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…6465676970…218

Comments

  • #1982
    Silvio.Dante
    Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I repeat - no-one has asked them too.

    This is purely a civil matter.

    It is up to the different religions and denominations to decide for themselves.

    Glad to hear it...


  • #1983
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Links234 wrote: »
    Do you know what I'd like? I'd like it if I didn't have to worry about any of this! I'd like it if I could just get on with my life, just get on with regular everyday worries, and if I wanted, get married! I wish I could ignore religious trolls, and have no further interaction with them, unless they shared some mundane interest with me and we talked about that, like maybe what we thought of a pair of shoes, or something like that? But no, you and people like you inject yourselves into our lives and impose your will on us, over something that DOES NOT EFFECT YOU! So I can't ignore the religious trolls because my rights are subject to their whim! And you see Strawman O'Malley over there? Well, his concerns are so much more important than equality.

    All I want the Government to do is provide proper safeguards to ensure that those who disagree with same-sex marriage will have ample legal protection to continue living their lives without interference. When that is satisfied although I disagree with redefining marriage they can do what they will.


  • #1984
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,066 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    philologos wrote: »
    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.

    As far as I can see, there is no threat to religious freedom here in Ireland from those LGBT folk wishing to avail of "gay" marriage: indeed there has been fairly continuous use of the word CIVIL before marriage when it came to "GAY" marriage to mark it as separate from any church or religious version of marriage. I don't know why people still continue to mix up the two, other than as deliberate disinformation or propaganda. They are as alike as chalk and cheese.

    The UK government’s Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill for England and Wales has officially been published. This from the Bill: ts official remit is to “Make provision for the marriage of same-sex couples in England and Wales, about gender change by married persons and civil partners, about consular functions in relation to marriage, for the marriage of armed forces personnel overseas, and for connected purposes.”

    The bill contains specific measures to deal with the unique legal position of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. Unlike any other religious body in this country, their clergy have a specific legal duty to marry parishioners.

    Should the Church in Wales decide to allow same-sex marriages, the bill sets out a procedure for its governing body to ask the Lord Chancellor to make secondary legislation enabling it to do so.


    This from the UK Culture Secretary, Maria Miller: “Our proposals recognise, respect and value the very important role that faith plays in our lives. I have always been crystal clear that I would not put forward any legislation that did not provide protection for religious organisations. This bill protects and promotes religious freedom, so that all religious organisations can act according to their doctrines and beliefs.

    “Crucially, the bill recognises the unique legal situation of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. Unlike any other religious organisation in this country, their clergy are subject to a legal duty to marry parishioners. To protect them from legal challenge, therefore, the bill makes clear that this duty does not extend to same-sex couples. Both churches have been clear that they do not currently wish to conduct marriages for same-sex couples. If they choose to do so at a later date, they will of course be able to.”


  • #1985
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »

    All I want the Government to do is provide proper safeguards to ensure that those who disagree with same-sex marriage will have ample legal protection to continue living their lives without interference. When that is satisfied although I disagree with redefining marriage they can do what they will.
    How would a gay marriage interfere with your life? Are you worried about choosing between your job and your religion?


  • #1986
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,052 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    Why should what he preaches in his church about marriage or about sexual ethics cost him the chaplaincy.

    A chaplain is in a chaplaincy precisely because they are able to minister specifically to Christian patients who request it.

    Forcing people to change Christian beliefs to do this is wrong.
    Did you actually read what he wrote? The Equality Act already exists. If an NHS chaplain can be fired for that, it can already happen. It has no bearing on the current discussion
    philologos wrote: »
    The question is how does refusing to teach propaganda about gay marriage make someone a worse teacher?

    If anything it makes them better.
    You mean how does refusing to teach the syllabus because of personal beliefs make a teacher worse? I would have thought that was self-evident
    philologos wrote: »
    The play? What?

    Please clarify your point.
    Again, parents don't have the right to withdraw their parents from state-mandated education because of personal beliefs.
    philologos wrote: »
    Nonsense. Disagreeing on the definition of marriage isn't comparable to racism. There was a very good article posted a few pages ago which challenged that assumption.

    Disagreement on this issue doesn't make them worse foster caters.
    Teaching kids that when they grow up, if they're gay, they should not be allowed to get married does make them worse foster carers.
    philologos wrote: »
    It shouldn't be the case that agreeing with same-sex marriage is a prerequisite for using public buildings.
    When they're using it for public marriages, yes it should be a pre-requisite
    philologos wrote: »
    The race argument is nonsense as mentioned previously.
    No it absolutely is not. If you can demonstrate why it is not (specifically for this point), then do so
    philologos wrote: »
    The point why this was produced is because there are significant holes even in the so called quadruple lock in the legislation.
    Once again, all O'Neill said was: "churches, in general, would be better protected from hostile litigation if they stopped holding weddings altogether."
    philologos wrote: »
    On this point I think it depends on how it is taught.
    Once again, personal beliefs are not allowed rule the syllabus

    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
  • #1987
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    28064212 wrote: »
    Did you actually read what he wrote? The Equality Act already exists. If an NHS chaplain can be fired for that, it can already happen. It has no bearing on the current discussion

    The Equality Act 2010 can be used to sack a chaplain for disagreeing with same-sex marriage when same-sex marriage is not already passed?

    I disagree with your conclusion.
    28064212 wrote: »
    You mean how does refusing to teach the syllabus because of personal beliefs make a teacher worse? I would have thought that was self-evident

    If the syllabus is promoting propaganda about redefining marriage, I think it takes someone with courage and integrity to stand up and do the right thing for sure.
    28064212 wrote: »
    Again, parents don't have the right to withdraw their parents from state-mandated education because of personal beliefs.

    By that logic one could say that if a child went to a Roman Catholic school that they wouldn't have the right of exemption from holy communion preparation.

    I think forcing a particular philosophy of marriage into the education system is wrong, and I think parents should have the liberty to withdraw their child from that class.
    28064212 wrote: »
    Teaching kids that when they grow up, if they're gay, they should not be allowed to get married does make them worse foster carers.

    Having a personal disagreement on same-sex marriage != saying that a child can't do X or Y in the event that same-sex marriage is passed.
    28064212 wrote: »
    When they're using it for public marriages, yes it should be a pre-requisite.

    Christian ministers conduct Christian weddings. A Christian wedding by Biblical definition is the union between a man and a woman. The point in the article wasn't that they were going to use it for a youth club. Not that they were conducting marriages in there. Read it again.
    28064212 wrote: »
    No it absolutely is not. If you can demonstrate why it is not (specifically for this point), then do so

    An article was posted clearly explaining the differences. Sexual preference is not biologically determined in the same way that race is. That's a baseless claim without evidence.
    28064212 wrote: »
    Once again, all O'Neill said was: "churches, in general, would be better protected from hostile litigation if they stopped holding weddings altogether."

    The fact that churches aren't well protected is what is the concern. We don't want the State interfering in churches. If they do, I think churches should disobey the State. Christians want to be obedient in all things, but if the State starts claiming that Christians can't believe in Biblical Christianity anymore that's when we follow God before the State.

    If people define the law to be at loggerheads with peoples beliefs expect there to be a conflict.
    28064212 wrote: »
    Once again, personal beliefs are not allowed rule the syllabus

    I don't think a liberal philosophy concerning sexuality should rule the syllabus either. That's my point.

    If people want to redefine marriage that's up to them, but if they want to impose restrictions on how Christians live and worship, then there's going to be disobedience at least amongst those who regard the Biblical text to be important in their lives.


  • #1988
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    philologos wrote: »
    All I want the Government to do is provide proper safeguards to ensure that those who disagree with same-sex marriage will have ample legal protection to continue living their lives without interference. When that is satisfied although I disagree with redefining marriage they can do what they will.

    Is this possible if homosexuality is not considered a disorder but a healthy alternative to normal human sexuality? For instance a Christian couple in the UK have been forbidden to foster because they belong to some Evangelical Church that holds to the Biblical teaching on homosexuality. Effectively Christians who hold to the traditional teaching are not going to be allowed to adopt children very soon.

    Either the government takes a stance on homosexuality to protect society, as the Russian Federation has done, or it will find itself discriminating against those who hold traditional views on the subject.


  • #1989
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    philologos wrote: »
    All I want the Government to do is provide proper safeguards to ensure that those who disagree with same-sex marriage will have ample legal protection to continue living their lives without interference. When that is satisfied although I disagree with redefining marriage they can do what they will.

    that's just nonsense whataboutery at best, trying to hold back progress for as long as you can, and fearmongering about "what the gays'll do when the boot's on the other foot!" at worst.

    what interest do I have in your life? I want you to stop interfering in mine.

    oh, and you didn't tell me what you thought about the shoes, that's really important.
    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Is this possible if homosexuality is not considered a disorder but a healthy alternative to normal human sexuality? For instance a Christian couple in the UK have been forbidden to foster because they belong to some Evangelical Church that holds to the Biblical teaching on homosexuality. Effectively Christians who hold to the traditional teaching are not going to be allowed to adopt children very soon.

    Either the government takes a stance on homosexuality to protect society, as the Russian Federation has done, or it will find itself discriminating against those who hold traditional views on the subject.

    homosexuality is a part of human sexuality, not an "alternative" :confused:

    oh, and can I get you to respond to my post here? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82875663&postcount=1935

    Thanks ;)


  • #1990
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    SoulandForm wrote: »

    Is this possible if homosexuality is not considered a disorder but a healthy alternative to normal human sexuality? For instance a Christian couple in the UK have been forbidden to foster because they belong to some Evangelical Church that holds to the Biblical teaching on homosexuality. Effectively Christians who hold to the traditional teaching are not going to be allowed to adopt children very soon.

    Either the government takes a stance on homosexuality to protect society, as the Russian Federation has done, or it will find itself discriminating against those who hold traditional views on the subject.

    Society isn't in danger from homosexuality(your claims have been shown to be a warping of information or severely ) so I can't see why there's a need to enshrine homophobia into law.


  • #1991
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Corkfeen wrote: »

    Society isn't in danger from homosexuality(your claims have been shown to be a warping of information or severely ) so I can't see why there's a need to enshrine homophobia into law.
    I think the real danger would be the protection of teaching bigotry in state schools. The normalisation of gay couples will, thank goodness, mean such blatant intolerance will be a thing of the past.


  • Advertisement
  • #1992
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Also...

    wrong-side.jpg


  • #1993
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    My position isn't based on an ad populum argument.

    I don't mind how many people oppose my beliefs. All I want is the freedom to disagree without being legally penalised for it.

    The race argument is absolutely empty in this situation. All my crime is believing that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. How bizarre is that? (apparently)


  • #1994
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    What you are asking is impossible. Ideas have consequences and do not exist in a void outside of the rest of social activity. Its impossible that if pro-homosexual ideas triumph that those with ideas opposed to homosexual activity will not be penalized in some form or another.


    philologos wrote: »
    My position isn't based on an ad populum argument.

    I don't mind how many people oppose my beliefs. All I want is the freedom to disagree without being legally penalised for it.

    The race argument is absolutely empty in this situation. All my crime is believing that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. How bizarre is that? (apparently)


  • #1995
    Silvio.Dante
    Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    Alas the Liberal elites have sway in modern day Ireland where if you are of faith you're to be sneered at.

    So be it. We have broad shoulders. But watch the illiberal zealotry of the Irish Times generation grow more rabid as time goes on...


  • #1996
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »

    I don't mind how many people oppose my beliefs. All I want is the freedom to disagree without being legally penalised for it.

    No. What you want is for others to be denied equal rights because those rights do not conform to your religion.

    You are perfectly content if LGBT people remain legally penalised.


  • #1997
    Silvio.Dante
    Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    philologos wrote: »
    . All I want is the freedom to disagree without being legally penalised for it.

    (apparently)

    Nail on head...


