SSM Referendum Spring 2015

floggg · 06-07-2014 02:59PM

P_1 wrote: »

Please enlighten me as to what the deplorable actions of some of Dublin's delightful drunken skrotes has to do with SSM?

I know we control the weather, but didn't think gays also induced alcoholism too.

It explains why the off licence beside my apartment is doing such good business!

eviltwin · 06-07-2014 03:00PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Where's Daddy?

Judging by Sonics2k post history he/she hasn't turned out too badly coming from such an unconventional family which is more than can be said for some of the disgusting comments in the past from certain posters who I'm sure grew up in a mammy daddy household.

shruikan2553 · 06-07-2014 03:12PM

fran17 wrote: »

I've made them very clear in many many posts.but ok i'll humour you:

1 its not marriage.by calling it marriage is an untruth.marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman.the name alone maritare is latin for to provide a husband or wife.ie male and female.

Marriage is considered a cultural universal. It is a common occurrence in nearly ever culture, not just latin based ones.

fran17 wrote: »

2 if there is children involved in this then it denies them the natural right to have a mother and father.nobody can deny that this is the appropriate environment for a child to develop.its there natural right

Luckily that is happening whether you like it or not and SSM has nothing to do with it. Nobody can deny that a same sex couple provides an equal result so thats that gone. Plus we have single parents. Send them to a laundry I suppose?

fran17 wrote: »

3 it does not create a family.the overwhelming majority of families are such to conceive children to continue there blood line and the future generation of our country.i believe any legalisation of anything to the contrary would weaken this and should be opposed.

So people with adopted children arent family.

fran17 wrote: »

4 it enforces the views of a very small minority on all of society.by legalising this all citizens of the state must comply with this.public servants are forced to officiate in this and public schools are forced to teach it to children.

Let me now how you wedding goes when they force you to marry someone of the same sex. Oh wait, thats not happening. It isnt being force on you.

fran17 wrote: »

5 its against nature.a mam to lie with another man or a woman to lie with another woman is not the natural law of things hence is unnatural.

So is the internet. Why is your unnatural activity ok?

fran17 wrote: »

6 its against god himself.Gen 1:28-29,19:24-25 Mark 10:6-7

but of course because very few on this thread don't recognise either religion or morality or natural law then let the insults begin...

Well God can go **** himself for all I care. He also says divorce, contraception are wrong and slavery is ok. If you rape a woman you must pay the father and marry her. Great morality there.

floggg · 06-07-2014 03:25PM

fran17 wrote: »

I've made them very clear in many many posts.but ok i'll humour you:

1 its not marriage.by calling it marriage is an untruth.marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman.the name alone maritare is latin for to provide a husband or wife.ie male and female.

No, it hasn't always been a covenant between a man and a woman. Marriage has been many things in many times.

For most of history, marriage was a covenant between a man and another man who sold his daughter to the first. A woman has only recently actually had an say in the matter.

Further, marriage has been between a man and multiple other women as much as it has been between one man and one woman. Even the bible has more polygamous marriage than monogamous marriage.

And lastly, as has previously been pointed out to you:

(a) the meaning of language changes. if etymology is all you have to go on, you'll lose; and
(b) you can "provide a husband" to a man and so still come within the original meaning.

In any event, we have had same sex marriage throughout history, and in modern times there have been sam sex marriages for at least 20 years. they very much are marriages, no matter what you might like to think.

fran17 wrote: »

2 if there is children involved in this then it denies them the natural right to have a mother and father.nobody can deny that this is the appropriate environment for a child to develop.its there natural right

Do you think if two men marry a child is ripped from their biological parents arms or something? The children of same sex marriages don't have the opportunity to reside with their natural parents, so any reference to living with their mother and father is a red herring.

As for the "right" to have opposite sex parents (biological or non-biological), there is no such right. Single parent households are common place and i don't see you advocating to make them illegal. even in two parent families, we don't remove the child when one dies.

the only right children should have in that regard is a right to a loving home. the evidence conclusively shows that same sex parents are just as capable of raising children as opposite sex parents, and that there is no negative impact for the child in having same sex parents.

children are in no way prejudiced by having same sex parents.

