SSM Referendum Spring 2015

old hippy · 07-07-2014 12:19PM

fran17 wrote: »

Well,you already proved that you don't respect religion when you "concluded" that Jesus Christ was bipolar lol.tell me though do you have the same opinion of the prophet muhammad and the Buddha? Or is it just Christianity you discriminate against

Anyone of them could have had mental health issues, delusions of grandeur or what have you. I'm sure they all had their good points but I'm wondering what they have to do with the SSM referendum? Do they have the vote?

Kiwi in IE · 07-07-2014 12:21PM

fran17 wrote: »

Well,you already proved that you don't respect religion when you "concluded" that Jesus Christ was bipolar lol.tell me though do you have the same opinion of the prophet muhammad and the Buddha? Or is it just Christianity you discriminate against

What I actually said (and it was me who said it, not all and sundry on the thread who happen to have the same stance on SSM as I do) that many of his alleged behaviours, as described in the bible are consistant with bipolar disorder. It would however be impossible for any psychiatrist of give a diagnosis to a person who has been dead for 2000 years. Therefore it is only a theory, but one that I find to be quite possible. I have a lot of experience with bipolar symptoms as a psychiatric nurse, and it strikes me as a likely explanation. The interpretations of mental illness symptoms would have been strikingly different 2000 years ago compared with how we now understand them! Predisposition to mental illness also has a hereditary component, therefore the possibility that Mary was hallucinating about visiting angels, rather than just blatantly telling porkies, also shouldn't be ruled out.

floggg · 07-07-2014 12:22PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Why aren't you respecting my religion?

Chri... I mean, Thor, wants us all to be happy and have equal rights. To deny us that is breaking his teachings and infuriates him.

So I think you should stop being a hypocrite and stop discriminating against my austr.., I mean, Nordic god!

I always knew Chris Hemsworth had the body of a God!

eviltwin · 07-07-2014 12:28PM

fran17 wrote: »

Well,you already proved that you don't respect religion when you "concluded" that Jesus Christ was bipolar lol.tell me though do you have the same opinion of the prophet muhammad and the Buddha? Or is it just Christianity you discriminate against

Why is it disrespectful to say Jesus migh have been bipolar? You have issues with people with mental health problems too?

fran17 · 07-07-2014 12:32PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

You can't prove he wasn't bipolar! So its an opinion that should be respected.
Discrimination is bad now is it? You didn't seem to have an issue with it before.

Just as you respect my opinions yes?

marienbad · 07-07-2014 12:40PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's such a bad attitude to go into a referendum campaign with. "Ah, sure we are where we are, no point trying to convince anyone else."

You can be sure that the No side (and others on the Yes side) will be trying to convince people of the merits of voting for their side.

If you are going to quote me please do so and not make up a skewed paraphrase - it makes discussion so much easier.

But my overall point can be made much easier- there is already a significant majority in favour ,so we are better off retaining that majority and getting them out to vote.

This is always the problem in most democracies where the 'liberal' ( to use a catch all phrase) vote always have an inbuilt majority but are not the best at getting out to vote. Maximise our vote and we win and easily.

Lets not waste time and resources trying to convince people that have little or no intention of changing.

Corkfeen · 07-07-2014 12:47PM

fran17 wrote: »

Just as you respect my opinions yes?

That was the absurdity of your own stance being highlighted. I respect a person's right to an opinion but it doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion. For example, your opinion holds no basis on reality and hinges upon arguments that have easily been destroyed. Would you say that you have respect for the opinions that the KKK hold? Because according to your logic, we should.

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 12:53PM

marienbad wrote: »

Lets not waste time and resources trying to convince people that have little or no intention of changing.

Ditto on posturing (not by you, I hasten to add) re religion (see last few pages).

old hippy · 07-07-2014 12:58PM

fran17 wrote: »

sorry put I never used the word normal once.what is normal can have many different meanings to many different people.but history,nature and religion is factual and is recognised over many millennia

fran17 wrote: »

Just as you respect my opinions yes?

Apologies but I cannot accept the opinion that religion is factual. It is anything but. It is a series of myths created by men, for the most part.

bodice ripper · 07-07-2014 01:00PM

Like PopePalpatine, I too am quoting this in the vain hope that fran17 will answer it. Otherwise I will be forced to conclude that fran17 is cherry picking the word of his god to control the lives of people he does not like. Which would be fairly ****ty of him, and dangerous too if one imagines his god were real...

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.

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).

old hippy · 07-07-2014 01:05PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Ditto on posturing (not by you, I hasten to add) re religion (see last few pages).

Oh, this is early days. You ain't seen nothing yet...

fran17 · 07-07-2014 01:16PM

old hippy wrote: »

Apologies but I cannot accept the opinion that religion is factual. It is anything but. It is a series of myths created by men, for the most part.

Men? Why does that make a difference?

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 01:16PM

old hippy wrote: »

Oh, this is early days. You ain't seen nothing yet...

The usual chatter about religion on here ain't gonna win a single vote in favour of SSM.

VinLieger · 07-07-2014 01:19PM

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.

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).

I too am going to quote this in an attempt to get Fran to respond but im also pretty sure hes going to ignore it

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 01:20PM

fran17 wrote: »

Men? Why does that make a difference?

Because like any other fairytale man dreamt up, it makes it completely unfactual.

Man had a crazy imagination back then and thought so many ludicrous things we dismiss now for fact. Thing is, no more than ghosts and wolves that eat the moon, we shouldn't be giving any sort of credibility to such fables, especially not basing serious 21st century arguments on the back of them.

iguana · 07-07-2014 01:21PM

And who brought up religion? I think you may find it was the posters using their religion to justify their discriminatory stance.