  • #1998
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    philologos wrote: »
    All my crime is believing that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. How bizarre is that? (apparently)

    oh phil, can you still not grasp it? You can believe it, you just don't get to have it enshrined in law, taught in schools, forced on the population, and imposed on everyone's lives!

    You can believe that blueberries are satan's pimples, you can believe whatever the hell you want! you just don't get to force that belief on everyone else.

    and you still didn't tell me what you think about the shoes. that feels like you're ignoring me Phil, you wouldn't do that would you? :(


  • #1999
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    No. What you want is for others to be denied equal rights because those rights do not conform to your religion.

    You are perfectly content if LGBT people remain legally penalised.

    My stated position is that people can legally decide to change the law if they please. However, if it undermines religious freedom in society I will also oppose it on a political level also.


  • #2000
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,052 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    The Equality Act 2010 can be used to sack a chaplain for disagreeing with same-sex marriage when same-sex marriage is not already passed?

    I disagree with your conclusion.
    What part of the Equality act is changed by virtue of gay marriage being legalised?
    philologos wrote: »
    If the syllabus is promoting propaganda about redefining marriage, I think it takes someone with courage and integrity to stand up and do the right thing for sure.
    Or just someone with entrenched, bigoted views. Regardless, individual teachers do not have the right to enforce personal beliefs over the syllabus
    philologos wrote: »
    By that logic one could say that if a child went to a Roman Catholic school that they wouldn't have the right of exemption from holy communion preparation.

    I think forcing a particular philosophy of marriage into the education system is wrong, and I think parents should have the liberty to withdraw their child from that class.
    A particular philosophy of marriage already is forced into the education system. It's how marriage is currently defined. Your philosophy of marriage isn't more valid than anyone else's.
    philologos wrote: »
    Having a personal disagreement on same-sex marriage != saying that a child can't do X or Y in the event that same-sex marriage is passed.
    Should not != can not. A gay foster child being adopted by someone who is against their right avail of marriage that is legal is wrong.
    philologos wrote: »
    Christian ministers conduct Christian weddings. A Christian wedding by Biblical definition is the union between a man and a woman. The point in the article wasn't that they were going to use it for a youth club. Not that they were conducting marriages in there. Read it again.
    The quote was that the council would be "within their rights" to stop hiring it. They would also be within their rights to stop hiring the hall to a scout group on the grounds that they were a bit loud. Of course the council is legally within their rights. Once again, some clever word-play by C4M to twist legal language beyond its meaning
    philologos wrote: »
    An article was posted clearly explaining the differences. Sexual preference is not biologically determined in the same way that race is. That's a baseless claim without evidence.
    I did not say it was the same in all areas. In fact, I said the exact opposite. For this specific point, it is the same:
    • ____ marriage was illegal
    • ____ marriage was made legal
    • A registrar does not want to perform ____ marriages because of their personal belief that ____ marriages are not real
    Am I talking about inter-racial marriage or gay marriage? It doesn't make a blind bit of difference, the registrar is totally in the wrong
    philologos wrote: »
    The fact that churches aren't well protected is what is the concern. We don't want the State interfering in churches. If they do, I think churches should disobey the State. Christians want to be obedient in all things, but if the State starts claiming that Christians can't believe in Biblical Christianity anymore that's when we follow God before the State.

    If people define the law to be at loggerheads with peoples beliefs expect there to be a conflict.
    I am at risk of hostile litigation every time I get in a car. A lawyer, when asked, will give the legal opinion that I would be better protected from litigation if I did not drive. If I wanted to twist that, I could claim a lawyer told me not to drive. That is exactly what C4M did.
    philologos wrote: »
    I don't think a liberal philosophy concerning sexuality should rule the syllabus either. That's my point.

    If people want to redefine marriage that's up to them, but if they want to impose restrictions on how Christians live and worship, then there's going to be disobedience at least amongst those who regard the Biblical text to be important in their lives.
    You have the right to teach your kids however you want. You do not have the right to dictate the state-mandated syllabus, any more than Holocaust deniers do

    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



  • #2001
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    lazygal wrote: »
    I think the real danger would be the protection of teaching bigotry in state schools. The normalisation of gay couples will, thank goodness, mean such blatant intolerance will be a thing of the past.
    To give credit(bad choice of words) to SoulandForm's view, he goes even further than that. He'd prefer to label gay people as subhumans and to withdraw existing rights alongside some righteous shunning.
    Silvio.Dante wrote: »
    Alas the Liberal elites have sway in modern day Ireland where if you are of faith you're to be sneered at.

    So be it. We have broad shoulders. But watch the illiberal zealotry of the Irish Times generation grow more rabid as time goes on...
    What's rabid about affording equal rights to gay people? Those evil liberals are at it again.


  • Advertisement
  • #2002
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    What you are asking is impossible. Ideas have consequences and do not exist in a void outside of the rest of social activity. Its impossible that if pro-homosexual ideas triumph that those with ideas opposed to homosexual activity will not be penalized in some form or another.

    As opposed to how things are now where homosexuals are penalised in some form or other?

    If same same-sex marriage is allowed, no-one is going to ban male+female marriage. The situation is more extreme as it stands compared to where we'll be if begin to treat same-sex couples as equals.

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



  • #2003
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Links234 wrote: »
    oh phil, can you still not grasp it? You can believe it, you just don't get to have it enshrined in law, taught in schools, forced on the population, and imposed on everyone's lives!

    You can believe that blueberries are satan's pimples, you can believe whatever the hell you want! you just don't get to force that belief on everyone else.

    and you still didn't tell me what you think about the shoes. that feels like you're ignoring me Phil, you wouldn't do that would you? :(

    Yet you're interested in having your philosophy on marriage taught in school, forced on the population and imposed on Christians who disagree with you?

    Personally, if the law provided sufficient and adequate conscience clauses for those who disagreed I'd be OK with people deciding to legislate for this. At present politically those safeguards are inadequate and until the point that they are adequate I will continue to oppose it.


  • #2004
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    My stated position is that people can legally decide to change the law if they please. However, if it undermines religious freedom in society I will also oppose it on a political level also.

    It could be said that not changing the law undermines religious freedom in society, i.e. people that don't subscribe to the Christian worldview.

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



  • #2005
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    My stated position is that people can legally decide to change the law if they please. However, if it undermines religious freedom in society I will also oppose it on a political level also.

    If it undermines the freedom of religious people to decide who is and who is not equal?

    If it undermines the freedom of religious people to pick and choose which parts of their job description they can ignore?

    If it undermines the freedom of religious people to dictate to the State?

    But - which religious people get to decide? Can each religion decide for itself? Can Muslims and Jews working in grocery retail insist their place of work stop selling pork products?
    Is it up to the individual? Can JW's working in the NHS insist all blood products be removed? Can Hindus insist the sale of all bovine products be forbidden?

    If religious people have issues with aspects of their State jobs - don't do those jobs!


  • #2006
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    philologos wrote: »
    Yet you're interested in having your philosophy on marriage taught in school, forced on the population and imposed on Christians who disagree with you?

    I would expect that if there is marriage equality in this country, that students are not lied to about it in their schools. I would not force anyone who does not want to get married to a person of the same sex to do so, Christian or otherwise. however, your side of the debate are forcing your will upon me, and denying me equal standing.

    I'm not stopping you from getting married, however you are stopping me.


  • #2007
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    28064212 wrote: »
    What part of the Equality act is changed by virtue of gay marriage being legalised?

    How possibly could the Equality Act 2010 be applied to disagreement with something that is currently not legal (gay marriage)?

    That's the claim I'm discussing.
    28064212 wrote: »
    Or just someone with entrenched, bigoted views. Regardless, individual teachers do not have the right to enforce personal beliefs over the syllabus

    Disagreement isn't bigotry. I can disagree with smoking for example without being bigoted towards smokers.

    It's a poor argument.
    28064212 wrote: »
    A particular philosophy of marriage already is forced into the education system. It's how marriage is currently defined. Your philosophy of marriage isn't more valid than anyone else's.

