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

padd b1975

SW wrote: »

are you suggesting that the people who produced the leaflet aren't intolerant towards homosexuals?

Intolerant tonwards gay marriage, it's an important difference.

Peist2007

padd b1975 wrote: »

Have a look at the thread title.

Bigot Brigade?

Straight from the student politics book of sneering insults.

The leaflets are completely bigotted. Are you saying that isnt so?

And LorMal isnt talking about the thread title. He/she said the insults are coming from posters on this thread.

Daith

padd b1975 wrote: »

Intolerant tonwards gay marriage, it's an important difference.

We are talking about the leaflet here "bigot brigade anti-SSM leaflets". Are you saying they aren't bigoted?

Peist2007

padd b1975 wrote: »

Intolerant tonwards gay marriage, it's an important difference.

Explain the difference between being intolerant towards gay people and intolerance of gay marriage.

Daith

Peist2007 wrote: »

Explain the difference between being intolerant towards gay people and intolerance of gay marriage.

And gay people adopting which is perfectly fine in Ireland

Delirium

padd b1975 wrote: »

Intolerant tonwards gay marriage, it's an important difference.

"examine the dire consequences for the innocent if homosexuals are given access to the scacrament of marriage"

"should children be exposed to this beastly obsession with unholy acts?"

"should the sounds of sodomy echo in the halls of Christian homes?"

Definitely reads to me that they have issues with homosexuality in general and not just with the idea of marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Daith

SW wrote: »

"examine the dire consequences for the innocent if homosexuals are given access to the scacrament of marriage"

"should children be exposed to this beastly obsession with unholy acts?"

"should the sounds of sodomy echo in the halls of Christian homes?"

Definitely reads to me that they have issues with homosexuality in general and not just with the idea of marriage equality for same-sex couples.

They don't seem to have a problem with children hearing straight people sodomizing each other also!

I'm sure it's all missionary in Christian homes. Don't even ruffle the sheets. Sorry I'm just an intolerant yes voter.

bb1234567

Cant gay people already adopt though..?

floggg

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.

Yes - homophobia, ignorance or confusion.

It's our job to help dispel the latter two. The first one is more difficult to deal with though.

Daith

bb1234567 wrote: »

Cant gay people already adopt though..?

Yes

People who don't think gay people can adopt in Ireland are misinformed.

A single gay person can adopt

Legislation regardless of the outcome of the referendum will mean civil partnered couples can adopt.

floggg

Daith wrote: »

Nah, I'm fairly confident the people who produced the leaflets are bigots.

Have they formed a brigade though?

If not, then the accusation is (apparently) rather insulting.

Zubeneschamali

gozunda wrote: »

However the thing I really don't understand here is why as a civil rights issue this is being put to a referendum.

It is unfortunate, but there is a risk that the old geezers on the Supreme Court would read our Constitution as saying no to SSM. Changing it to make that impossible requires a referendum.

It is ridiculous that gay citizens have to ask a majority to approve equal rights for all, but on the plus side, a comprehensive win will be another kick in the goolies for the Sounds of Sodomy crew.

Daith

floggg wrote: »

Have they formed a brigade though?

If not, then the accusation is (apparently) rather insulting.

Christ is calling them to action so how many people do you need for a brigade.

Although I think that's rather insulting to Christ tbh.

floggg

padd b1975 wrote: »

Intolerant tonwards gay marriage, it's an important difference.

What, like the difference between being racist and intolerant towards racial equality?

keithclancy

Ironically if you look at who raised it back in the day in Holland:

http://www.euronews.com/2013/04/01/reflecting-on-12-years-of-gay-marriage-in-the-netherlands/

Traditionally, Dutch society is organised around ‘pillars’, one for each group of society (Protestants, Catholics, liberals, social-democrats). Each pillar had its political party, its unions, education system and hospitals. It was “the Catholic psychiatric hospitals, facing a great number of severely depressed homosexual patients, who started to raise their voices against discrimination” explains Laurent Chambon, a French sociologist living in Amsterdam, by phone to euronews.

For Chambon, this progressive position taken by Dutch Catholics differs from the official Catholic Church view on the matter, because of the Catholics’ minority status in the Netherlands. “They are a minority and thus tend to be more progressive, similarly to the Jewish minority.”

Peist2007

keithclancy wrote: »

Ironically if you look at who raised it back in the day in Holland:

http://www.euronews.com/2013/04/01/reflecting-on-12-years-of-gay-marriage-in-the-netherlands/

Makes the arguments made by the Church against SSM in this country over the years all the more disingenuous in my opinion.

Peist2007

floggg wrote: »

Have they formed a brigade though?

If not, then the accusation is (apparently) rather insulting.

So a group of persons carries out an act that is, by objective standards, prejudicial or bigotted.

That group, in the midst of criticism from right thinking people for their bigotted act, are then described as a "brigade".

And that is deemed insulting by you to the group who have behaved like bigots.

I think no people really need to sit down, have a think and come up with some new angles on this

Daith

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is unfortunate, but there is a risk that the old geezers on the Supreme Court would read our Constitution as saying no to SSM. Changing it to make that impossible requires a referendum.

Not quite. The Supreme Court interpreted the constitution as to mean marriage is between a man and woman. However they pointed out that it's not their job to legislate.

There is actually no reason why it couldn't be legislated and referred to the President to test it's constitutionality.

However it could still be used as a political thing for future elections such as in France.

So while I dislike it and think the chances of future parties wanting to make SSM illegal is small, a referendum would be the safest option.

osarusan

Peist2007 wrote: »

So a group of persons carries out an act that is, by objective standards, prejudicial or bigotted.

That group, in the midst of criticism from right thinking people for their bigotted act, are then described as a "brigade".

And that is deemed insulting by you to the group who have behaved like bigots.

I think no people really need to sit down, have a think and come up with some new angles on this

Either your sarcasm monitor is broken, or mine is.

keithclancy

Daith wrote: »

Not quite. The Supreme Court interpreted the constitution as to mean marriage is between a man and woman. However they pointed out that it's not their job to legislate.

There is actually no reason why it couldn't be legislated and referred to the President to test it's constitutionality.

However it could still be used as a political thing for future elections such as in France.

So while I dislike it and think the chances of future parties wanting to make SSM illegal is small, a referendum would be the safest option.

I think the constitutional route is the best way to go.

The Germans for example had problems with Taxation and Social Security since many of the laws did not fit with same sex couples.

E.G.
Parental Leave
Tax Classes based on encouragement for people to have children and encourage population growth

If its in the Constitution at least a Court can rule the situation as unconstitutional.

You cannot plan for situations further down the road, things can happen that are not covered in legislation.

For example what if there is a situation where Social Security payments are applied differently because of Gender ? I.E. Female/Female and Female/Male are treated differently than Male/Male couples (hypothetically speaking)

At least in that case the court could refer to the constitution.

Peist2007

osarusan wrote: »

Either your sarcasm monitor is broken, or mine is.

Mine is the one that's broken. Sorry Flogg

floggg

keithclancy wrote: »

I think the constitutional route is the best way to go.

The Germans for example had problems with Taxation and Social Security since many of the laws did not fit with same sex couples.

E.G.
Parental Leave
Tax Classes based on encouragement for people to have children and encourage population growth

If its in the Constitution at least a Court can rule the situation as unconstitutional.

You cannot plan for situations further down the road, things can happen that are not covered in legislation.

For example what if there is a situation where Social Security payments are applied differently because of Gender ? I.E. Female/Female and Female/Male are treated differently than Male/Male couples (hypothetically speaking)

At least in that case the court could refer to the constitution.

I don't see why a constitutional amendment is required to resolve any six if hypothetical difficulty.

The constitution already requires equality, so if there was a gender related difference it would likely be unconstitutional unless objectively justified and proportionate.

Also, other countries have been able to easily and successfully introduce marriage equality through legislation without any significant consequential problems arising.

Germany doesn't hve marriage equality yet btw.

Beano

floggg wrote: »

I don't see why a constitutional amendment is required to resolve any six if hypothetical difficulty.

The constitution already requires equality, so if there was a gender related difference it would likely be unconstitutional unless objectively justified and proportionate.

Also, other countries have been able to easily and successfully introduce marriage equality through legislation without any significant consequential problems arising.

Germany doesn't hve marriage equality yet btw.

but the constitution also defines marriage as between a man and a woman. so the constitution needs to be changed.

keithclancy

floggg wrote: »

I don't see why a constitutional amendment is required to resolve any six if hypothetical difficulty.

The constitution already requires equality, so if there was a gender related difference it would likely be unconstitutional unless objectively justified and proportionate.

Also, other countries have been able to easily and successfully introduce marriage equality through legislation without any significant consequential problems arising.

Germany doesn't hve marriage equality yet btw.

If that was the case then unmarried fathers in Ireland would have legal rights in respect of their child as they could just point to the constitution and say its discriminatory.

In Germany they are still tackling the topic of adoption, but equal taxation has been applied in that if one is working and the other not the person working can go into Tax Class 3, the same as a Male/Female couple.

Daith

Beano wrote: »

but the constitution also defines marriage as between a man and a woman. so the constitution needs to be changed.

No it doesn't.

One eyed Jack

Beano wrote: »

but the constitution also defines marriage as between a man and a woman. so the constitution needs to be changed.

It actually doesn't believe it or not. It doesn't even define marriage. It doesn't even define the family. It's literally just been taken as a given since the inception of the constitution that the family is the fundamental social structure of society, and that the family is protected by the institution of marriage.

Marriage equality wasn't even considered because homosexuality was already deemed illegal somewhere else in the constitution at the time.

You're right though, constitutional change is necessary, because if it were only legislative change, this would leave the way open for said legislation to be challenged at the earliest opportunity.

My issue with this whole referendum is that I have concerns that politicians will yet again include some clause that will appease the RCC, because they really don't have the balls to ignore the influence of the RCC Hierarchy and draft legislation that applies to all citizens of this country regardless of their religious beliefs.

Beano

Daith wrote: »

No it doesn't.

the judges in the supreme court disagree with you.

Daith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It actually doesn't believe it or not. It doesn't even define marriage. It doesn't even define the family. It's literally just been taken as a given since the inception of the constitution that the family is the fundamental social structure of society, and that the family is protected by the institution of marriage.

I'm in no way a legal expert but I do wonder what would happen if a same sex family were to take a case that weren't protected by marriage.

I guess it would amount to the same thing. Judges decide a marriage is a man, woman and children and the government need to legislate or change it.

Daith

Beano wrote: »

the judges in the supreme court disagree with you.

No they wouldn't. It's not defined in our Constitution.

Beano

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It actually doesn't believe it or not. It doesn't even define marriage. It doesn't even define the family. It's literally just been taken as a given since the inception of the constitution that the family is the fundamental social structure of society, and that the family is protected by the institution of marriage.

Marriage equality wasn't even considered because homosexuality was already deemed illegal somewhere else in the constitution at the time.

ok then i was incorrect to say "define". but the interpretation of the supreme court is that the constitution should be read in the context of marriage being between a man and a woman. after all, at the time it was framed no other possibilities were imaginable.