If however you are concerned for children, you should no that children are currently very much prejudiced by the current position which treats lgbt families unequally. they lack rights of support, guardianship, access, inheritance etc to non-biological parents. if you were concerned for them, you would advocate to equalise the situation for their sake.

you aren't however, you're concern is discrimination, not children.

In any event, the government is enacting legislation to correct the position as regards children in advance of the referendum, so children's rights are a separate issue from marriage equality.

fran17 wrote: »

3 it does not create a family.the overwhelming majority of families are such to conceive children to continue there blood line and the future generation of our country.i believe any legalisation of anything to the contrary would weaken this and should be opposed

It very much creates a family. families come in all colours and varieties, and you have no right whatsoever to tell people what does or does not constitute one. Lgbt, interracial, single parent families are all families, and you have no right to tell them they aren't just because it doesn't fit within your standards.

In any event you are ignoring the fact that in many cases, lgbt families involve the biological children of one or more of the parents.

you are also insulting heterosexual families with adopted or fostered children - are they not families too?

fran17 wrote: »

4 it enforces the views of a very small minority on all of society.by legalising this all citizens of the state must comply with this.public servants are forced to officiate in this and public schools are forced to teach it to children.

Funny, opinion polls show that the vast majority of the country is in favour of this. it seems you are the minority seeking to impose you will.

fran17 wrote: »

5 its against nature.a mam to lie with another man or a woman to lie with another woman is not the natural law of things hence is unnatural.

Ha ha. Really?

IF nature is opposed to gay people, why does nature create them? Homosexuality is seen in all cultures and societies around the world, even in those where it is repressed by law or culture. It has been with us throughout history and time.

it is seen in animals as well.

come on, don't be so absurd. something that appears naturally in nature cannot be against the laws of nature. to argue otherwise is just absurdly stupid.

fran17 wrote: »

6 its against god himself.Gen 1:28-29,19:24-25 Mark 10:6-7

but of course because very few on this thread don't recognise either religion or morality or natural law then let the insults begin...

You're right, many of us don't believe in him, and he has no business in our lives. in the same way you don't believe in allah, so you shouldn't be subjected to sharia law. or you shouldn't be prevented from eating meat as you aren't buddhist or hindu.

And if you are going to insist that our laws follows those biblic provisions, why do you over look the biblical provisions regarding non-marital sex, blow jobs, masturbation, shellfish, mixed fabrics, slavery, beating of wives, revenge killings, etc?

If you disagree with any of the above, do go ahead and tell us why. But everything you have posted is subjective baseless nonsense and it essentially comes down to "because i don't like gay people".

Don't try and pretend you have posted any principled objections here, you haven't. everything you posted is easily debunked nonsense.

floggg · 06-07-2014 03:41PM

fran17 wrote: »

6 its against god himself.Gen 1:28-29,19:24-25 Mark 10:6-7

Another thing - you're arguing that i should be denied the right to marry because it's against your book. But your book says let he without sin cast the first stone.

So what right have you to impose our judgement on me? You are allowed sin as you wish as its not the States business, and I'm sure you have. Are you going to tell me you have never done any of the following:

* masturbated;
* had non-marital sex;
*had non procreative sex;
* used contraception;
* given or received oral sex of any variety;
* gotten divorced;
* coveted or lusted after your neighbours wife;
* had sexually impure thoughts;
* committed adultery;
* failed to beat your wife when required to do so by the bible.

And that's just in the sexual/marital realm. I won't get into all the other things that you should be doing per the words of your book.

If you're going to try to impose the morality of your book on me, you should tell us what gives us the right to do so. If you can and do violate your book, then why can't I?

I look forward to your answer.

Edit - you might also kindly address whether or not you think doing (or failing to do as applicable) those things should also be made illegal. If you don't think some or all should be made illegal, please explain why since unlike same sex marriage, those are expressly prohibited by god (don't think god (or his ghost writes) has ever actually said anything about same sex marriage).

alan partridge aha · 06-07-2014 03:42PM

If the referendum is defeated, is there a time limit when it can go before the people again? 6 months, 1 year, 5 years?

Carlos Orange · 06-07-2014 03:44PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And if its months and months of gay people being told our relationships are unnatural, that our "friendships" are not equal, that we are unable to conceive naturally so have no parenting abilities, that our families are automatically lesser and should never be considered as families, that we are all riddled with STIs, that it will be used as a covert way for paedophiles to abuse children, that we are trying to redefine marriage and weaken heterosexual marriage, that lots of gay people dont want it anyway, that we are all promiscuous anyway, that its against the bible and that we're all wife swapping sodomites?

I can't imagine it would make much difference to my vote either way.

Society changes slowly and I'm don't think I would vote for change if people can not deal with that reality in a reasonable and patient manner. That puts an extra burden on the pro side but I think people proposing change generally have one.

shruikan2553 · 06-07-2014 03:44PM

floggg wrote: »

Another thing - you're arguing that i should be denied the right to marry because it's against your book. But your book says let he without sin cast the first stone.

So what right have you to impose our judgement on me? You are allowed sin as you wish as its not the States business, and I'm sure you have. Are you going to tell me you have never done any of the following:

* masturbated;
* had non-marital sex;
*had non procreative sex;
* used contraception;
* given or received oral sex of any variety;
* gotten divorced;
* coveted or lusted after your neighbours wife;
* had sexually impure thoughts;
* committed adultery;
* failed to beat your wife when required to do so by the bible.

And that's just in the sexual/marital realm. I won't get into all the other things that you should be doing per the words of your book.

If you're going to try to impose the morality of your book on me, you should tell us what gives us the right to do so. If you can and do violate your book, then why can't I?

I look forward to your answer.

The most common reasoning is either
1. Thats the old testament, that doesnt apply (when Jesus himself said otherwise and the bit against homosexuality are in that part too)
2. Nobody does those things, aka **** logic.

floggg · 06-07-2014 03:51PM

psinno wrote: »

I can't imagine it would make much difference to my vote either way.

Society changes slowly and I'm don't think I would vote for change if people can not deal with that reality in a reasonable and patient manner. That puts an extra burden on the pro side but I think people proposing change generally have one.

So you would be more influenced by potential hurt feelings on the part of people advocating for discrimination against a minority group than you would about unequal and discriminatory treatment of the minority, and the impact of lies and mistruths told about them (particularly on vulnerable LGBT youth).

Why should a minority have to wait until the majority comes around to the idea before being granted equality.

And why should the minority be obliged to plead politely to be given the same rights that the majority take for granted?

While you are free to make up your mind on whatever basis you see fit, I would hope that you would do so on the merits of the argument, and remember that there are real and serious consequences for lgbt people whichever way the referendum goes.

i would point out as well that the only consequence for the no side if the election is passed is having to accept the rights of others to marry on equal terms as them.

Carlos Orange · 06-07-2014 03:51PM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

If the referendum is defeated, is there a time limit when it can go before the people again? 6 months, 1 year, 5 years?

I have never heard of one. The Lisbon referendums were about 4 months apart.

Amirani · 06-07-2014 03:56PM

Normally when someone goes to the trouble of coming up with a list of reasons behind their arguments, they'll make one or two decent points that will make you think for a minute. Perhaps that isn't possible on this issue, but regardless, that's one terrible list fran17. Full of tired cliche and devoid of any imparted logic or evidence-based reasoning. 3 posters have completely torn it to shreds with ease. If this was a formal debate, I think we'd be seeing an early concession at this point.

If only the whole campaign could go so well... :pac:

floggg · 06-07-2014 03:59PM

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Normally when someone goes to the trouble of coming up with a list of reasons behind their arguments, they'll make one or two decent points that will make you think for a minute. Perhaps that isn't possible on this issue, but regardless, that's one terrible list fran17. Full of tired cliche and devoid of any imparted logic or evidence-based reasoning. 3 posters have completely torn it to shreds with ease. If this was a formal debate, I think we'd be seeing an early concession at this point.

If only the whole campaign could go so well... :pac:

Lets hope the no side line up a dream team of Fran and Susan Phillips for the next prime time debate!

Amirani · 06-07-2014 04:00PM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

If the referendum is defeated, is there a time limit when it can go before the people again? 6 months, 1 year, 5 years?

Nope, and I don't see why there would be. I never understand the clamour against holding the same referendum on more than one occasion - surely it's more democratic rather than less (providing there's no actual coercion involved)?

People can easily vote no again if they want or they can vote yes if they've changed their mind.

iguana · 06-07-2014 04:02PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Well God can go **** himself for all I care. He also says divorce, contraception are wrong and slavery is ok. If you rape a woman you must pay the father and marry her. Great morality there.

Many of the Old Testament marriages were polygamous but of course the Big Book of Children's Bible Stories that are the beginning and end of bible study for most Christians, tend to ignore the existence of the second, third and fourth wives. We all know of Abraham, Sarah and their son Isaac, but what of Abraham's concurrent second wife and slave Hagar and their son Ishmael. We may all know that Jacob had 12 sons, the youngest being Joeseph of the technicolour dreamcoat, but how many know of those sons 4 mothers? Leah, her sister Rachel and their slaves and sister-wives Bilhah and Zilpah?

God's recorded idea of marriage is actually fairly abhorrent to most people who invoke his authority to justify why marriage is only about the joining of a man and a woman.

eviltwin · 06-07-2014 04:07PM

Can people please stop bringing God and religion into this PLEASE!!!! Its got nothing to do with religion.

I'm atheist and as such had my wedding in a registry office. Now as I understand the RCC don't recognise my marriage either as it wasn't in a church so I would imagine the same applies to SSM, these couples won't be getting "married" as the church sees it, its going to be an imitation of a marriage but not the real thing so why are they so bothered then? And if these substandard weddings are a big deal why aren't they are vocal about preventing divorcees and other couples having them?

Personally I think for a lot of people the problem is that in the future, if the motion passes, and they are married themselves they might have to face a situation where they are asked if they are married to a person of the same sex and what could be more humiliating for a homophobe than someone thinking you are gay.

padd b1975 · 06-07-2014 04:17PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

Does it matter?

It could matter to him.

eviltwin · 06-07-2014 04:22PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

It could matter to him.

That's really none of your business Padd but speaking in general terms a lot of children don't grow up with their biological parents, it doesn't mean they don't know them or have a relationship with them.

floggg · 06-07-2014 04:33PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

It could matter to him.

And it could not.

Clearly you haven't anything constructive to contribute, so are just attempting snide comments about a posters family background for some pathetic reason known only to you.

Carlos Orange · 06-07-2014 04:36PM

floggg wrote: »

Why should a minority have to wait until the majority comes around to the idea before being granted equality.

And why should the minority be obliged to plead politely to be given the same rights that the majority take for granted?

i would point out as well that the only consequence for the no side if the election is passed is having to accept the rights of others to marry on equal terms as them.

It seems pretty inevitable that SSM will happen in Ireland whether it happens next year or not and how the minority of people who disagree with it are going to be treated does play into how I will vote (or not). How many of them there are and how much time they have had to adjust does as well. If not being able to socially shame and punish them for their beliefs is too big an ask then so be it.

Nodin · 06-07-2014 04:40PM

psinno wrote: »

It seems pretty inevitable that SSM will happen in Ireland whether it happens next year or not and how the minority of people who disagree with it are going to be treated does play into how I will vote (or not). How many of them there are and how much time they have had to adjust does as well. If not being able to socially shame and punish them for their beliefs is too big an ask then so be it.

?

eviltwin · 06-07-2014 04:43PM

psinno wrote: »

It seems pretty inevitable that SSM will happen in Ireland whether it happens next year or not and how the minority of people who disagree with it are going to be treated does play into how I will vote (or not). How many of them there are and how much time they have had to adjust does as well. If not being able to socially shame and punish them for their beliefs is too big an ask then so be it.

Why would they need time to adjust? They have the guts of a year to prepare for a Yes vote.

No one gave me time to adjust to cuts to my SNA or USC or water charges or property tax. There will be a date set for the introduction, it won't happen the next day, its needs to go through the channels so there will be at least a few months before any legal wedding can take place but we don't make any other major decisions that affect most or all of the country and ease people into it. Why should this be any different?

Sonics2k · 06-07-2014 04:46PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

It could matter to him.

Oh well, as you asked. I'll do the courtesy of answering you.
No, it did not matter to him. He was a long time friend of my birth mother, and agreed to being the father. He always knew of our family home, but did not want to be a father in a parenting role. I believe he passed away in the mid 90s.

If the implication is that I lacked a father figure, well it turns out I'm clever enough to figure out which was the old Gillette goes when shaving.

floggg · 06-07-2014 04:47PM

psinno wrote: »

It seems pretty inevitable that SSM will happen in Ireland whether it happens next year or not and how the minority of people who disagree with it are going to be treated does play into how I will vote (or not). How many of them there are and how much time they have had to adjust does as well. If not being able to socially shame and punish them for their beliefs is too big an ask then so be it.

Do you really think anybody wants to shame them or punish them? The yes side aren't advocating for marriage equality just so we can get a dig in at, or piss off, the other side.

We are doing so because we want the same rights as everybody else, we want to be seen as equal, we want to be treated with the same dignity and respect.

And we don't criticise the other side for kicks, we respond to their mischaracterisations, their fear mongering, their lies, and yes, their bigotry.

these are people advocating for us to be treated as lesser as a matter of law, to deny us equality. we aren't asking anything of them or asking to sacrifice anything - we just want to have the same rights as them.

Honestly, how you can see them as the victims in this is beyond me. they don't need to have a dog in this fight, they are inserting themselves into and actively campaigning against lgbt equality. any criticism they receive is a consequence of their desire to discriminate.

honestly, would you say to a black person in 1960s Mississippi that their civil rights should have to wait until the whites get comfortable with it? Or that they should be denied equality if they speak ill of the people oppressing them? that they shouldn't be allowed name and draw attention to the bare prejudice fighting against them?

Because thats how you seem to suggest it should be for lgbt people - that are rights are subservient to hurt feelings of the people who seek to deny them to us.

Annasopra · 06-07-2014 04:48PM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

If the referendum is defeated, is there a time limit when it can go before the people again? 6 months, 1 year, 5 years?

No

Annasopra · 06-07-2014 04:51PM

psinno wrote: »

I can't imagine it would make much difference to my vote either way.

Society changes slowly and I'm don't think I would vote for change if people can not deal with that reality in a reasonable and patient manner. That puts an extra burden on the pro side but I think people proposing change generally have one.

Seriously? If people highlight bigotry you wont vote but if people display bigotry this wouldnt bother you?

alan partridge aha · 06-07-2014 04:54PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No

I suppose it would depend on how much it was defeated by. If it was 60/40 no vote, I could not see the any government want a rerun in the immediate aftermath. Maybe a few years later.

floggg · 06-07-2014 04:57PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

Oh well, as you asked. I'll do the courtesy of answering you.
No, it did not matter to him. He was a long time friend of my birth mother, and agreed to being the father. He always knew of our family home, but did not want to be a father in a parenting role. I believe he passed away in the mid 90s.

If the implication is that I lacked a father figure, well it turns out I'm clever enough to figure out which was the old Gillette goes when shaving.

I had a father and still had to figure out how to shave all by myself!

So no loss then.

Annasopra · 06-07-2014 04:58PM

psinno wrote: »

It seems pretty inevitable that SSM will happen in Ireland whether it happens next year or not and how the minority of people who disagree with it are going to be treated does play into how I will vote (or not). How many of them there are and how much time they have had to adjust does as well. If not being able to socially shame and punish them for their beliefs is too big an ask then so be it.

So its ok to shame and punish lgbt people but not those who disagree with us? Its ok for our family lives to be publicly denigrated but its not ok for us to highlight that denigration? Its ok for us to be subjected to months of our relationships being treated as non relationships, our families being treated as non families, abusive things being said about us but its not ok for usto stand against that and highlight it?

Annasopra · 06-07-2014 05:00PM

psinno wrote: »

It seems pretty inevitable that SSM will happen in Ireland whether it happens next year or not and how the minority of people who disagree with it are going to be treated does play into how I will vote (or not). How many of them there are and how much time they have had to adjust does as well. If not being able to socially shame and punish them for their beliefs is too big an ask then so be it.

This post really really really really angers me. You are basically saying its ok to shame and punish lgbt people for living our lives.

Shame on you.

P_1 · 06-07-2014 05:01PM

psinno wrote: »

It seems pretty inevitable that SSM will happen in Ireland whether it happens next year or not and how the minority of people who disagree with it are going to be treated does play into how I will vote (or not). How many of them there are and how much time they have had to adjust does as well. If not being able to socially shame and punish them for their beliefs is too big an ask then so be it.

People are generally judged by their actions. If they act bigoted than chances are I'll call them out as a bigot. if you disagree with it and refrain from expressing your disagreement in a bigoted way, chances are I'd say 'fair enough' and not call you a bigot. Simple enough isn't it.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments