Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

1…6263656768…218

Comments

  • #1922
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Don't tar humanity with your very bigoted brush. I certainly have no issue with homosexuality at all, I don't know anyone who is "disgusted" by it as you say.

    Me neither, that sounded more like a personal view being hastily dressed as a world view.


  • #1923
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    lazygal wrote: »

    Why would you not agree with full civil marriage rights for same sex couples? As a married person, no one else's marriage has any impact on my marriage or that of anyone I know. I'd hate to think should any of my children be gay that they wouldn't enjoy exactly the same rights as their parents did when it came to marriage. One's marriage would have to be on pretty shaky grounds if it would be affected by say two men getting married, or two women getting married.

    It's great about Governments no longer tolerating bigotry dressed up as concern from religious people. I read a lot of the debate on the civil partnership legislation and it was brilliant to see the blatant homophobia, disguised as 'concern' and 'respect' for the 'traditional' family and marriage being totally blasted away by common sense, respect and tolerance. A great triumph of civil and State law over religious influences.

    If the Government stifles the rights of churches, mosques, synagogues etc to disagree with redefining marriage I'm opposed.

    If the Government doesn't provide sufficient safeguards for all of the legal issues raised by Aidan O'Neill QC I'll be in touch with the local MP in my area.

    You mightn't be concerned for freedom of religion, but I suspect in an area which at the last census had 36% Christians, 23% Muslims, 11% Hindus, 6% Sikhs and 4% Jews there will be more concern about freedom of religion than not.

    Unless the Government addresses these concerns I've got every right to raise them. Secularism doesn't mean ignoring concerns from faith groups about freedom of religion. Indeed those concerns are what started secularism in the United States for example.


  • #1924
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,052 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Why do homosexuals have much higher rates of all these things?
    Why do Irish men have such high rates of suicide? Is it because they're Irish or because they're men? Which lifestyle should we stop people from promoting, Irishness or maleness?
    SoulandForm wrote: »
    If you replace a belief in a universe that has a natural order and a goal of ultimate Transfiguration with one that is meaningless and that there is nothing to life to self-assertion than how cannot it not cause problems? If I didnt believe in God I couldnt see much reason not to kill myself if times got tough.
    And yet studies show atheists have better mental health than religious people
    ∴ religion causes mental problems (by your logic)

    For the umpteenth time: do you understand that correlation is not the same as causation?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #1925
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »

    If the Government stifles the rights of churches, mosques, synagogues etc to disagree with redefining marriage I'm opposed.

    If the Government doesn't provide sufficient safeguards for all of the legal issues raised by Aidan O'Neill QC I'll be in touch with the local MP in my area.

    You mightn't be concerned for freedom of religion, but I suspect in an area which at the last census had 36% Christians, 23% Muslims, 11% Hindus, 6% Sikhs and 4% Jews there will be more concern about freedom of religion than not.

    Unless the Government addresses these concerns I've got every right to raise them. Secularism doesn't mean ignoring concerns from faith groups about freedom of religion. Indeed those concerns are what started secularism in the United States for example.
    Why are you concerned about two adults who love each other getting married in a state ceremony?


  • #1926
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    lazygal wrote: »
    Why are you concerned about two adults who love each other getting married in a state ceremony?

    I've already made that clear in the last two posts.

    Read this also. You mightn't care about it but others do. Saying that the Government should ignore people who aren't atheists in society is absolutely wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • #1927
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »

    I've already made that clear in the last two posts.

    Read this: http://www.c4m.org.uk/downloads/legalopinionsummary.pdf
    You haven't. You've referred to marriage in a religious sense. Why would you stop two adults who love each other getting married in a state marriage ceremony? Bigotry dressed in religious cloaks is still bigotry and needs to be eliminated.


  • #1928
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    lazygal wrote: »
    You haven't. You've referred to marriage in a religious sense. Why would you stop two adults who love each other getting married in a state marriage ceremony? Bigotry dressed in religious cloaks is still bigotry and needs to be eliminated.

    Read the document. Read my posts.
    Don't respond to my posts if you're going to ignore what I've said. That would be a waste of time both for you and for me.