    I disagree naturally. As do you.

    I don't believe in postmodernism, I suspect you don't either.
    28064212 wrote: »
    Should not != can not. A gay foster child being adopted by someone who is against their right avail of marriage that is legal is wrong.

    Having different beliefs doesn't constitute a good reason as to why a good foster parent should be denied the right to foster a child.

    This is where the line between discriminating against someone on the basis they are a Christian becomes a reality. I can't tolerate or support that.
    28064212 wrote: »
    The quote was that the council would be "within their rights" to stop hiring it. They would also be within their rights to stop hiring the hall to a scout group on the grounds that they were a bit loud. Of course the council is legally within their rights. Once again, some clever word-play by C4M to twist legal language beyond its meaning

    As Aidan O'Neill has said they would be in their right to do so.
    28064212 wrote: »
    I did not say it was the same in all areas. In fact, I said the exact opposite. For this specific point, it is the same:
    • ____ marriage was illegal
    • ____ marriage was made legal
    • A registrar does not want to perform ____ marriages because of their personal belief that ____ marriages are not real
    Am I talking about inter-racial marriage or gay marriage? It doesn't make a blind bit of difference, the registrar is totally in the wrong

    The two concepts are radically different as has already been pointed out to you.
    28064212 wrote: »
    I am at risk of hostile litigation every time I get in a car. A lawyer, when asked, will give the legal opinion that I would be better protected from litigation if I did not drive. If I wanted to twist that, I could claim a lawyer told me not to drive. That is exactly what C4M did.

    There is a real risk of litigation against those who disagree with same-sex marriage. I'd rather have legal protection rather than waiting to see if people disagree.

    Why? Because freedom of conscience and religion is worth defending in society. It's rather simple.
    28064212 wrote: »
    You have the right to teach your kids however you want. You do not have the right to dictate the state-mandated syllabus, any more than Holocaust deniers do

    Actually, as a citizen in a democratic society I have every right to put across my view on whether or not teaching biased material on one perspective of marriage is right.

    Well done on violating Godwin's law.


  • #2008
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    philologos wrote: »
    Actually, as a citizen in a democratic society I have every right to put across my view on whether or not teaching biased material on one perspective of marriage is right.

    either there's marriage equality or there's not! accurately representing what is in law is not "one perspective" it is the truth. :rolleyes:

    to hell with this physics rubbish, I don't think that teaching should be baised towards one perspective of science! I say, teach the controversy, kids should be told a wizard did it!

    or you know, a teacher willing to lie to kids about the country they live in and the laws that stand to suit their own prejudices, mightn't be too good a teacher?


  • #2009
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    koth wrote: »
    As opposed to how things are now where homosexuals are penalised in some form or other?

    If same same-sex marriage is allowed, no-one is going to ban male+female marriage. The situation is more extreme as it stands compared to where we'll be if begin to treat same-sex couples as equals.

    Yup.

    Either way one group gets penalized.

    Philologo's idea that we can have a friendly agree to disagree social neutrality on this is what I disagree with.


  • #2010
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Yup.

    Either way one group gets penalized.

    Philologo's idea that we can have a friendly agree to disagree social neutrality on this is what I disagree with.

    Considering you've done such a spiffing job answering questions put to you, I thought I'd ask another, sure in the knowledge that you'll address it presently.

    What would your end-game be for people like me?

    Seriously, presuming you brought in some Russian like measures against homosexuality, what would you like to see happen to me?


  • Advertisement
  • #2011
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Yup.

    Either way one group gets penalized.

    Philologo's idea that we can have a friendly agree to disagree social neutrality on this is what I disagree with.

    No, it is not 'Either way one group gets penalized'.

    It is either one side gets away with penalising the other side by forbidding them to have the exact same civil rights as everyone else.

    You have the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit.
    No-one is stopping you.

    You are being told you cannot force others to conform to your religion - in short, they have the right not to be told what they can and cannot do by you.


Advertisement