Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

galljga1

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So by biblical sense

Gay sex BAAAAAAD

Incest GOOOOOOD

Is that with a sheep?

Winston Tart Rain

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

I've seen the homophobic accusations on other threads and the put downs of those who dare to say no.

I did not suggest they did not exist. Of course you have seen them. There are name callers on both sides of any issue.

My point is they are a minority, but people like yourself focus on them disproportionately to feed this narrative that the yes side are simply throwing insults and personal attacks around.

But as I said the trend by far has been - when someone shows up declaring a no vote - to enquirer as to their reasoning.

Actually I suspect it is a tactic born of the desperation of the "no" side. They have no actual arguments to make coherently. This is why they have decided on a two prong attack of A) making it about children when it has nothing to do with children and Trying to erect a narrative of the yes side as insult flinging invective monkeys.

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

For to consider homosexuals as not being treated as equal under current legislation one needs to believe that people are born homosexual. I don't believe this.

Not only do I think there is good grounds to believe it - even if you do not - I do not see it as being relevant to the debate in any way. You have merely asserted that we would need to believe this - but given absolutely no basis or justification as to why we should.

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

As a practicing christia I beleive God is tge ultimate authority on the mater.

If you wish to evidence the existence of your god - and its authority on anything - then by all means do so. But it appears you are merely making up this "god" in order to rubber stamp an assertion you have no actual arguments for. You are essentially inventing arguments where none exist.

This is the politics forum not the religion forum or the fantasy forum. You do not just get to make up data or facts to suit your agenda. You have to back them up too. Yet you have not only not managed to evidence this god - this gods authority - or this gods opinion - you have not even actually tried.

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

People who want to say that Jesus never condemded homosexuality ignore the point that He never approved of it either.

He never approved of television, nachos, or Peppa Pig either. Whats your point? The opinions of a sole Bronze Aged Peasant is irrelevant to this debate. His opinion is no more or less valid than mine or yours - except for the fact we are voting and he is not. Give your own arguments, not those of a dead man.

If your religion or the rules in your club house demand that you do not engage in gay sex or gay marriage - GREAT - then do not have gay sex or marry someone of your sex. But what you are doing is foisting your religion on others and essentially saying "Because my religion tells me I can not have it - you can not either!"

Ozymandius2011

On the question of religion: we are voting on civil marriage not Church marriage. In 2014 30% of marriages were civil, compared to 4% around 10 years ago. Noone is going to force churches to marry gays. If the rightwing Churches want to wallow in their bigotry that is their business.

endacl

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

On the question of religion: we are voting on civil marriage not Church marriage. In 2014 30% of marriages were civil, compared to 4% around 10 years ago. Noone is going to force churches to marry gays. If the rightwing Churches want to wallow in their bigotry that is their business.

Well. You see. The thing is. Around the facts of this referendum. Apparently....

The facts don't matter, unless one is voting yes.

Ozymandius2011

Some more facts then. Columbia University found that 71 out of 75 studies into gay parenting found the child suffered no disadvantages compared to straight parenting.

uck51js9zml2yt

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

On the question of religion: we are voting on civil marriage not Church marriage. In 2014 30% of marriages were civil, compared to 4% around 10 years ago. Noone is going to force churches to marry gays. If the rightwing Churches want to wallow in their bigotry that is their business.

Does that mean we should leave conscience at the door of the polling station along with our wet umbrellas ( assuming it's raining)?

Ozymandius2011

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Does that mean we should leave conscience at the door of the polling station along with our wet umbrellas ( assuming it's raining)?

Conscience should be based on a moral perspective that lives and lets live where consenting adults are concerned. It should not involve a purient interest in the private lives of consenting adults. The squinting curtains of nosey judgementalism should twitch no more.

sydthebeat

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Does that mean we should leave conscience at the door of the polling station along with our wet umbrellas ( assuming it's raining)?

If your conscience tells you being gay is somehow 'wrong', you should really question further what your conscience is based upon.

MrWalsh

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Does that mean we should leave conscience at the door of the polling station along with our wet umbrellas ( assuming it's raining)?

If your conscience is informed by religion and you are voting on a civil matter, then yes, I dont see what the connection between the two is?

