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…4647495152…69

Comments

  • #1442
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    But why would your initial reaction be WTF? Can you explain?

    Cause its unusual. Cause its hard to see what an 18 yo and 75 yo would have in common. Cause you wonder if at 18 she would be emotionally mature enough to cope with the possiblity of being a carer for him or how she will cope being a widow by the time she is 30. But if it was my daughter, my friend, my sister all I would do is guide her, I wouldn't stop her doing it which is effectively what the NO side are doing.

    Give these couples some credit, they know their partners and their relationships better than any of us ever will. If they feel marriage is the right thing for them why should anyone try and stand in the way of that?


  • #1443
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    profanities only lower debate.but tell me where same sex marriage before the time of our lord have existed?

    he's only your lord.

    I live in a republic - I have no lords.


  • #1444
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    can I get a reply to my question first if I may?


    If you actually cared about the answer you'd just google like the rest of us

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
    fran17 wrote: »
    i'll answer the question for you.there was no mention of ssm until the early roman empire,in particular the emperor Elagabalus.and this was widely believed to be mere rumours started by enemies of him.
    your right that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality because the word was only coined in the late 1800's,this is a regular red herring used.the word fornication was used in reference to homosexuality.ie jude 1:7

    Back to school with you - same sex unions have been found in a variety of cultures, and pre-date the Romans.


  • #1445
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    I'm neither religious nor in favour of SSM. It's turning a moral wrong into a civil right and violates natural evolutionary law.

    So do blow jobs. Are you gonna tell us they should also be illegal?


  • #1446
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    What, "fag hag" and "gay boy"? Well, they're still derogatory.

    Yes.in your opinion is the term queer more or less derogatory than gay boy to a "homosexual"?


  • Advertisement
  • #1447
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    I'm so sick of people who at most did biology in 3rd year lecture the rest of us on biology and natural law.

    It's so obvious you have no utter idea about the processes behind what you speak of.


  • #1448
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    That's your opinion and although it may be the opinion of the majority of people here, it still isn't the opinion of everybody.

    I have my opinion, I don't preach homophobia, I don't hate homosexuality and I don't try to throw my opinion down other peoples throats.

    Am I a bad person because on my moral compass homosexuality doesn't sit right with me?

    Don't know about a bad person as a whole, but voting to continue discrimination is a "bad" action.


    And ultimately whether you are a good or bad person can only be judged by your actions.


  • #1449
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    So the fact that I don't agree with SSM but have no hate with homosexuality automatically makes me homophobic?

    If you advocate discrimination as a matter of law against lgbt people, yes, I would call you homophobic.

    Edit - see below.
    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    Because as I've said before the idea of homosexuality doesn't sit right with me.

    How will I vote? I won't even vote, what other people do with their lives has no impact on me. Each to their own.

    Thank you.

    I recognise you may not agree with homosexuality, but appreciate you recognise that you shouldn't prevent me from marrying if i wish.


  • #1450
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    fran17 wrote: »
    Yes.in your opinion is the term queer more or less derogatory than gay boy to a "homosexual"?

    If a word has been used to denigrate a group, a person who regularly describes attitudes that would indicate they dislike that group and use such language. It can be concluded you're using it to insult and mock which you do regularly. There are certain words that are primarily used for purpose of expressing horrible views, you used such language.

    Yes, the term queer can be used in an inoffensive manner but you do not choose your words to be inoffensive. So why exactly do you think it's fine to use such language but get upset when the word homophobic crops up? It's a perfectly fair way of describing attitudes.


  • #1451
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    Yes.in your opinion is the term queer more or less derogatory than gay boy to a "homosexual"?

    It depends on the context. A lot of words can be offensive if used in an offensive manner.

    The way you used "gay boy" was (evidently) intended in a negative manner, so came across offensively.


  • Advertisement
  • #1452
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    I don't believe I said Jesus Christ invented marriage,but what better authority to legitimise it as a sacred covenant between man and woman?i also never said it began in the time of our lord and the fact that it has existed far longer and throughout the known world only strengthens my point.

    I don't know, somebody not as suffering from mental health issue and delusions about being god?

    For lots of us, that's all he was. Your beliefs may be important to you, but they are just your beliefs. They aren't any universal truth or have any credible evidence to support them.

    Don't try and bring him into any debate on what my rights should be, because he has no relevance or importance for me and many others.

    And nobody is talking about a sacred covenant - we are talking about civil marriage.

    Are you intentionally trying to confuse the debate or are you just ignoring the multitude of posts which have clarified that point.


  • #1453
    jbv
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 258 ✭✭jbv


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    I know, right?

    Stupid women out of the kitchen, voting and, worst of all, working!

    Society really is doomed.

    It has nothing to do with women rights and equality.
    The way the world is going I can see a future referendum on allowing pedophiles and rapist to leave a normal life.
    We are all equal on the end!


  • #1454
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    jbv wrote: »
    It has nothing to do with women rights and equality.
    The way the world is going I can see a future referendum on allowing pedophiles and rapist to leave a normal life.
    We are all equal on the end!

    No because pedophiles and rapists are withoud any shadow of a doubt causing great harm to others by their actions.

    Two men or two women wishing to marry each other are not.

    If you can't make that distinction go out and educate yourself


  • #1455
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    Sorry but this "fact" has been brought up numerous times before and is wholly untrue. Exclusive homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom is incredibly incredibly rare.




    Ok hypothetical scenario (and I not comparing this to homosexuality before anybody explodes) say a 75 yo male marries an 18 yo girl. I bet this would not "sit right" in many peoples opinions. Give a good reason why they shouldn't marry? It's very very hard to explain.

    I take it you've never been in a field full of cows in Spring then so. Do you know one of the ways farmers know if cows are coming into heat? They put paint in front of other cows and if one of the them have a strip of paint on their back, they're in heat. You know how it got there? Because cows (all female) like to mount each other. Yup, you heard that right. Many cows are lesbians, or at least bi.

    75yo and 18yo are both consenting adults and if one wishes to marry the other and the feeling is mutual, then that is entirely their business and would sit perfectly fine with me, whatever their reasons.


  • #1456
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    jbv wrote: »
    It has nothing to do with women rights and equality.
    The way the world is going I can see a future referendum on allowing pedophiles and rapist to leave a normal life.
    We are all equal on the end!

    Are you in the correct thread? What do paedophiles and rapists have to do with the topic being discussed? Please do explain!


  • #1457
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    floggg wrote: »
    I don't know, somebody not as suffering from mental health issue and delusions about being god?

    For lots of us, that's all he was. Your beliefs may be important to you, but they are just your beliefs. They aren't any universal truth or have any credible evidence to support them.

    Don't try and bring him into any debate on what my rights should be, because he has no relevance or importance for me and many others.

    And nobody is talking about a sacred covenant - we are talking about civil marriage.

    Are you intentionally trying to confuse the debate or are you just ignoring the multitude of posts which have clarified that point.

    I must say that your summary of Jesus Christ is breathtaking and to be perfectly honest hugely offensive to the 2.3 billion plus of Christians in the world.the problem with agreeing with same sex "marriage" is that you automatically must disagree with the teachings of religion because marriage is in its very definition a covenant between man and woman.so your fundamentally chasing your own tail


  • #1458
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    If a word has been used to denigrate a group, a person who regularly describes attitudes that would indicate they dislike that group and use such language. It can be concluded you're using it to insult and mock which you do regularly. There are certain words that are primarily used for purpose of expressing horrible views, you used such language.

    Yes, the term queer can be used in an inoffensive manner but you do not choose your words to be inoffensive. So why exactly do you think it's fine to use such language but get upset when the word homophobic crops up? It's a perfectly fair way of describing attitudes.

    #1307


  • #1459
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    fran17 wrote: »
    I must say that your summary of Jesus Christ is breathtaking and to be perfectly honest hugely offensive to the 2.3 billion plus of Christians in the world.the problem with agreeing with same sex "marriage" is that you automatically must disagree with the teachings of religion because marriage is in its very definition a covenant between man and woman.so your fundamentally chasing your own tail

    An I find your nonsensical justification for your opposition against same sex marriage offensive. That's before even taking the derogatory names like gayboy and faghag into consideration.

    When will you learn that your religion is not the be all and end all of the entire earth's population?


  • #1460
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    fran17 wrote: »
    I must say that your summary of Jesus Christ is breathtaking and to be perfectly honest hugely offensive to the 2.3 billion plus of Christians in the world.the problem with agreeing with same sex "marriage" is that you automatically must disagree with the teachings of religion because marriage is in its very definition a covenant between man and woman.so your fundamentally chasing your own tail

    Personally I think the summary was entirely accurate. As a psychiatric nurse who has spent my career to date surrounded by people suffering from mental health issues I concur entirely. We all have different beliefs, not everyone sees the world or your religion the way you do. Just as not everyone believes that personal relationships between other consenting adults are none their own business.


  • #1461
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    fran17 wrote: »
    #1307

    That didn't address why you think it's acceptable to denigrate like that. You have a long post history on this subject and it's entirely negative.


  • Advertisement
  • #1462
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    That didn't address why you think it's acceptable to denigrate like that. You have a long post history on this subject and it's entirely negative.

    Agreed. You're a bit obsessed with gay issues and a lot of your posts are particularly denigratory.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1463
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    I must say that your summary of Jesus Christ is breathtaking and to be perfectly honest hugely offensive to the 2.3 billion plus of Christians in the world.the problem with agreeing with same sex "marriage" is that you automatically must disagree with the teachings of religion because marriage is in its very definition a covenant between man and woman.so your fundamentally chasing your own tail

    No, its disrespectful for you to try and tell m that my rights should be limited because what you speculate a man who lived 2,000 years and who you believe to be a deity might feel on the issue.

    It's disrespectful to people of no religion, people of other religions, and even christians who have a differing stance on marriage equality, to tell them that their rights and the laws of the land should be delimited based on your beliefs.

    You have no issue telling me that my legal rights should be subservient to your religious beliefs, but I am disrespectful for stating my honest opinion on the person credited with starting your religion?

    If you are entitled to express your view on who or what he was, then so am I. And as long as bring him into the debate and assert him to be some sort of moral authority or to have relevance for my life, then people are entitled to offer countering opinion. so if you don't want people expressing my opinion on the man, don't try and insert him into a debate on my rights.

    And no, marriage by its definition isn't a covenant, nor is it one man or one woman. It's either ignorance or lies to say that it is. Catholic marriage may be, but not marriage generally.

    Numerous countries already include same sex marriage in their legal definition of marriage, without issue. More countries have one man and multiple women in their definition.

    Finally, its ridiculously arrogant, naive, and ignorant to try and say that "teachings of religion" see marriage as a covenant. religion is far more than christianity, and christianity includes far more than your faith. there are thousands of religions all over the world and all have different views on the matter.


  • #1464
    jbv
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 258 ✭✭jbv


    P_1 wrote: »
    No because pedophiles and rapists are withoud any shadow of a doubt causing great harm to others by their actions.

    Two men or two women wishing to marry each other are not.

    If you can't make that distinction go out and educate yourself


    Yes.
    It's completely wrong now.
    The future looks bright.


  • #1465
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    fran17 wrote: »
    I must say that your summary of Jesus Christ is breathtaking and to be perfectly honest hugely offensive to the 2.3 billion plus of Christians in the world

    I know this is getting entirely off topic, but many of the alleged behaviours of Jesus recorded in the bible are completely consistent with bipolar disorder.


  • #1466
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    That didn't address why you think it's acceptable to denigrate like that. You have a long post history on this subject and it's entirely negative.

    quid pro quo my good friend


  • #1467
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    jbv wrote: »
    Yes.
    It's completely wrong now.
    The future looks bright.


    Even such a well-crafted argument as this one wouldn't get me off the box.


  • #1468
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    fran17 wrote: »
    quid pro quo my good friend

    See I discuss the topic and do not denigrate people because of their sexuality. You do. I want people to be treated equally, you do not. In fact, one of the main reasons I discuss this topic at length because of views such as your own which would love to threaten one's rights. My argument is founded in fact,reason and respect for my fellow human being. Yours is not, you've never put forward semi decent argument in opposition to it besides it making you feeling icky.


  • #1469
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,178 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    fran17 wrote: »
    Yes.in your opinion is the term queer more or less derogatory than gay boy to a "homosexual"?

    It depends on the person in question. Some may feel more offended by "gay boy" than "queer" and vice-versa.

    Are you just asking which is more offensive so you know which one to shout out at any gay people you see?


  • #1470
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    It depends on the homosexual in question. Some may feel more offended by "gay boy" than "queer" and vice-versa.

    Are you just asking which is more offensive so you know which one to shout out at any gay people you see?

    I prefer the term "person in question" just for the record.


  • Advertisement
  • #1471
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    fran17 wrote: »
    Yes.in your opinion is the term queer more or less derogatory than gay boy to a "homosexual"?

    In my eyes, people should be free to label (or conversely, not label) themselves as they see fit but others shouldn't have the right to label them.


Advertisement