    Also stop the dramatics. Disagreeing with you on marriage just isn't bigotry.


  • #1929
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »

    Read the document. Read my posts.
    Don't respond to my posts if you're going to ignore what I've said. That would be a waste of time both for you and for me.

    Also stop the dramatics. Disagreeing with you on marriage just isn't bigotry.
    That 'legal opinion' is laughable. I've studied law and none of the 'freedom of conscience' cases are legally sound. Are you not worried that if I ignore what you say I might lose the chance to be saved? And I've purposed to give witness whenever I see bigotry dressed up as calls for 'religious freedom' when it might affect state and civil law.


  • #1930
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    lazygal wrote: »
    That 'legal opinion' is laughable. I've studied law and none of the 'freedom of conscience' cases are legally sound. Are you not worried that if I ignore what you say I might lose the chance to be saved? And I've purposed to give witness whenever I see bigotry dressed up as calls for 'religious freedom' when it might affect state and civil law.

    So you think the legal opinion of an expert in UK law (particularly in the civil liberties and human rights fields) is laughable?

    I think many others would disagree with you in respect to his credentials.

    Either way if there is even the slightest cause for doubt I'll need clarification.


  • #1931
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »

    So you think the legal opinion of an expert in UK law (particularly in the civil liberties and human rights fields) is laughable?

    I think many others would disagree with you in respect to his credentials.

    Either way if there is even the slightest cause for doubt I'll need clarification.
    Are you saying the opinion isn't the slightest bit biased because of religious influence? And can you address my point on how ignoring your posts might mean I won't be saved, are you worried about that? Also, do you think Jesus or God or whoever is more worried about two people loving each other than lobbying to limit the rights of others in a secular legal system? Should I be able to refuse to teach Christian children because it offends my conscience?


  • Advertisement
  • #1932
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    lazygal wrote: »
    Are you saying the opinion isn't the slightest bit biased because of religious influence? And can you address my point on how ignoring your posts might mean I won't be saved, are you worried about that? Also, do you think Jesus or God or whoever is more worried about two people loving each other than lobbying to limit the rights of others in a secular legal system? Should I be able to refuse to teach Christian children because it offends my conscience?

    It's a legal opinion. The Coalition For Marriage gave him a number of different scenarios asking him what the impact of the law would be on these areas. He gave answers on the basis of current UK law. The concerns hold up on assessing the law.

    I think Christians want to live in society and hold their beliefs without interference. I don't want the State interfering with my church or my beliefs. Its rather simple.

    The only reason I'll be getting in touch with my local MP is to ensure 100% that the state cannot legally interfere with churches.


  • #1933
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »

    It's a legal opinion. The Coalition For Marriage gave him a number of different scenarios asking him what the impact of the law would be on these areas. He gave answers on the basis of current UK law. The concerns hold up on assessing the law.
    The Coalition For Marriage, they couldn't possibly be biased! If its so keen on marriage why does it want to stop marriage between gay people? As someone who's actually studied law, as opposed to scripture, I feel purposed to tell you that interest groups will interpret legal opinion to further their aims, regardless of the actual law.

    Not worried about me being saved, no?


  • #1934
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    Read the document. Read my posts.

    I have and the majority of your concerns appear to me to be contrived.

    The marriage ceremony performed in your churches is... lets face reality here... a meaningless service appended on to the front of a legal one in order to give people a sense of ceremony, pomp, religious connection and so forth. It is separate from the legal institution of marriage.

    Formalizing gay marriage in the legal sense _should_ have no effect on the meaningless empty services you offer. If they did I would join you on the front lines to fight against that. If anyone tries to force any church to perform ceremonies of union between same sex couples I will fight side by side with you to resist it.

    The problem is you refuse to return that favor. While I would fight with you to keep such laws out of your club house... you happily take the rules of your club house out into society and try to fight for law to match them. I will resist that just as fiercely as I would fight by your side the other way around above. Your double standards do not allow you to be equally tolerant of others however.

    Alcohol was once illegal in some places. Then it was made legal. That does not mean every vendor is legally forced to offer the product. They can choose not to sell it. Similarly changing the law to allow same sex marriages should not at all mean your church... as a vendor of ceremonial services... should be forced to sell such products. If you do not want to marry gay people... simply do not.

    But do not expect to get away with essentially saying... as many of your posts have... that "I do not want my church to offer these services therefore no one else should be allowed to do so either" because that _is_ what your arguments against it amount to.


  • #1935
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    The fact is that if someone was to come out and state clearly that homosexuality goes hand in hand with all these problems because of what it is their acedemic career would be in serious trouble. The fact also is that homosexuality is increasingly socially acceptable and so-called "homophobia" increasingly socially unacceptable while these problems with the homosexual community are increasing. There were not so many homosexuals being so self-destructive before "liberation".

    If someone was to state that without evidence, their career would be in trouble. It would be a completely different thing if they actually had evidence.

    Here's a question for you. If increasing acceptance of homosexuality was the cause of suicide, etc, then how come suicide rates are higher in conservative areas? Because surely, if what you say is true, then the suicide rates should be lower in areas where there is less tolerance for homosexuality? So how can that be?

    And while we're on questions... Here's a few you've refused to answer before. :)

    You said in this post:
    Maybe we could actually help people by treating homosexual attraction as a psychological disorder so that people could live productive lives who probably otherwise wouldnt?

    In what sense can LGBT people not live productive lives?

    And I've asked you to respond to the questions put to you in this post a few times already, so if you can see about answering, that'd be great.

    Please explain how sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex contributes to mental health issues.

    Please explain how stigma, bullying, discrimination, being thrown out of one's home, and all the other issues that LGBT people face, does not contribute to mental health issues.

    Thanks.


  • #1936
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    lazygal wrote: »
    The Coalition For Marriage, they couldn't possibly be biased! If its so keen on marriage why does it want to stop marriage between gay people? As someone who's actually studied law, as opposed to scripture, I feel purposed to tell you that interest groups will interpret legal opinion to further their aims, regardless of the actual law.

    Not worried about me being saved, no?

    Aidan O'Neill is not a member of C4M.

    He was asked these questions by C4M and gave a legal rundown on each scenario.


  • #1937
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,052 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    So you think the legal opinion of an expert in UK law (particularly in the civil liberties and human rights fields) is laughable?
    Nope, his legal opinion sounds pretty good. Here's the issue: none of the 'problems' mentioned should be problems. The only ones that may have weight are "NHS CHAPLAIN" and "ESTABLISHED CHURCH". The others
    • TEACHER - should be obvious to anyone. Teachers are required to teach the syllabus, not their personal beliefs.
    • PARENTS - equally obvious. They can't withdraw their child from mandated education. They can't withdraw their child from history lessons because they don't believe the Holocaust happened
    • FAITH SCHOOLS - Schools that wish to be accredited must teach the syllabus.
    • FOSTER COUPLE - What if they believed, say, that Arabs were an inferior people? There is no infringement on their freedom of conscience here, but they must accept that their thinking restricts their right to foster
    • MARRIAGE REGISTRAR - if they said they didn't want to marry interracial couples, would that be ok? And don't make the claim that black is not the same as gay unless you're actually going to demonstrate how it's not applicable. We're talking about a public official being required to marry two people, even if they don't agree with their lifestyle
    • RELIGIOUS GAY WEDDINGS - the flimsiest point in the document: "could be challenged"; "better protected". Not going to address it unless there is a point to be addressed
    • SEX EDUCATION - another syllabus question. Refer to previous points
    As for the other two points:
    • ESTABLISHED CHURCH - like nozzferrahhtoo, I would fully endorse any church's right to only perform their own ceremonies. Again though, O'Neill couches this point in ifs, coulds and maybes
    • NHS CHAPLAIN - I'm extremely sceptical that someone could be disciplined for holding perfectly legal opinions outside of work, and I would fully support the chaplain in this case

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #1938
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    Aidan O'Neill is not a member of C4M.

    He was asked these questions by C4M and gave a legal rundown on each scenario.