Thankfully Ireland is not ruled by the Church anymore so hopefully not too many sufferers of god delusion will be voting based on what they are told to believe.

Maximus Alexander

endacl wrote: »

Well. You see. The thing is. Around the facts of this referendum. Apparently....

The facts don't matter, unless one is voting yes.

I just adore the fact that large parts of the no campaign have genuinely fallen back on a 20 year old Simpsons trope:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Imagine being a cliche?

MrWalsh

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I just adore the fact that large parts of the no campaign have genuinely fallen back on a 20 year old Simpsons trope:

They had a No vote woman on TV3 this morning and she genuinely came across like she was away with the fairies. She gave some story about how upsetting it would be to be 18 and going to college and discovering that your parents werent your biological parents.

All I could think of was that if you had gotten to 18 and hadnt realised that 2 men or 2 women couldnt possibly be your biological parents then you had a bigger set of problems to worry about.

Its an adopted child of heterosexual parents who is going to be the one surprised to find out that they are not his or her biological parents? How does this conflate with same sex marriage??

Ash.J.Williams

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Does that mean we should leave conscience at the door of the polling station along with our wet umbrellas ( assuming it's raining)?

People should obey their conscience and NOT marry a gay if they their conscience says so, however those whose conscience says they SHOULD marry a gay.... should be free to do so.

uck51js9zml2yt

MrWalsh wrote: »

If your conscience is informed by religion and you are voting on a civil matter, then yes, I dont see what the connection between the two is?

Thankfully Ireland is not ruled by the Church anymore so hopefully not too many sufferers of god delusion will be voting based on what they are told to believe.

Let's just pass a law to ban NO being an option on the ballot paper and forbid anyone to hold a contrary view to those in favour.

BTW..you refer to the Church. If your referring to the Roman Catholic one.I'm not a member.

MrWalsh

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Let's just pass a law to ban NO being an option on the ballot paper and forbid anyone to hold a contrary view to those in favour.

BTW..you refer to the Church. If your referring to the Roman Catholic one.I'm not a member.

While I respect anyones right to hold an opposing view, if that view is nonsensical, homophobic, informed by religion, not a valid reason to vote no etc.... then I am entitled to call them out on it. Religious belief is not a reason to vote no on a civil matter. Civil law is not canon law.

I know, I wasnt referring to you when I referred to members of the Church. Although if your conscience is informed by religion then the same comments apply I guess.

traprunner

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Let's just pass a law to ban NO being an option on the ballot paper and forbid anyone to hold a contrary view to those in favour.

BTW..you refer to the Church. If your referring to the Roman Catholic one.I'm not a member.

Pedantic? How about we change it to 'religion' and assume that religion incorporates all religions especially the flying spaghetti monster one.....just for talks sake.

Sofiztikated

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Let's just pass a law to ban NO being an option on the ballot paper and forbid anyone to hold a contrary view to those in favour.

BTW..you refer to the Church. If your referring to the Roman Catholic one.I'm not a member.

Right, we get it, you're not Catholic. Whoopdedoo. Still has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

uck51js9zml2yt

MrWalsh wrote: »

While I respect anyones right to hold an opposing view, if that view is nonsensical, homophobic, informed by religion, not a valid reason to vote no etc.... then I am entitled to call them out on it. Religious belief is not a reason to vote no on a civil matter. Civil law is not canon law.

I know, I wasnt referring to you when I referred to members of the Church. Although if your conscience is informed by religion then the same comments apply I guess.

Ask my niece and her wife if I'm homophobic...i don't have any phobias regarding homosexuality. Do I think its wrong ..yes and I won't apologise for it
As for my opinion not being valid. Its a valid as yours . the only difference is we disagree.
Religious belief isn't something to be left at the doors of whatever church a person belongs to when they go home on Sunday morning. Though granted, for many that's the case.

The last time I looked I lived in a democracy which allowed me freedom of religion and a right to have an opposing opinion.

Maximus Alexander

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

The last time I looked I lived in a democracy which allowed me freedom of religion and a right to have an opposing opinion.

Indeed it does, and yet for some reason you're fine with denying freedoms to your fellow citizens.

uck51js9zml2yt

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Indeed it does, and yet for some reason you're fine with denying freedoms to your fellow citizens.

That's how democracy works...if its a yes vote you're denying me my right as well.

galljga1

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

That's how democracy works...if its a yes vote you're denying me my right as well.

Eh....no.

Maximus Alexander

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

That's how democracy works...if its a yes vote you're denying me my right as well.

Indeed it is how democracy works, but it doesn't excuse the fact that your decision to vote no in an effort to impose your religion on others is a cruel and nasty one.

I'll put it to you this way, I don't agree with your religious outlook. I think it's childish and naive. But I accept your right to it - and if the referendum were instead asking the people of Ireland whether or not we should allow people religious freedom, I would vote in your favour.

I don't need to like how you live your life in order to allow you to do it.

Greyian

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

That's how democracy works...if its a yes vote you're denying me my right as well.

By forcing you to marry a gay? By denying you the right to a heterosexual marriage?

How exactly are your rights being impinged upon in the event of the referendum being passed?

You have the right to feel however you want, but you don't have the right to force those feelings on other people.

With no same-sex marriage, heterosexual people tell homosexual people who can marry/limit their choices.

With homosexual marriage, homosexual people don't force heterosexual people to change or alter their lives in any way.

MrWalsh

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

The last time I looked I lived in a democracy which allowed me freedom of religion and a right to have an opposing opinion.

But you want to impose your opposing opinion on other people.

Think being gay is wrong? Homophobic.
Dont want gay marriage? Dont marry someone of the same sex.

But dont deny other people the right to marry who they choose. No one is denying you any rights, you are the one denying people rights.

seamus

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

That's how democracy works...if its a yes vote you're denying me my right as well.

What right?

You're aware that a a successful yes vote won't require you to change your mind on anything or affect how you go about your life?

Bannasidhe

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

That's how democracy works...if its a yes vote you're denying me my right as well.

You do not have the right to have your religious beliefs form the basis of civil legislation. You have the right to practice your religion without interference from the State.

If we were having a referendum to amend the Constitution to remove that freedom to practice then your rights would be in danger (and ironically the majority of yes voters would be on 'your side').

You are being asked if you think the Civil State should treat all citizens equally. You think it should not - you think that it should privilege certain religious beliefs. Would you happy if the religious beliefs it wanted to place above equality for all citizens were not your religious beliefs? Would you be happy if Sharia Law was used to influence civil legislation?

MrWalsh

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Religious belief isn't something to be left at the doors of whatever church a person belongs to when they go home on Sunday morning.

No it isnt and I celebrate your right to religious freedom even though I think religion is dangerous and evil.

How I feel about religion means that I will not practice it but I wont stop you from practicing it.

How you feel about homosexual marriage means that you will not practice it and you want to stop other people from practicing it.

Do you see the difference?

Ash.J.Williams

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Ask my niece and her wife if I'm homophobic...i don't have any phobias regarding homosexuality. Do I think its wrong ..yes and I won't apologise for it
As for my opinion not being valid. Its a valid as yours . the only difference is we disagree.
Religious belief isn't something to be left at the doors of whatever church a person belongs to when they go home on Sunday morning. Though granted, for many that's the case.

The last time I looked I lived in a democracy which allowed me freedom of religion and a right to have an opposing opinion.

you actually told your own niece her life is wrong?

uck51js9zml2yt

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

you actually told your own niece her life is wrong?

She knows what I think and respects my views as I do hers.

As for a yes vote not effecting my life.

It will mean a homosexual couple will have a right to be married by a registered person. If they say no, they are breaking the law. There is no allowance for conscience.
My kids will also be thought it in school. I don't want that to happen but will have no choice if I keep them in a public school.

Maximus Alexander

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

My kids will also be thought it in school.

Be taught what?

Ash.J.Williams

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

She knows what I think and respects my views as I do hers.

As for a yes vote not effecting my life.

It will mean a homosexual couple will have a right to be married by a registered person. If they say no, they are breaking the law. There is no allowance for conscience.
My kids will also be thought it in school. I don't want that to happen but will have no choice if I keep them in a public school.

I hate to break this to you , but i doubt very much you're niece respects your view, I'm not saying she HATES it but deep down she's probably slightly hurt by it.