SSM Referendum Spring 2015

_Redzer_ · 02-07-2014 11:29am

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Plenty of straight people feel the same way...

Funnily enough, whenever threads like this pops up there's a heap of straight lads on here bitching and ranting about marriage in general. Many, many in fact.

Guess we'll be abolishing straight marriage too. There's obviously too much against the idea, not to mention the durty promiscuous, diseased bastards shouldn't have gotten it in the first place.

P_1 · 02-07-2014 11:31am

padd b1975 wrote: »

Good for REdz.

From your experiences in the gay community, do you ever meet any gay guys that couldn't care less about marriage and what it brings to a relationship?

At a guess, I would say the numbers who feel that way could be surprisingly high.

Quite a lot of people, while not desiring marriage for themselves, wouldn't like to keep the choice to marry away from others.

_Redzer_ · 02-07-2014 11:32am

padd b1975 wrote: »

Far from an expert, just throwing my tuppence worth into the mix like everyone else.

No red flags at all Chief!

Definitely not:cool:

Oh, but I'm extraordinarily good at spotting flags and exploiting them.

A remnant of being a red blooded teenager in a rural area where if you didn't learn to adapt to subtleties, you'd never get your leg over.

eviltwin · 02-07-2014 11:32am

padd b1975 wrote: »

Good for REdz.

From your experiences in the gay community, do you ever meet any gay guys that couldn't care less about marriage and what it brings to a relationship?

At a guess, I would say the numbers who feel that way could be surprisingly high.

And your point is? You really are clutching at straws now. People with no interest in marriage won't marry, it won't be compulsory. That's common enough in the straight community too. Its not a reason to deny the right to those who do want it.

floggg · 02-07-2014 11:33am

denhaagenite wrote: »

I never said she was offended by it, why the hell would she have gone to see a drag show if that would offend her?? Panti had a captive audience that went to see a lighthearted, fun show and instead got dragged into a political movement.

I am in a minority, and I have faced adversity and xenophobia. Don't presume to know anything about my level of empathy or understanding for other people. I just wouldn't fancy going to see Tommy Tiernan live and having him rant at me about being able to take turf out of his own bog or something about wells in the West of Ireland. Or water charges!!

Em, Panti's speech was given as the Noble Call - a speech after a performance of the play "The Risen People" in the Abbey.

That's a play about the 1913 labour lock out in Dublin. While I haven't seen it, it's most certainly not a drag show - nor is it a light hearted fun show.

They offer various speakers to give a short speech at the end of every performance by way of the Noble Call. Panti just happened to be invited that night (don't know if it was publicised).

Moreover, even if she had gone to a drag show (which it wasn't) or to see Panti, she should have known what to expect. Drag Queens have always been involved in gay rights issues and Panti herself has been very much involved in gay rights issues in Ireland (has spoken at Pride and other events on a number of occasions). It was not at all unexpected to Panti to address it.

So it seems either you are mischaracterising the situation (understandable I guess if you weren't there) or your friend really had no clue what she was going to - and so shouldn't really complain if it didn't match her expectations.

denhaagenite · 02-07-2014 11:34am

Muise... wrote: »

"The Risen People" is a lighthearted, fun show now?

The whole idea of the "noble call" speeches after the curtain was to draw lines of social awareness and solidarity between 1913 and now.

My apologies, I was under the impression that she had gone to see a drag show (obv I'm more prejudiced than I thought, presuming that a lesbian was at the Abbey for a drag show:/).

My opinion stands though, Rory O Neill can be an activist as long as he's not feigning hysteria and painting everyone gay, lesbian, trans, bi, drag with the same brush and chucking any opinion or say that straight people have in issues to do with gay rights out because of their sexuality. I'm sure he's experienced prejudices, but a lot of us have and sometimes for the most minute of things. I felt that some of what he had to say was important for gay people to hear, but some of it was trying to separate himself to make himself "special". Also I'm sure it didn't do his business any harm.

And again, "Drag Queen" is not a sexuality, it is a preference. Gay, straight, bi are sexualities. Male, female, transgender are genders.