    From Channel 4 Fact Checker about the suggestion that churches could be forced to perform same-sex marriages against their wishes:
    When leading lights of the legal world disagree, what are the chances of us ordinary mortals settling this question?

    Slim, perhaps. But there are some facts we can agree on.

    Same-sex marriage is already the law in Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Iceland and Spain, and as far as we know, none of those countries have faced a legal challenge like this at the European Court of Human Rights.

    If there were such a challenge, there’s no guarantee it would be successful – even the Church of England doesn’t go that far.

    They are relying on an obiter dictum, a remark made by the judges, rather than a substantive ruling. All the actual rulings made by Strasbourg suggest that the court is generally reluctant to interfere with law passed by national parliaments on this issue.

    And even if a human rights challenge was upheld, that doesn’t automatically mean judges in Europe would actively force clergymen to carry out same-sex marriages. The Church itself concedes that the most the Court could do is leave open the possibility of them doing so.

    As Eric Pickles said, closing off that possibility might require further legislation, perhaps years down the road.

    But there is no reason why the government could not change the law later to adjust for a possible intervention from the European Court of Human Rights.

    It’s up to the reader to decide whether these highly nuanced, hypothetical legal arguments are good enough reasons to stop the progress of legislation on gay marriage.

    In the meantime, there seems to be little realistic possibility of any religious institutions being forced to carry out gay weddings any time soon.

    Source

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1939
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »

    Aidan O'Neill is not a member of C4M.

    He was asked these questions by C4M and gave a legal rundown on each scenario.
    And C4M wouldn't pick and chose what suited it? If its so into marriage, why oppose gay marriage? And you're not worried about me being saved, or are you ignoring this chance for my salvation?


  • #1940
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    lazygal wrote: »
    And C4M wouldn't pick and chose what suited it? If its so into marriage, why oppose gay marriage? And you're not worried about me being saved, or are you ignoring this chance for my salvation?

    Keep this on-topic please, and there is no need to goad other posters.


  • #1941
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »

    From Channel 4 Fact Checker about the suggestion that churches could be forced to perform same-sex marriages against their wishes:

    These concerns are specific to the UK implementation of the law.

    What I'm going to ask my MP to ensure is that all of the concerns raised are legally addressed.

    Other implementations are irrelevant. The legal opinion is about UK law. That's what I'm interested in because that will affect me in a way that Portuguese law won't. That's obvious.


  • Advertisement
  • #1942
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    philologos wrote: »
    A marriage in a Christian sense is meant to reflect the union between Christ and the church as it's bride. It's not a good argument for churches changing God's word.

    Civil partnership in Britain at least is regarded as identical in court in terms of rights. The difference is that a civil partnership is a separate type of union.

    Of course the Tories (or at least Cameron's supporters) are trying to redefine marriage. They claim that it won't affect the rights of churches to disagree but on legal analysis from Aidan O'Neill QC there are a number of grounds on which the Church of England would be liable to legal challenge if the law goes ahead. In so far as those challenges to freedom of religion exist I'll be opposed and will probably be in touch with my MP in the next few days.

    I don't particularly mind if the Commons want to pass this legislation as long as it doesn't affect the right of faith groups to disagree. At present it doesn't and as a result I'll let my views be known on a political level as well as a church level.

    Unfortunately the point where I can expect the Government to support freedom of religion has gone and I can't really trust them on this.
    In what sense is it a reflection of the union of Christ and His bride? I;v put my argument out, other than change is bad I don't see yours.
    De-establish the CoE, it's going to bite them on the ass on this, if they don't.


  • #1943
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »
    These concerns are specific to the UK implementation of the law.

    What I'm going to ask my MP to ensure is that all of the concerns raised are legally addressed.

    Other implementations are irrelevant. The legal opinion is about UK law. That's what I'm interested in because that will affect me in a way that Portuguese law won't. That's obvious.

    How will two gay people getting married in a state ceremony affect you in any way whatsoever? How others get married and whom they marry has no effect on my marriage or that of anyone I know, even those who are religiously inclined. Of course private clubs don't have to marry people - they can set their own rules about what adults can and cannot do on their premises - but State property and State marriage ceremonies are not the place for religiously inspired discrimination.


