Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

1…3637394142…69

Comments

  • #1142
    StudentDad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    The concept of religious marriage (christian in this case) has nothing, strictly speaking, to do with the cincept of civil marriage and how it is defined. You are quite right.

    But everyone gets a say in how society chooses to define civil marriage - and it is a choice, we choose to say that you must be over 16, we choose to say that you may, under certain conditions break the contract, we choose to say that it must be registered and we choose (at the moment) to say it must be a contract between one man and one woman.

    How everyone arrives at their position on civil marriage is their own business (if they have a position at all). Some will, undoubtedly, be influenced by their own notions of what a marriage is and what a religious marriage is in particular.

    So the model of a christian wedding does shape what many people suggest as a definition for civil marriage, for better or worse (pun intended).

    That's all well and good and mostly irrelevant.

    If it is legal for heterosexual couples to have their marriages recognised for tax and other purposes etc etc. It is only right and proper that individuals with other sexual orientations have those rights recognised in law. It is a matter of fairness and basic equality. A religious view in this matter is wholly irrelevant. As I said, we need an absolute separation of church and state.

    SD


  • #1143
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    I'm sorry but no, you have no right at all to force for religious views over someone else when it comes to a state/civil matter.

    Religious views belong in a church. This has nothing at all to do with the church, and nobody is forcing them to hold gay weddings or anything like that that contradicts their teaching.

    Every voter has every right to vote yes or no as they please based on whatever motivation that takes their fancy. You may hate them for it, but everyone can vote as they please.

    Voters can bring their religious, philosophical, political, personal, professional, cultural views to bear on their decision.

    This notion that people simply shouldn't be allowed to allow their religious views to inform their position is ludicrous and is an example of the type of hubris that, if it becomes widespeard, could cost the Yes side (which I'll likely be voting for) the referendum.


  • #1144
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    floggg wrote: »
    That's not how to works in a referendum.

    Unfortunately they have a vote on this and can vote on whatever basis they want, including their religious beliefs.

    We can't stop them, and even though it's forcing your beliefs on others is a ****ty thing to do, they are free to do so.

    The state can't however force churches to perform same sex marriages as it would violate their freedom of religion.

    I know they can't, neither do I think they should.

    I know people will vote on whatever merits they have, I would just like it if nobody who uses religion as some sort of counter argument is given any air time at all on TV, or any other organisation that bases its foundation on religion.

    Their views are irrelevant and have no place in such a discussion in civil matters. If there is a no side, let them make their argument without playing the "it's against my religion" card. At least then might hold a candle of being relevant in a discussion.


  • #1145
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    StudentDad wrote: »
    ........A religious view in this matter is wholly irrelevant......

    To you. It is irrelevant to you.
    StudentDad wrote: »
    As I said, we need an absolute separation of church and state.

    You cannot forceable take control of people's brains to ensure they do not refer to thier religious beliefs (or any other aspect of their being) when making a decision.


  • #1146
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Every voter has every right to vote yes or no as they please based on whatever motivation that takes their fancy. You may hate them for it, but everyone can vote as they please.

    Voters can bring their religious, philosophical, political, personal, professional, cultural views to bear on their decision.

    This notion that people simply shouldn't be allowed to allow their religious views to inform their position is ludicrous and is an example of the type of hubris that, if it becomes widespeard, could cost the Yes side (which I'll likely be voting for) the referendum.

    That's great. You vote No and stay true to your religious convictions cause the outcome probably won't impact your life one way or another. Life will go on. Spare a thought for your fellow human though who will be impacted by this. The Christian thing to do would be to put people before god. There is no negative impact to anyone by legalising SSM


  • Advertisement
  • #1147
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    ....... I would just like it if nobody who uses religion as some sort of counter argument is given any air time at all on TV........

    Silliness Redzer - "I don't like your argument so I don't want to see you in this debate."

    Silliness and hubris.


  • #1148
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    To you. It is irrelevant to you.



    You cannot forceable take control of people's brains to ensure they do not refer to thier religious beliefs (or any other aspect of their being) when making a decision.

    A religious viewpoint is irrelevant in a debate on a civil matter. Fact.

    Civil matters have nothing to do with religion, and any argument based on a badly paraphrased 2+ thousand year book should be left out in the dust. I don't get how difficult it is to keep your religious views in the church where it belongs.

    I don't go forcing you to do as I wish. It's your clubhouse, your rules after all. But in the rest of our secular society, you should bet that your religious beliefs have feck all worth or place in civil issues that require a lot more thought than "the bible says no, so no".