Off topic though, I am for gay marriage but definitely think that a lot of the reason that it hasn't yet been implemented is that these things take time legally. I grew up in Ireland in the 80s and left 7 years ago. Now living in a country where homosexuality is totally accepted, where gay marriage has been in place for years, where there is gay sex education is taught in schools I can see that Ireland has a long way to go but general consensus towards gay people has been good for a while and will continue to improve. I'm often almost ashamed of Irish society for a lot of things but from my own experience I'm quite proud of the level of acceptance of homosexuality in urban Ireland, all things considered. We're not going to get anywhere by screaming at homophobes for being homophobic.

seamus · 02-07-2014 11:37am

padd b1975 wrote: »

From your experiences in the gay community, do you ever meet any gay guys that couldn't care less about marriage and what it brings to a relationship?

At a guess, I would say the numbers who feel that way could be surprisingly high.

That's still irrelevant. Even if there were only one gay couple on the entire planet who wanted to marry, the right should still exist.

I have no interest in becoming a paediatric nurse, but if I was told that I was banned from becoming one just because I was a man, I'd fight that bigotry.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 11:37am

Daith wrote: »

It's being changed so people don't confuse marriage and parenthood.

What's your reason why gays shouldn't be able to marry again?

I explained earlier.

_Redzer_ · 02-07-2014 11:39am

RobertKK wrote: »

I explained earlier.

Are you still pleading nature and biology to marriage, which is a man-made, artificial concept?

Scientists all over the world really would weep for you.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 11:40am

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Funnily enough, whenever threads like this pops up there's a heap of straight lads on here bitching and ranting about marriage in general. Many, many in fact.

Guess we'll be abolishing straight marriage too. There's obviously too much against the idea, not to mention the durty promiscuous, diseased bastards shouldn't have gotten it in the first place.

The state's role in all marriage should be abolished.

Ghost Buster · 02-07-2014 11:40am

padd b1975 wrote: »

Good for REdz.

From your experiences in the gay community, do you ever meet any gay guys that couldn't care less about marriage and what it brings to a relationship?

At a guess, I would say the numbers who feel that way could be surprisingly high.

We could save a lot of time here if you would stop failing to make a coherent argument and simply admit that you find the idea of male gay sex icky, it makes you uncomfortable and your religious views also influence you.
annnnnnnnnnd GO

floggg · 02-07-2014 11:41am

padd b1975 wrote: »

It's what happens when the harsh reality of married life sets in that concerns me.
A lot of gay men may find it difficult to switch off from their previous lifestyle.

I feel they could marry because it's fashionable or trendy or because they want an attention-seeking party. Marriage and the commitment it brings is something that is totally alien to the gay community.

I honestly have no idea.

Just one while I was married, wish I could say the same for the wife though!

Please stop telling us what the gay community are, how we think or what we may or may not value.

It's just absurdly ignorant to think the gay community, or any other minority or community, all think and act the same way or share the same values. It's absurd, so stop it.

It's also ignorant, arrogant and absurd for you to be posting here telling the gay posters what the gay community is. You don't know us and you don't know out values, so don't try and tell us you do.

What great insight do you think you have?

And most of all, your views are based on such cartoonishly naive and ignorant stereotypes and caricatures. Honestly, the suggestion that we'll all go out and get married just because it's fashionable or "in" without knowing what it means is one of the stupidest things I read on this thread.

Apart from suggesting we are all shallow giddy school kids, you're also suggesting we are all too stupid to appreciate the legal and moral commitments and responsibilities that go with marriage. Grow up.

And do you think we all just hatched from eggs or something as adults. Most of us were born to wedded parents, and we either saw the realities of daily married life for them, or had to go through a loss of one or more parents or a divorce or family break up. We know full well what it entails.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 11:43am

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Are you still pleading nature and biology to marriage, which is a man-made, artificial concept?

Scientists all over the world really would weep for you.

Nature and biology is the primary reason for marriage coming about as a stable place to have and rear children.

Same sex marriage is just a modern thing, which we are told we must support and say yes to pollsters or be viewed as a bigot or a homophobe.

floggg · 02-07-2014 11:45am

RobertKK wrote: »

It is being changed because of the referendum.

Enda Kenny yesterday: “There are a number of other legal issues that need to be dealt with, including elements of adoption which are necessary.”

No, it's being changed because it's the right thing to do independent or not of whether the referendum passes.

floggg · 02-07-2014 11:51am

denhaagenite wrote: »

My apologies, I was under the impression that she had gone to see a drag show (obv I'm more prejudiced than I thought, presuming that a lesbian was at the Abbey for a drag show:/).

My opinion stands though, Rory O Neill can be an activist as long as he's not feigning hysteria and painting everyone gay, lesbian, trans, bi, drag with the same brush and chucking any opinion or say that straight people have in issues to do with gay rights out because of their sexuality. I'm sure he's experienced prejudices, but a lot of us have and sometimes for the most minute of things. I felt that some of what he had to say was important for gay people to hear, but some of it was trying to separate himself to make himself "special". Also I'm sure it didn't do his business any harm.

And again, "Drag Queen" is not a sexuality, it is a preference. Gay, straight, bi are sexualities. Male, female, transgender are genders.

Off topic though, I am for gay marriage but definitely think that a lot of the reason that it hasn't yet been implemented is that these things take time legally. I grew up in Ireland in the 80s and left 7 years ago. Now living in a country where homosexuality is totally accepted, where gay marriage has been in place for years, where there is gay sex education is taught in schools I can see that Ireland has a long way to go but general consensus towards gay people has been good for a while and will continue to improve. I'm often almost ashamed of Irish society for a lot of things but from my own experience I'm quite proud of the level of acceptance of homosexuality in urban Ireland, all things considered. We're not going to get anywhere by screaming at homophobes for being homophobic.

Again, did you listen to the speech. It was a very nuanced and measured speech, which resonated with so many gay people across the world, and which contained no "hysteria" (why is that word always thrown at gay people) and wasn't trying to make himself feel special.

It's beauty was how he broke it down to the simple and ordinary ways homophobia can feel oppressive.

Honestly, it's like you decided your narrative and don't care whether the facts fit them. The criticisms you have of the noble call speech just don't fit at all.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 11:51am

floggg wrote: »

No, it's being changed because it's the right thing to do independent or not of whether the referendum passes.

The referendum is why it is being changed whether people accept the fact or not.

_Redzer_ · 02-07-2014 11:52am

RobertKK wrote: »

Nature and biology is the primary reason for marriage coming about as a stable place to have and rear children.

Same sex marriage is just a modern thing, which we are told we must support and say yes to pollsters or be viewed as a bigot or a homophobe.

Then you're actually hugely, hugely ignorant about the origin of marriage and the actual fact that heterosexually exclusive marriage is a modern thing brought about by organised religions, like Christianity, that originated in the Middle East.

Ancient Rome, Mayan and Aztec culture, as well as Viking culture all practiced same sex marriage. That's only naming a few.

Also homosexuality is profoundly found in pack animals, and social animals. Our second closest cousins, the bonobo, is exclusively bisexual -this has evolved to give them an evolutionary advantage as it resolves conflict in times of food shortage when tempers run high.

Also, humans are pack animals. Having gay members in the pack at as back ups, ensuring more food for the rest because they're not waited down with children of their own, so they can help increase survival rates and strengthen the group. It is very apparent having homosexual members gives a strong advantage.
Look at some of the greatest people in history, Leonardo da Vinci is one example of possibly one of the greatest minds that has ever existed.

Never claim to knew what you're talking about without any deep understanding of evolution and history that stretches beyond the 1000 year marker you're stuck at.

Homophobia and prosecution of gay people is an entirely modern thing which was brought in by religion in order to better control the population for their own gain by eradicating avenues where there wouldn't be children -as they needed all the children they could get to lead to greater power and influence.

I guess you're not a student of history, as well as biology, either?

eviltwin · 02-07-2014 11:53am

RobertKK wrote: »

The referendum is why it is being changed whether people accept the fact or not.

Regardless of the outcome of the ssm referendum the adoption issue is being dealt with so you can park that strawman right there.

Links234 · 02-07-2014 11:56am

Following on from the logic of some posters here, there are higher rates of HIV in sub-saharan african countries, would that be an acceptable reason for someone to be for anti-miscegenation laws?

Annasopra · 02-07-2014 11:57am

padd b1975 wrote: »

Generally speaking....

A freewheeling attitude to sexual promiscuity, a lot of gay men would have little or no concept of monogamy and the figures for HIV/ AIDS amongst gays are beyond shocking-they are a disgrace with the amount of info and precautions freely available.

Obviously I accept there are exceptions, but unless attitudes to the above change drastically amongst gays, (can't see it happening myself any day soon) I will be voting no.

Hilarious. You would vote no anyway.

denhaagenite · 02-07-2014 12:00pm

floggg wrote: »

Honestly, it's like you decided your narrative and don't care whether the facts fit them. The criticisms you have of the noble call speech just don't fit at all.

Sorry that my opinion offends you. I could say the same about you but I respect your opinion is yours and I'm not here to change it. As a matter of fact, I also agree with him, just don't agree with his methods and I question if his motives (not just in "The Noble Call" instance) are for the good of the gay community or just for the good of his gay bar.

Again, apologies for my misinformation on what the speech was actually in aid of, but I have seen it numerous times in full. Need to whatsapp my friend and tell her I mistook her and that instead of "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" I thought she was at "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert"

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 12:06pm

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Then you're actually hugely, hugely ignorant about the origin of marriage and the actual fact that heterosexually exclusive marriage is a modern thing brought about by organised religions, like Christianity, that originated in the Middle East.

Ancient Rome, Mayan and Aztec culture, as well as Viking culture all practiced same sex marriage. That's only naming a few.

Also homosexuality is profoundly found in pack animals, and social animals. Our second closest cousins, the bonobo, is exclusively bisexual -this has evolved to give them an evolutionary advantage as it resolves conflict in times of food shortage when tempers run high.

Also, humans are pack animals. Having gay members in the pack at as back ups, ensuring more food for the rest because they're not waited down with children of their own, so they can help increase survival rates and strengthen the group.

Never claim to knew what you're talking about without any deep understanding of evolution and history that stretches beyond the 1000 year marker you're stuck at.

Homophobia and prosecution of gay people is an entirely modern thing which was brought in by religion in order to better control the population for their own gain by eradicating avenues where there wouldn't be children -as they needed all the children they could get to lead to greater power and influence.

I guess you're not a student of history, as well as biology, either?

Can you give me the legal phrasing the Romans, the Mayans and other ancient groups used?
Afterall this is what the state is planning here, a legal change, as we already have civil unions which some choose to say they are getting 'married'.

Homosexuality is natural, I said that already, but while it is natural, nature also has put up boundaries that make the differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality unequal.
I don't see the equality in same sex marriage, I just see people viewing the name as being the same and same legal rights but with still the natural barriers in place if one wants a family, at least a heterosexual couple of child bearing age have the possibility of biological children.
It can never be true equality.

I think it is wrong to attack anyone whether physically or mentally based on how they were born, or for any reason for that matter. We all want to be accepted for who we are.
The thing is I don't see marriage as this right. I would actually get rid of it if I had the power, remove it from the state's control and put it in the power of the people. Marriage shouldn't be a legal thing, it should be a moral union between two people, not a legal union. A person dedicating themselves to the one they love.
Yes this would allow same sex marriage, I just don't view civil marriage as real marriage despite what the law says it is whether it heterosexual or homosexual...
The less state involvement in one's life the better. I am not going to vote for more of something I disagree with.

Annasopra · 02-07-2014 12:06pm

padd b1975 wrote: »

Good for REdz.

From your experiences in the gay community, do you ever meet any gay guys that couldn't care less about marriage and what it brings to a relationship?

At a guess, I would say the numbers who feel that way could be surprisingly high.

Cool

Lots of straight guys couldnt care less about marriage therefore lets ban heterosexual marriage

SimonTemplar · 02-07-2014 12:12pm

I would love if the catholic church kept out of all the media debates that will happen between now and Spring 2015. They have absolutely no moral authority left in this country as far a lot of people are concerned.

But no doubt we'll end up hearing some bishop on Prime Time defending the church's archaic and unjustifiable position. I remember Dara O'Briain once said in his standup that priests have as much experience of marriage as they do of submarine captaincy. Why then should they be invited to participate in a debate which has no real effect on the organization to which they belong.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 12:14pm

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I would love if the catholic church kept out of all the media debates that will happen between now and Spring 2015. They have absolutely no moral authority left in this country as far a lot of people are concerned.

But no doubt we'll end up hearing some bishop on Prime Time defending the church's archaic and unjustifiable position. I remember Dara O'Briain once said in his standup that priests have as much experience of marriage as they do of submarine captaincy. Why then should they be invited to participate in a debate which has no real effect on the organization to which they belong.

I don't think we should be looking for any group in society to be silenced.

Links234 · 02-07-2014 12:15pm

denhaagenite wrote: »

We're not going to get anywhere by screaming at homophobes for being homophobic.

Panti's speech (and for that matter, Rory's words on RTE) were eloquent, measured and calm, and went a long way to not just show how subtle and persistant homophobia can be, but how detrimental it can be to a person's psyche. It's an utterly underhanded trick of revisionism on the part of anti-LGBT crowd that this was in any way 'screaming' at homophobes.

It's laughable that we've arrived at a situation where people can make sweeping derogatory statements about LGBT people, call us deviants, mentally disturbed, scaremonger that marriage equality will bring down some unspecified doom upon the country, and make so many other accussations and slanders against an entire demographic of people... yet someone suggest that the above is *shock horror* bigotry? Or homophobia? Then they're the ones who have the dogs set on them. How wonderfully absurd it is.

denhaagenite · 02-07-2014 12:16pm

RobertKK wrote: »

The state's role in all marriage should be abolished.

I really hope this is a joke.

Daith · 02-07-2014 12:17pm

RobertKK wrote: »

I explained earlier.

No you really didn't.

eviltwin · 02-07-2014 12:19pm

Links234 wrote: »

It's laughable that we've arrived at a situation where people can make sweeping derogatory statements about LGBT people, call us deviants, mentally disturbed, scaremonger that marriage equality will bring down some unspecified doom upon the country, and make so many other accussations and slanders against an entire demographic of people... yet someone suggest that the above is *shock horror* bigotry? Or homophobia? Then they're the ones who have the dogs set on them. How wonderfully absurd it is.

My advice to the Quinn's of the world is that if you don't want to be called a homophobic bigot don't be a homophobic bigot. Simples.

SimonTemplar · 02-07-2014 12:21pm

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't think we should be looking for any group in society to be silenced.

The contributors to a debate need to be relevant to the subject being discussed. The relevance of the catholic church to state marriage for same sex couples in 2014 Ireland is very marginal, I would presume.

AtomicHorror · 02-07-2014 12:23pm

SimonTemplar wrote: »

But no doubt we'll end up hearing some bishop on Prime Time defending the church's archaic and unjustifiable position. I remember Dara O'Briain once said in his standup that priests have as much experience of marriage as they do of submarine captaincy. Why then should they be invited to participate in a debate which has no real effect on the organization to which they belong.

Well that's not entirely fair, some priests have plenty of experience in marriage, in practice if not legally. That said, the church seems almost as embarrassed about the few priests having healthy normal relationships as they they are about the ones who are simply perverts. Fair to say these guys have some hang ups about sex generally.

Zubeneschamali · 02-07-2014 12:24pm

Woodville56 wrote: »

I don't have a problem with gay marriage , my issue is with those who from their own conscience and convictions ( religious or otherwise) are being labelled as homophobic, stupid, looney, intolerant etc .

This referendum is about gay marriage, so presumably you'll be voting yes.

If we have a referendum on whether Christians should all be labelled stupid homophobic looneys, I promise I'll vote no.

Links234 · 02-07-2014 12:25pm

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't think we should be looking for any group in society to be silenced.

Tell that to Iona.

One side of this debate is very, very good at complaining about being 'silenced' while at the same time silencing criticism of them, setting the lawyers at them. It's the good old "Help! I'm being oppressed!" act.

Daith · 02-07-2014 12:25pm

SimonTemplar wrote: »

The contributors to a debate need to be relevant to the subject being discussed. The relevance of the catholic church to state marriage for same sex couples in 2014 Ireland is very marginal, I would presume.

Likewise I would hope that any moderator will try and steer clear of the "children" issue. It's such a red herring.

hoodwinked · 02-07-2014 12:29pm

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I remember Dara O'Briain once said in his standup that priests have as much experience of marriage as they do of submarine captaincy. Why then should they be invited to participate in a debate which has no real effect on the organization to which they belong.

i hate to say it as i generally love Dara O Briain's comedy, but he really doesn't have a clue in that respect,

priests are around couples ALL their lives, from births, to marriages, to deaths they see the dynamic of relationships in their own families, their friends, they see the dynamics of relationships when they are working with members of the community on things, they act like counsellors to a lot of people, they experience relationships every day almost like a counsellor would and you wouldn't invalidate a counsellors opinion because they aren't married or in a relationship?!?

also not all members of an organisation agree with the stance of an organisation. remember a lot of people joined the priesthood because they were too afraid to come out to their families at the time and as a result choose a life of no (or very discrete) sex!

Corkfeen · 02-07-2014 12:32pm

RobertKK wrote: »

The referendum is why it is being changed whether people accept the fact or not.