  • #1944
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    So you're concerned that the English government will force churches to perform same-sex marriages under equality legislation? Tell me, do the churches currently have to allow for female priests under the same legislation?
    philologos wrote: »
    These concerns are specific to the UK implementation of the law.

    What I'm going to ask my MP to ensure is that all of the concerns raised are legally addressed.

    Other implementations are irrelevant. The legal opinion is about UK law. That's what I'm interested in because that will affect me in a way that Portuguese law won't. That's obvious.

    No they're not as the pdf you linked to says "The legal opinion suggests that an outright ban on religious gay weddings could be overturned under European human rights laws."

    Why are you ignoring that part of the document?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1945
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    koth wrote: »
    So you're concerned that the English government will force churches to perform same-sex marriages under equality legislation? Tell me, do the churches currently have to allow for female priests under the same legislation?



    No they're not as the pdf you linked to says "The legal opinion suggests that an outright ban on religious gay weddings could be overturned under European human rights laws."

    Why are you ignoring that part of the document?

    I'd say he's ignoring it because it doesn't suit his argument. The same way linking a document from a body called the Coalition for Marriage might just suit his view rather than being neutral legal opinion.


  • #1946
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    lazygal wrote: »
    How will two gay people getting married in a state ceremony affect you in any way whatsoever? How others get married and whom they marry has no effect on my marriage or that of anyone I know, even those who are religiously inclined. Of course private clubs don't have to marry people - they can set their own rules about what adults can and cannot do on their premises - but State property and State marriage ceremonies are not the place for religiously inspired discrimination.

    Read the document. It probably will.

    It's sad in a way but I can't trust assurances unless they have legal weight. They don't at present.

    It's obvious for as long as those concerns remain that I'll be opposed rather than indifferent.


  • #1947
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    So you're concerned that the English government will force churches to perform same-sex marriages under equality legislation? Tell me, do the churches currently have to allow for female priests under the same legislation?



    No they're not as the pdf you linked to says "The legal opinion suggests that an outright ban on religious gay weddings could be overturned under European human rights laws."

    Why are you ignoring that part of the document?

    I'm not ignoring it. Your argument is poor because this hasn't gone to the ECHR yet.


  • #1948
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »
    Read the document. It probably will.

    It probably will? Can you tell me, in your own words, how two men or two women getting married in a state ceremony on state or civil property that allows such ceremonies to be performed, will affect your life? I'm actually married - I understand you aren't - and I can tell you, once again, that who people marry and how they do so has no effect on my marriage. I've had friends marry in religious ceremonies with all the trimmings, humanist and civil ceremonies, pagan handfasting, and no one else's marriage has directly or indirectly affect the marriage of me and my husband. People getting married in a big white church wedding isn't something I need assurance on, I would however like assurance that lobbying from religious groups won't affect the rights of gay people to get married in a civil ceremony.


  • #1949
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm not ignoring it. Your argument is poor because this hasn't gone to the ECHR yet.
    :confused:

    the linked document has the ECHR as the reason for concern regarding forcing churches to have gay-marriage. You're ignoring the foundation upon which the author of document builds his case for potential problems between church and state with regard to gay-marriage.

    The document becomes a non-issue if you remove the ECHR from the discussion.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1950
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,052 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    Read the document. It probably will.
    Not exactly
    O’Neill says that churches, in general, would be better protected from hostile litigation if they stopped holding weddings altogether.
    I'm "better protected" from employee litigation if I don't employ anyone. That doesn't mean I lose all cases my employee takes. That is a total twisting of words by C4M, which isn't surprising

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Advertisement
  • #1951
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    :confused:

    the linked document has the ECHR as the reason for concern regarding forcing churches to have gay-marriage. You're ignoring the foundation upon which the author of document builds his case for potential problems between church and state with regard to gay-marriage.

    The document becomes a non-issue if you remove the ECHR from the discussion.

    Its still a concern. A case could be brought, and it could be ruled that the CofE must carry out gay marriage.

    We don't know until it actually happens. That's why other implementation is irrelevant.


Advertisement