  • #1149
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    eviltwin wrote: »
    That's great. You vote No and stay true to your religious convictions cause the outcome probably won't impact your life one way or another.

    As I said, I'll probably (depending on the proposed wording) be voting yes.

    Voters have a funny way of deciding for themselves whether an issue will impact their own lives or not.

    This dismissive attitude only hurts the Yes side, it doesn't help it.


  • #1150
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,290 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Silliness Redzer - "I don't like your argument so I don't want to see you in this debate."

    Silliness and hubris.

    It's not about liking the argument it's the fact that it isn't an argument and thus you can't debate it.


  • #1151
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    As I said, I'll probably (depending on the proposed wording) be voting yes.

    Voters have a funny way of deciding for themselves whether an issue will impact their own lives or not.

    This dismissive attitude only hurts the Yes side, it doesn't help it.

    What do you mean 'depending on the wording' . You either believe it should be legal or you don't


  • Advertisement
  • #1152
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    To you. It is irrelevant to you.



    You cannot forceable take control of people's brains to ensure they do not refer to thier religious beliefs (or any other aspect of their being) when making a decision.

    It's more the fact a decent person should not vote to force their religious beliefs upon a person.


  • #1153
    StudentDad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    To you. It is irrelevant to you.


    You cannot forceable take control of people's brains to ensure they do not refer to thier religious beliefs (or any other aspect of their being) when making a decision.

    Firstly you have no clue what my religious beliefs are. Whether I have any or not is irrelevant. This is an issue that is as fundamental as the right to vote, the right to an education, the right accorded to every citizen to be treated equally irrespective of race, sexual orientation or creed or lack of creed.

    I'm not going to deny another citizen a basic right. I'm not that arrogant.

    SD


  • #1154
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    To you. It is irrelevant to you.

    A religious based belief is irrelevant to anyone not a member of that religion.
    Seems a bit oppressive to force everyone to follow the rules of a religion even if it goes against someone else's religious beliefs.


  • #1155
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    A religious viewpoint is irrelevant in a debate on a civil matter. Fact.

    Civil society includes churches and other religious viewpoints. Fact. A healthy civil society does not say to one group of people: "You can have no say in this decision."
    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Civil matters have nothing to do with religion, and any argument based on a badly paraphrased 2+ thousand year book should be left out in the dust. I don't get how difficult it is to keep your religious views in the church where it belongs.

    Religious people are citizens and can decide for themselves whether their religious beliefs have anything to do with civil matters.
    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    I don't go forcing you to do as I wish. It's your clubhouse, your rules after all. But in the rest of our secular society, you should bet that your religious beliefs have feck all worth or place in civil issues that require a lot more thought than "the bible says no, so no".

    Yes you do. The laws of this country prevent me from building the nuclear power plant that I wanted (it is expressly illegal). You (and every other citizen) have decided on this (or tolerated it) based on your myriad of different political, cultural, environmental, scientific views.


  • #1156
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Silliness Redzer - "I don't like your argument so I don't want to see you in this debate."

    Silliness and hubris.

    Hardly.


    It's like in scientific debates where you need "balance" for the sake of a well rounded argument, but instead of an equally educated and qualified scientist to debate your claims, you get some random discovery channel enthusiast opposing you. His views would not be at the same level as the scientist, yet he is wrongfully given an equal platform which assumes his argument is also equal in standard and coherency.

    Letting someone on air who is unbiased and has done research into this area and putting them against someone who's base is the bible and religion is ridiculous and is of no relevancy in the argument. It's a secular issue, anything that denotes religious grounds for opposition is ridiculous. "It's against my religion" is a terrible bases for an argument, and such notions should not be pandered to.

    I like well-thought-out and logical arguments and debates myself.


  • #1157
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    eviltwin wrote: »
    What do you mean 'depending on the wording' . You either believe it should be legal or you don't

    I can't give you a definitive yes on any proposal to amend the constiutution before I see the proposed wording of that amendment. Simple as that.


  • #1158
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    It's more the fact a decent person should not vote to force their religious beliefs upon a person.

    Well this is closer to the point.

    You can hate people for doing it, but people can (thankfully) vote entirely as they wish for any reason they wish.


  • #1159
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I can't give you a definitive yes on any proposal to amend the constiutution before I see the proposed wording of that amendment. Simple as that.

    There's hardly a gay recruitment clause in the small print :rolleyes:


  • #1160
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    A religious based belief is irrelevant to anyone not a member of that religion.
    Seems a bit oppressive to force everyone to follow the rules of a religion even if it goes against someone else's religious beliefs.

    Yes. But it is just as oppresive to say that one cannot inform ones voting with ones religious beliefs (not to mention hilariously impossible to police).


  • #1161
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    I'll say it again, religion is completely irrelevant to this, it couldn't be any more abundantly clear.

    The vote is not about what a religion defines as marriage, it is a civil issue, therefor a person's religion should have no bearing on how they vote. The Catholic Church already defines marriage very differently to the state, as it considers a person marriage for life and doesn't recognise divorce. Civil marriage and Catholic marriage in this country are already two completely separate things. So put this "oh, but religious definition!" thing to rest, nobody's buying it. Yes, a person CAN vote no based on their religious beliefs, but they would be wrong in doing so, because it's overreaching and imposing their religious beliefs on others.


  • Advertisement
  • #1162
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Civil society includes churches and other religious viewpoints. Fact. A healthy civil society does not say to one group of people: "You can have no say in this decision."



    Religious people are citizens and can decide for themselves whether their religious beliefs have anything to do with civil matters.



    Yes you do. The laws of this country prevent me from building the nuclear power plant that I wanted (it is expressly illegal). You (and every other citizen) have decided on this (or tolerated it) based on your myriad of different political, cultural, environmental, scientific views.

    I'm talking about me imposing my views over your church, which I can't do.

    What the hell are you banging on about nuclear power plants for?

    Or are you saying I actually can as this is all society at large?


  • #1163
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Letting someone on air who is unbiased..........

    Referendum debates tend not to feature unbiased people. People debate in support of either a yes or no side.

    By unbiased, I think you mean, a polite yes campaigner.


  • #1164
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    There's hardly a gay recruitment clause in the small print :rolleyes:

    The proposed amendment has yet to be written. For all you know it could be quite poor, and may even "short-change" same-sex couples.

    It's only prudent to wait and see a proposed amendment before declaring defientively that one will support it.


  • #1165
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Links234 wrote: »
    Yes, a person CAN vote no based on their religious beliefs, but they would be wrong in doing so, because it's overreaching and imposing their religious beliefs on others.

    This is all I'm saying. People can and will vote, informed by their religious beliefs.

    Ignoring, dismissing or wishing that weren't true will hurt the Yes campaign.


  • #1166
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,290 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    This is all I'm saying. People can and will vote, informed by their religious beliefs.

    Ignoring, dismissing or wishing that weren't true will hurt the Yes campaign.

    You keep saying hurt the Yes campaign. The opposite can also be true. Pushing the religious no vote and yes forcing a religious view on a civil matter could really hurt the No side too.


  • #1167
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    What the hell are you banging on about nuclear power plants for?

    Or are you saying I actually can as this is all society at large?

    It is an example of something I'd like to do, but can't because society forbids me from doing it. And citizens tolerate this and support it based on a myriad of personal issues.


  • #1168
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Yes. But it is just as oppresive to say that one cannot inform ones voting with ones religious beliefs (not to mention hilariously impossible to police).

    Shouldn't need oppression to prevent oppression.


  • #1169
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Referendum debates tend not to feature unbiased people. People debate in support of either a yes or no side.

    By unbiased, I think you mean, a polite yes campaigner.

    By unbiased I mean people telling the truth and arguing the facts. Not someone sitting in the coursing muttering "no" to everything because the bible says so and utterly lying and exaggerating things like all religious opponents I've seen seem to do.

    I'm gay and I could still argue this in an unbiased way. All I have to do is base my points on facts and research and studies that are already unbiased and go from there -funnily enough, I already do that.

    If you sat back and thought about the whole situation without religion telling you what to think, it'd be pretty easy to see what little harm voting yes would be and you could see the positive benefit this would have on people.

    That's just logic. Pure and simple.


  • #1170
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    While it is frustrating to see people using their religious beliefs to influence their decision on a vote on a secular issue I do agree with IHI in that acting condescending to swing voters like him/her does have the potential to cost yes votes.

    People are going to use all sorts of frustrating means of deciding their vote and it's best not to let one's frustrations show but rather try to calmly bring them around.


  • Advertisement
  • #1171
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Daith wrote: »
    You keep saying hurt the Yes campaign. The opposite can also be true. Pushing the religious no vote and yes forcing a religious view on a civil matter could really hurt the No side too.

    I'd say you're dead right Daith.


Advertisement