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 01:22PM

iguana wrote: »

And who brought up religion? I think you may find it was the posters using their religion to justify their discriminatory stance.

It was yes, so?

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 01:24PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It was yes, so?

So then why are you bitching about the religious "clatter" not going to win a single vote for SSM if it's us that aren't bringing it up to begin with and using it as a 'pro' for our cause?

It's the religious who are bringing up religion. Shockingly.

fran17 · 07-07-2014 01:25PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

That was the absurdity of your own stance being highlighted. I respect a person's right to an opinion but it doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion. For example, your opinion holds no basis on reality and hinges upon arguments that have easily been destroyed. Would you say that you have respect for the opinions that the KKK hold? Because according to your logic, we should.

"opinion holds no basis on reality" as opposed to "Jesus Christ being bipolar"...
Is it true that the word marriage means to provide a husband or wife?
Is it true that the preferred environment for a child's upbringing is having a mother and father present?
Is it true that the bible never condones homosexuality?

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 01:26PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

So then why are you bitching about the religious "clatter" not going to win a single vote for SSM if it's us that aren't bringing it up to begin with and using it as a 'pro' for our cause?

You're indulging in religious chatter at the behest of a No voter and seem only too delighted to do so.

It's not really going to win over a wavering no voter.

But. heh, go for it. I'm always saying that, if there's one thing that AH needs, it's more threads that eventually decend into a religion vs atheism scrap.

Annasopra · 07-07-2014 01:26PM

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.

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).

Any chance of an answer Fran?

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 01:28PM

fran17 wrote: »

Is it true that the preferred environment for a child's upbringing is having a mother and father present?

NO!

Hundreds of scientific studies have found this to be false and that there is no difference in outcome between gay she straight parenting.

Show me EVIDENCE that says otherwise or stop talking crap when it's been called out as BS ages ago.

Nodin · 07-07-2014 01:28PM

fran17 wrote: »

"opinion holds no basis on reality" as opposed to "Jesus Christ being bipolar"...
Is it true that the word marriage means to provide a husband or wife?

Not nessecarily.

fran17 wrote: »

"
Is it true that the preferred environment for a child's upbringing is having a mother and father present?

Adoption by homosexual couples is a separate issue that will be introduced before the referendum.

fran17 wrote: »

"
Is it true that the bible never condones homosexuality?

Who cares?

bodice ripper · 07-07-2014 01:30PM

Hey fran17...

fran17 wrote: »

"opinion holds no basis on reality" as opposed to "Jesus Christ being bipolar"...
Is it true that the word marriage means to provide a husband or wife?
Is it true that the preferred environment for a child's upbringing is having a mother and father present?
Is it true that the bible never condones homosexuality?

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.

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).

Links234 · 07-07-2014 01:30PM

We really shouldn't be going down the rabbit hole of religion, as the referendum has absolutely nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

fran17 wrote: »

Is it true that the preferred environment for a child's upbringing is having a mother and father present?

This is absolutely false.

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 01:34PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You're indulging in religious chatter at the behest of a No voter and seem only too delighted to do so.

It's not really going to win over a wavering no voter.

But. heh, go for it. I'm always saying that, if there's one thing that AH needs, it's more threads that eventually decend into a religion vs atheism scrap.

You mean a logic vs fairytales debate.

I've had the displeasure of having to deal with religious "logic" in college regarding what I study. Honestly, anybody who believes such delusions is not somebody you can convince with logic or reasoning as such concepts are foreign to them to begin with.

Had they logic or reasoning they wouldn't blindly follow such contradictory and fanciful stories so intently.

So I really don't think such people can be changed of their views, but people reading these threads who might not be sure of how they'll vote could take something away from this.

VinLieger · 07-07-2014 01:35PM

fran17 wrote: »

"opinion holds no basis on reality" as opposed to "Jesus Christ being bipolar"...
Is it true that the word marriage means to provide a husband or wife?
Is it true that the preferred environment for a child's upbringing is having a mother and father present?
Is it true that the bible never condones homosexuality?

The catholic church does not own the concept of marriage and the definition no matter how much you wish it to be is not specific about it being between a man or a woman.

The preferred environment for upbringing a child is a loving environment regardless if its one parent, two parents, grand parents of whatever gender.

Again the bible doesn't condone a lot of things, here's a couple according to the bible you shouldn't plant two different crops side by side, if you do its punishable by stoning
Wearing clothes made of two different threads is also punishable by burning according to the bible.

By quoting the bible as your source of being against homosexuality you are saying your also for both of the above stances as well as every other retarded out of date stone age idea within its pages.

Is that something you are really prepared to go with? Cus im betting you havent a clue what your talking about beyond "i dont like dem gays cus they are different and im using a book ive actually no idea about to backup my beliefs"

Also

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.

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).

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 01:40PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I've had the displeasure of having to deal with religious "logic" in college regarding what I study.

So you have a chip on your shoulders, I see.

floggg · 07-07-2014 01:42PM

fran17 wrote: »

"opinion holds no basis on reality" as opposed to "Jesus Christ being bipolar"...
Is it true that the word marriage means to provide a husband or wife?
Is it true that the preferred environment for a child's upbringing is having a mother and father present?
Is it true that the bible never condones homosexuality?

Who cares - the meaning of words change and you can provide a husband to a man.
No, it's not.
Who cares - we are talking about civil marriage and we don't live in a theocracy.

Since you like to talk about living in accordance with the bible though you might respond to my question about your own behaviour please if you are going to keep telling us that we have to live in accordance with it's standards.

Muise... · 07-07-2014 01:44PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So you have a chip on your shoulders, I see.

Or a well-founded, perfectly sound disagreement.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments