stupid leaflet that nobody is prepared to defend. That battle is won, the leaflet is stupid and offensive and wrong, now, lets move onto the positions that the no side actually hold.

Specifically, that homosexuality is somehow 'sinful' or 'unnatural' or deviant', or that same sex couples getting married would somehow devalue the 'institution of marriage' or that a same sex couple would necessarily be a negative environment in which to raise a child, or that the state should be expected to respect 'traditional' views on marriage and not move forward with the enlightenment principles of equal rights for all citizens....

david75

I suppose an anti-gay agenda can take many forms. I find the subtle attempts more alarming.
The cover of the dvd and the blurb for the release of british movie Pride has been 'straightwashed' upon it's release in the US
No mention at all about its central characters being gay, just about 'an activist group' coming to the aid of miners striking in Thatchers Britain. It causing quite the stir. It's an amazing film by the way, for anyone, but this insidious type of 'straightwashing' to me is more dangerous than anything like that dumb leaflet.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/05/246C648800000578-0-image-a-16_1420457896575.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/05/246C65EE00000578-0-image-m-20_1420458047528.jpg

PopePalpatine

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Man, if you'd have managed to get "Strawman argument" in there, we could have called a hat trick.

He's not worth responding to, he just drive-by posts in any threads like these. I'd say he's more offended by the existence of Magdalenes For Justice than the abuses their members suffered.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I know several Catholics, and even one Jehovah, who are planning to vote yes to this. I wouldn't say any of them actually believe that homosexuality is A-OK, but they do believe that a) it's no bigger a deal than stealing or things like that and b) it's not the state's business to enforce their beliefs about homosexuality. I know for sure of about three people who haven't darkened the door of a church in years and will harp on about "them bloody queers, fcuking disgusting" to anyone who'll listen, and I probably know dozens more who just happen not to have brought the subject up in my presence.

Don't like the RCC and its views on gay people? Grand. But it's not safe to assume that just because someone is Catholic (or a member of another organised religion) that they're going to be voting no, or vice versa. When religion is, as it has been in this case, used as a justification for sickening bigotry, then yes, call it out. But don't lay the blame for that at the door of religious people who are going to be voting yes.

For fcuk's sake surely it's better to be trying to convince people who are voting no rather than giving yes voters shít for the bare fact of their religious beliefs.

RoyalMarine

I'm all for gay marriage. I'm all for full rights for everyone. But I wasn't too bothered to vote.

However, after seeing that IONA video, I will be voting for sure and encouraging my whole family to do the same.

Voting for gay marriage. IONA have convinced me.

Bipolar Joe

Which video is this?

Baggy Trousers

The question is, would someone vote No for any other reason than the perception that their religion "disapproves" of it (even if Rome has softened it's stance recently)? Personally I doubt it.

shruikan2553

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

The question is, would someone vote No for any other reason than the perception that their religion "disapproves" of it (even if Rome has softened it's stance recently)? Personally I doubt it.

They have a belief. Nothing says we should listen to me more than "just because"

Baggy Trousers

shruikan2553 wrote: »

They have a belief. Nothing says we should listen to me more than "just because"

That wasn't my point whatsoever. Read the question again.

I am not saying people with 'belief' will generally vote No. I imagine few will. I am saying that they only reason people would vote No, in my opinion, would be the perception that their religion "disapproves" of it (even if Rome has softened it's stance recently). Same applies to people of Islamic faith.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Which video is this?

Presumably this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaRK-0W5HQI

It's basically a strawman, because it doesn't put forward the case for "man&woman marriage" it's a case of having "a child being raised by a man and a woman" which is not what's up for debate.

One eyed Jack

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

The question is, would someone vote No for any other reason than the perception that their religion "disapproves" of it (even if Rome has softened it's stance recently)? Personally I doubt it.

Of course they would, and I have no doubt they will, because people can be spiteful like that, and I know plenty of people that are, and they're not religious. They just don't like people who are LGBT (in fact they don't like anyone else who they perceive as any way different from them and the way they think).

hotmail.com

Priest in Dublin comes out on the alter and says he will marry gay couples - The Sun

Hilly Bill

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Who is distributing these leaflets?

Luke

Baggy Trousers

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Luke

The Jedi?

Hilly Bill

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

The Jedi?

12:12 by the looks of it.

bodice ripper

Hilly Bill wrote: »

12:12 by the looks of it.

Nice.

shruikan2553

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

That wasn't my point whatsoever. Read the question again.

I am not saying people with 'belief' will generally vote No. I imagine few will. I am saying that they only reason people would vote No, in my opinion, would be the perception that their religion "disapproves" of it (even if Rome has softened it's stance recently). Same applies to people of Islamic faith.

I meant belief as "I think" not religious.

david75

Just seen on Vincent Browne that a Priest has come out during a mass in Dublin and called for marriage equality, and got a standing ovation. In tomorrows papers apparently.

progress.

Baggy Trousers

david75 wrote: »

Just seen on Vincent Browne that a Priest has come out during a mass in Dublin and called for marriage equality, and got a standing ovation. In tomorrows papers apparently.

progress.

Hold on, are you saying the priest "came out" and admitted he was gay and also called for a yes vote?

I ask because Hotmail used the same phrase above.

bnt

Guess what's trending on Twitter? #soundsofsodomy

Dara Ó Briain: "I must thank the Irish anti-marriage equality campaign for igniting a very entertaining discussion over whether sodomy is louder than a bell."

They might have a point, though I'd say that this band is not suitable for adults, either:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glcH9gdmpns

david75

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Hold on, are you saying the priest "came out" and admitted he was gay and also called for a yes vote?

I ask because Hotmail used the same phrase above.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10924783_10152945849141223_7979662654065050596_n.jpg?oh=63da7d360eae104e28aa7b8b4d75807c&oe=55326EE8&__gda__=1428919557_85a19f5266679a4159468db504d23a95

Deenie123

If that's where it ends, this is fantastic news. That might put some religious peoples minds at ease that they aren't opposing the church. It will be interesting to see what sort of reaction it generates from higher up, though.

Peist2007

LorMal wrote: »

I just cannot understand your argument here. No one is defending the leaflet. No one is condemning anyone for calling it bigoted and nasty tosh.
What some of us do not like is the complete dismissal of any person (and their belief systems) who does not agree with your position on this issue. Some of the language used is also nasty and divisive and I suggest counterproductive.

I cannot understand why you are telling me that yes people have posted here in a manner that is "divisive" and "counterproductive" whilst not being able to point to a single post that is so.

I cannot understand why you would even attempt to try to insult anyone's intelligence by making such an argument given that fact that you and you alone have insulted someone on this thread by referring to them as "simple".

I finally cannot understand why you keep dragging this into your beliefs etc when the fact is that this is a civil issue that puts a sizeable portion of our brothers and sisters onto a similar legal footing as everyone else. It's very simple. Gay people are no different to anyone else. Yet you talk about your offence at phantom insults in an effort to divert this away from its simple logic. It's quite transparent. And fooling nobody.

As we simply do not understand each other i suggest we let it be.

david75

I'll stop waging war on peoples 'belief systems' when they stop trying to impose them on me and prevent me having full equality, recognition and protection under the law.

Your belief system should have no bearing input or final judgement on my life. Just as my life and how I live it/with whom, has no bearing on your belief system.