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…3738404243…69

Comments

  • #1172
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    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.

    Let me point out the important part of that statement:
    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.
    but they would be wrong in doing so




  • #1173
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    I'm gay and I could still argue this in an unbiased way.

    I don't think you could. Not because you happen to be gay, that has nothing to do with it. But becasue you've shown yourself to not accept that people can vote in opposition to you for any reason they like.


  • #1174
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Links234 wrote: »
    Let me point out the important part of that statement:
    but they would be wrong in doing so

    ...in your opinion (and mine btw). But they have every right to do so. The sooner the Yes side (represented on here) accept that and move on, the better.


  • #1175
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    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.

    I'm taking about me influencing church rules.

    Your nuclear power plant spiel couldn't be more irrelevant and out of place, unless the church teaches that such structures are deeply imbedded in their teachings.

    Seriously, how does that tie in with me making the point that I can't dictate how the church is run, yet they can influence secular issues that have nothing to do with them?

    I love forward to your response. Maybe you can post about some wind farms or solar panels to compliment your nuclear power plant.


  • #1176
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I don't think you could. Not because you happen to be gay, that has nothing to do with it. But becasue you've shown yourself to not accept that people can vote in opposition to you for any reason they like.

    Nobody is saying they can't vote no. Just that it is wrong to as "well you raise some good point but will still vote no because I feel like it and can't back it up" is a piss poor way to make a decision.

    I can hate someone and feel like hitting them but I don't. Despite by your logic my belief that they deserve it is enough to justify it I would be still wrong to do it.


  • Advertisement
  • #1177
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I don't think you could. Not because you happen to be gay, that has nothing to do with it. But becasue you've shown yourself to not accept that people can vote in opposition to you for any reason they like.

    I do science. I have been forced to give presentations to a large amount of people on controversial topics with views that are completely opposite my own. I was forced to do this in order to develop a non-biased and scientific approach to viewpoints. I did pretty well once I looked at everything in an objective way. So I really wouldn't have a problem being unbiased here.

    All I'd have to do is lay down fact after fact and let the public decide for themselves. That's not a biased argument. That's being logical and objective.


  • #1178
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,290 ✭✭✭Daith


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Nobody is saying they can't vote no. Just that it is wrong to as "well you raise some good point but will still vote no because I feel like it and can't back it up" is a piss poor way to make a decision

    And a piss poor way to debate. If you're going to vote no based on your religion say it rather than claim otherwise


  • #1179
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    I'm taking about me influencing church rules.

    Your nuclear power plant spiel couldn't be more irrelevant and out of place, unless the church teaches that such structures are deeply imbedded in their teachings.

    You don't get my example, fair enough.
    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Seriously, how does that tie in with me making the point that I can't dictate how the church is run, yet they can influence secular issues that have nothing to do with them?

    I love forward to your response. Maybe you can post about some wind farms or solar panels to compliment your nuclear power plant.

    I think we're debating different things here. My example was to illustrate that people are subject to laws they may not like or agree with based on the will of society at large.

    You seem to be debating the fact that the chuch has a say in civic society, yet you don't have a say in the church.

    SIPTU has a say in civic society too. But I can't influence SIPTU. Sorry, this is another example, but I think is relevant.

    At it's simplest, my neighbour can influence civil society (vote, campaign, debate, etc) but I can't necessarily control him.


  • #1180
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Nobody is saying they can't vote no. Just that it is wrong to as "well you raise some good point but will still vote no because I feel like it and can't back it up" is a piss poor way to make a decision.

    Free will is a beautiful thing. I am heartened that we've moved from a point where religious views could not be tolerated in the debate to a recognition that all views can and should be allowed to be expressed.
    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    I can hate someone and feel like hitting them but I don't. Despite by your logic my belief that they deserve it is enough to justify it I would be still wrong to do it.

    I don't know where you pulled that from.


  • #1181
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    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".

    They are unfortunately relevant as long as they inform peoples views and votes (in a referendum or general election).

    Religious voices have a right to be heard. The issue though is how that is done - the media feels that to be balanced they need to give the religious side (being the only real no campaign) equal prominence and treat all their arguments as equally credible, objective and evidence based.

    Much like the climate change debate stateside, the media gives their arguments unmerited credibility simply by not checking them on blatant lies and falsehoods. The try to moderate, rather than conduct any type of objective analysis of the matter at hand.


  • Advertisement
  • #1182
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    But they have every right to do so.

    Of course they have the right, everyone has the right to vote whatever way they want for whatever reason they want. Someone can vote no because they plain straight up hate gay people with a burning passion, that is their right. Hell, they can flippantly vote no because they didn't like the tone of someone in an internet discussion and they still have the right to do so.

    But what they can't expect is to engage in a discussion and try to claim their viewpoints are justified because of irrelevant religious reasons and not be called on it.


  • #1183
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Free will is a beautiful thing. I am heartened that we've moved from a point where religious views could not be tolerated in the debate to a recognition that all views can and should be allowed to be expressed.

    Expression of views is very different to enforcing them on others. One is OK, the other isn't. People are free to be against interracial marriage but don't expect people to be happy about it if you try and prevent it.
    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I don't know where you pulled that from.

    Do you think it is OK to make a decision based on your belief even if it negatively affects another person?


  • #1184
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Do you think it is OK to make a decision based on your belief even if it negatively affects another person?

    That's a very open ended question. The answer could be yes or no depending on the nature of the impact, etc. Impossible to answer that.

    For example, is it wrong not to eat meat for religious reasons if it means the local butchers kid doesn't get schoolbooks............very open ended question....


  • #1185
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    That's a very open ended question. The answer could be yes or no depending on the nature of the impact, etc. Impossible to answer that.

    For example, is it wrong not to eat meat for religious reasons if it means the local butchers kid doesn't get schoolbooks............very open ended question....

    Then a personal belief is not a justified reason to make a decision on its own. Other reasoning must be given.


  • #1186
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,290 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »

    For example, is it wrong not to eat meat for religious reasons if it means the local butchers kid doesn't get schoolbooks............very open ended question....

    No no. I can't eat meat because of my religion therefore the butcher should not be able to sell meat.

    You can have your religious view but the not the ability to impose that view on others.


  • #1187
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    That's a very open ended question. The answer could be yes or no depending on the nature of the impact, etc. Impossible to answer that.

    For example, is it wrong not to eat meat for religious reasons if it means the local butchers kid doesn't get schoolbooks............very open ended question....

    True perhaps the question needs to be a bit more specific. In the butcher scenario you just gave you're not forcing the butcher to abstain from meat because of your religious views and you'd want to be buying a lot of prime rib to have your decision not to purchase cost butcher jr their schoolbooks.

    However in the context of SSM would it sit well with your conscience if your religious beliefs forced couples who don't share them to abstain from marriage?


  • #1188
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,123 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    That's a very open ended question. The answer could be yes or no depending on the nature of the impact, etc. Impossible to answer that.

    For example, is it wrong not to eat meat for religious reasons if it means the local butchers kid doesn't get schoolbooks............very open ended question....
    The example would be outlawing butchers because you don't eat meat rather than what you posted above.

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



  • #1189
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,949 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    So far, we've had the arguments that:

    It's what my religion tells me to do
    nature isn't equal, so we shouldn't be either
    gays will use marriage to abuse children
    people on the 'yes' side might upset me
    butchers won't be able to build nuclear plants



    that's it, after 1189 posts? Not bad.


  • #1190
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    P_1 wrote: »
    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.

    I think the last few pages have shown the dangers of the yea side getting a bit too righteous and demanding. I heart internet hasn't actually said anything wrong at all, and is just pointing out how the electoral process works.

    While I think religious arguments in a debate on civil marriages are without merit, that doesn't mean they cannot be made or that people can't believe them.

    I think people jumping on his back for just saying he'd wait to see the wording before making up his kind really show how we might get too aggressive on this at times - I think it's a perfectly reasonable approach.

    Depending on how drafted, it has the potential to go too far (e.g. threaten religious freedom) or not far enough (unlikely though as we already have the "not far enough" option in place with civil partnership).


  • #1191
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    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."

    A healthy civil society does not say to one group of people that they are inferior based on sexual orientation and are therefore not entitled to the same relationship rights and protection under law as the rest of society! That is oppression, discrimination and bigotry and there something very wrong with allowing the bigots to vote on whether the group they discriminate against should be entitled to equal rights.


  • Advertisement
  • #1192
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Not much of a swing vote to be had here, is there? Good thing we're winning!


  • #1193
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    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.

    ILI you are not comparing like with like in your examples . Every person is entitled to certain rights irrespective of what others in society think and those rights are not dependant on the whims or beliefs of fellow citizens .

    We have spent the last 50 years dragging ourselves into the modern era and most of the time being forced to do so by Europe -e.g married women in work or abortion.

    This is one of the last and it is an anomaly that it needs a constitutional change ,and once passed it will never be a voter issue again just as women having the right to vote or interracial marriage etc .

    All these battles for the last decades are the last gasp dying efforts ( backed by US money) of a patriarchal society knowing their grip is on the wain and trying to legislate into the future and against the wishes of those future citizens.

    Just do the right thing because it is right and allow all the rights you so take for granted. It is as black and white as that.


  • #1194
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Daith wrote: »
    No no. I can't eat meat because of my religion therefore the butcher should not be able to sell meat.

    You can have your religious view but the not the ability to impose that view on others.
    SW wrote: »
    The example would be outlawing butchers because you don't eat meat rather than what you posted above.


    That's not how the question was posed:
    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Do you think it is OK to make a decision based on your belief even if it negatively affects another person?


  • #1195
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    P_1 wrote: »
    However in the context of SSM would it sit well with your conscience if your religious beliefs forced couples who don't share them to abstain from marriage?

    Civil marriage, certainly.


  • #1196
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    That's not how the question was posed:
    That was how the question was posed. It's negatively impacting the butchers life, and the life of meat eaters.


  • #1197
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    osarusan wrote: »
    So far, we've had the arguments that:

    ......butchers won't be able to build nuclear plants

    The campaign starts here people!!


  • #1198
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,949 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    sup_dude wrote: »
    That was how the question was posed. It's negatively impacting the butchers life, and the life of meat eaters.

    No, I heart internet is right, it wasn't posed in the context of voting, just in the context of making decisions based on beliefs.


  • #1199
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Civil marriage, certainly.

    To be fair I think that's all that's being sought. It wouldn't be fair to impose SSM on the Church. The wording of the question needs to be spot on and published well in advance of the vote.


  • #1200
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,123 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    That's not how the question was posed:

    I seriously doubt the poster was suggesting compelling vegetarians to eat meat. I read it to mean it was in the context of a referendum.

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



  • Advertisement
  • #1201
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    osarusan wrote: »
    No, I heart internet is right, it wasn't posed in the context of voting, just in the context of making decisions based on beliefs.

    I took it to be the decision during voting, based on beliefs, and the example would have been if such a thing needed to be voted on.


Advertisement