If we didn't require a referendum for same sex marriage, I imagine we wouldn't and it would be just allowed. Adoption doesn't require referendum, it's pretty crap that a situation exists where we can vote against an individual's rights tbh.

eviltwin · 02-07-2014 12:33pm

hoodwinked wrote: »

i hate to say it as i generally love Dara O Briain's comedy, but he really doesn't have a clue in that respect,

priests are around couples ALL their lives, from births, to marriages, to deaths they see the dynamic of relationships in their own families, their friends, they see the dynamics of relationships when they are working with members of the community on things, they act like counsellors to a lot of people, they experience relationships every day almost like a counsellor would and you wouldn't invalidate a counsellors opinion because they aren't married or in a relationship?!?

also not all members of an organisation agree with the stance of an organisation. remember a lot of people joined the priesthood because they were too afraid to come out to their families at the time and as a result choose a life of no (or very discrete) sex!

The RCC won't be conducting same sex weddings anyway so what has it got to do with them?

denhaagenite · 02-07-2014 12:34pm

Links234 wrote: »

It's laughable that we've arrived at a situation where people can make sweeping derogatory statements about LGBT people, call us deviants, mentally disturbed, scaremonger that marriage equality will bring down some unspecified doom upon the country, and make so many other accussations and slanders against an entire demographic of people... yet someone suggest that the above is *shock horror* bigotry? Or homophobia? Then they're the ones who have the dogs set on them. How wonderfully absurd it is.

My brother and his friend were called a homophobic expletive when they crossed a street once. Neither of them are gay. Was it homophobia or bigotry? No- it was just some dragged up scut in a car. Same anecdote that Rory O Neill had, only difference is that they paid no attention to it and he did. I don't spend my whole day analysing what people have said to me in the past about being a woman, Irish, an immigrant, whatever else- I know that some people don't like it but tough. It's their problem, not mine.

Because wars were fought so that women were given an equal place in society alongside men (not 100% there yet but improving every day). Ireland fought for sovereignty and won. I wasn't treated equally when I moved to a strange country with a strange language but because of the internet, my own work at integration and the EU I have the freedom to live where I like and how I like in this country. And gay equality is also taking time- because that's how equality works.

A few small minded people might be homophobic but they are the minority. The referendum, I have no doubt, will lead to marriage equality. It is a bureaucracy, a formality, nothing else. Some people are still racist, sexist, xenophobic and always will be. It's a shame, but it's a fact and shouting at them won't change anything.

hoodwinked · 02-07-2014 12:34pm

Corkfeen wrote: »

If we didn't require a referendum for same sex marriage, I imagine we wouldn't and it would be just allowed. Adoption doesn't require referendum, it's pretty crap that a situation exists where we can vote against an individual's rights tbh.

the same thing happened with the divorce referendum, people who wanted out of their marriage couldn't until other people voted to say the could have an opt out option. because it's constitutional it has to be voted on,

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 12:34pm

SimonTemplar wrote: »

The contributors to a debate need to be relevant to the subject being discussed. The relevance of the catholic church to state marriage for same sex couples in 2014 Ireland is very marginal, I would presume.

So when it comes to producing children, we should silence men?

Everyone is entitled to put forward their view whether one agrees or disagrees with it, this is not North Korea.

edited that...

SimonTemplar · 02-07-2014 12:34pm

hoodwinked wrote: »

i hate to say it as i generally love Dara O Briain's comedy, but he really doesn't have a clue in that respect,

priests are around couples ALL their lives, from births, to marriages, to deaths they see the dynamic of relationships in their own families, their friends, they see the dynamics of relationships when they are working with members of the community on things, they act like counsellors to a lot of people, they experience relationships every day almost like a counsellor would and you wouldn't invalidate a counsellors opinion because they aren't married or in a relationship?!?

also not all members of an organisation agree with the stance of an organisation. remember a lot of people joined the priesthood because they were too afraid to come out to their families at the time and as a result choose a life of no (or very discrete) sex!

yeah, you make a good point, and of course all priests shouldn't be tarnished with the same brush. However, I still think the church shouldn't be a stakeholder in the debate. A priest could contribute in his role as a councellor much like a lecturer of psychology from a university offering his opinion. But the problem is that it is difficult to separate the priest from the church, regardless of the role he takes on in the debate.

AtomicHorror · 02-07-2014 12:36pm

Links234 wrote: »

Tell that to Iona.

One side of this debate is very, very good at complaining about being 'silenced' while at the same time silencing criticism of them, setting the lawyers at them. It's the good old "Help! I'm being oppressed!" act.

No, I get it- it's like when you really need to punch someone in the face but they're all "no you can't do that". What about what I want?

SimonTemplar · 02-07-2014 12:37pm

RobertKK wrote: »

So when it comes to producing children, we should silence male homosexuals since they can't have any naturally?

Everyone is entitled to put forward their view whether one agrees or disagrees with it, this is not North Korea.

No of course not. A lot of same sex couples want to adopt children. The legalities of adoption directly affect them and therefore they are stakeholders in that debate.

Sex same marriage has no impact on the church in real terms. They won't accommodate same sex marriage. They are not being asked to accommodate same sex marriage. Their relevancy to the debate is little or none.

Daith · 02-07-2014 12:39pm

RobertKK wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to put forward their view whether one agrees or disagrees with it, this is not North Korea.

Put across the view that someone is a homophobe and you'll get sued.

hoodwinked · 02-07-2014 12:39pm

eviltwin wrote: »

The RCC won't be conducting same sex weddings anyway so what has it got to do with them?

you never know if they will in the future, but i would say if it goes through we may see a lot of priests leaving the priesthood to get married to their partners rather than having to hide away...etc

also what has it got to do with them? everything, what if a gay married couple attend mass? get involved with community projects in towns and villages where these things are run by the local priest/parish? have children that are making sacraments like christenings, communion...etc just because they cannot legally conduct a marriage them doesn't mean a priest won't have any involvement in their lives...

AtomicHorror · 02-07-2014 12:40pm

hoodwinked wrote: »

i hate to say it as i generally love Dara O Briain's comedy, but he really doesn't have a clue in that respect,

priests are around couples ALL their lives, from births, to marriages, to deaths they see the dynamic of relationships in their own families, their friends, they see the dynamics of relationships when they are working with members of the community on things, they act like counsellors to a lot of people, they experience relationships every day almost like a counsellor would and you wouldn't invalidate a counsellors opinion because they aren't married or in a relationship?!?

Should train drivers take train driving advice from trainspotters?

Priests are, at best, amateur marriage enthusiasts.

Their views on contraception are a perfect example of their detachment from the reality of how a real marriage functions. Screw that even, from the scientific understanding of how bonding works biochemically. People working in a lab with test tubes have the edge on priests.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 12:41pm

Daith wrote: »

Put across the view that someone is a homophobe and you'll get sued.

Well good, I am sick of people from any side having to resort to name calling as it shows their debate is weak.

Daith · 02-07-2014 12:42pm

RobertKK wrote: »

Well good, I am sick of people from any side having to resort to name calling as it shows their debate is weak.

RobertKK wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to put forward their view whether one agrees or disagrees with it, this is not North Korea.

Oh so not everyone can put across their view then is it?

NewCorkLad · 02-07-2014 12:42pm

eviltwin wrote: »

My advice to the Quinn's of the world is that if you don't want to be called a homophobic bigot don't be a homophobic bigot. Simples.

At the same time not everyone who is against marraige equality is a homophobic bigot. There are people in this world who have no problem with the gay community and support it in every other way but who were brought up with the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman and this is a belief that is so ingrained it will never be changed.

This might not be right in your or most peoples opinion but this is how they feel and accusing people like this as homophobic bigots will take the debate nowhere.

denhaagenite · 02-07-2014 12:42pm

hoodwinked wrote: »

i hate to say it as i generally love Dara O Briain's comedy, but he really doesn't have a clue in that respect,

priests are around couples ALL their lives, from births, to marriages, to deaths they see the dynamic of relationships in their own families, their friends, they see the dynamics of relationships when they are working with members of the community on things, they act like counsellors to a lot of people, they experience relationships every day almost like a counsellor would and you wouldn't invalidate a counsellors opinion because they aren't married or in a relationship?!?

also not all members of an organisation agree with the stance of an organisation. remember a lot of people joined the priesthood because they were too afraid to come out to their families at the time and as a result choose a life of no (or very discrete) sex!

So am I, I'm married and yet I'm no expert and not qualified to comment! If a counsellor has studied marriage then I would put weight in their knowledge and expertise but if they are specialised in children or drug addiction then no, they're not qualified either. Religion has SFA to do with marriage.

Echoing an above poster aswell, gay marriage has nothing to do with the RCC as they have deemed the gay community as not officially allowed to participate in Catholicism. They can go on away with their opinions on it.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments