SSM Referendum Spring 2015

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 01:44PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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

I do. I've been told all my life by them I'm not far off a pedophile, a deviant and something that'll destroy society.

Now I wouldn't care about any of that had they not tried at every opportunity to keep me down and restrict my rights. It's made worse that I'll have to deal with this nonsense in my field when I graduate -which is quite funny in a sad way because I will be working to benefit humanity, yet those parasites will do everything to restrict it.

But this is not relevant to the discussion. Though I'm 100% justified in my thinking based on my treatment over the years by these "holy" organisations.

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 01:46PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

But this is not relevant to the discussion.

I know.

fran17 · 07-07-2014 01:47PM

Links234 wrote: »

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

This is absolutely false.

But at least we established Jesus was bipolar

Muise... · 07-07-2014 01:48PM

fran17 wrote: »

But at least we established Jesus was bipolar

We have yet to establish if you practise all the Leviticus stuff you preach...

Daith · 07-07-2014 01:49PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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

It'll probably win over wavering yes voter who thinks the church should stay out people's business.

A wavering no voter who is that ingrained in religion is hardly wavering.

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 01:49PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I know.

Great response to my point of view which you enquired about.

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 01:51PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Great response to my point of view which you enquired about.

It just confirmed what I said - that you have a chip on your shoulders about religion which is manafesting itself in a debate about CIVIL marriage.

As you say yourself, it's not relevant.

Links234 · 07-07-2014 01:52PM

fran17 wrote: »

But at least we established Jesus was bipolar

Do you have anything to actually add to the discussion? Can you respond to the points people put to you in a mature way? Or is this kind of nonsense how you plan to continue contributing to the thread? Because right now, all you seem to be doing is thumbing your nose at everyone else and it's coming across are pure childishness, you do your side of the debate no favours at all.

By the way, have you answered floggg's questions yet?

NuMarvel · 07-07-2014 01:53PM

fran17 wrote: »

Is it true that the word marriage means to provide a husband or wife?

That doesn't change when gay people can marry. The people marrying are still getting a husband or a wife.

fran17 wrote: »

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

Nope. Even leaving aside gay people raising children, studies show that children raised by single people fare just as well as children raised by two parents when you control for the parent's educational standard.

And even if your statement was true, it doesn't justify barring gay people from marriage, because the bar on marriage doesn't stop gay people raising children. It only stops married gay people raising kids.

fran17 wrote: »

Is it true that the bible never condones homosexuality?

The Bible condemns sex outside marriage and divorced people remarrying. It's also used to justify opposition to contraception. If you want society to follow the Bible, gay people marrying should be the least of your worries. You should be at least calling for homosexuality to be recriminalized, yes?

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 01:54PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It just confirmed what I said - that you have a chip on your shoulders about religion which is manafesting itself in a debate about CIVIL marriage.

As you say yourself, it's not relevant.

Yes, I do. But it's not me who keeps bringing up religion, so my "chip" was of no relevance for you to bring up in the first place.

It's a wonder why you don't challenge those on this thread bringing up religion about their chips regarding CIVIL marriage and the irrelevance of their viewpoint based on belief.

VinLieger · 07-07-2014 01:54PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It just confirmed what I said - that you have a chip on your shoulders about religion which is manafesting itself in a debate about CIVIL marriage.

As you say yourself, it's not relevant.

No its not relevant yet they weren't the one to bring religion into this were they?

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 01:55PM

VinLieger wrote: »

No its not relevant yet they weren't the one to bring religion into this were they?

No. But people seem happy to go along with it.

floggg · 07-07-2014 01:56PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It just confirmed what I said - that you have a chip on your shoulders about religion which is manafesting itself in a debate about CIVIL marriage.

As you say yourself, it's not relevant.

Weren't you the one saying that people had a right to take their religious views into account when deciding how to vote?

So like it or not religion does actually find a way to insert itself into a debate on civil marriage.

And the last fee pages have been about trying to ascertain whether certain people are really concerned with adherence to the bible or whether that's just something they like to hide their prejudice behind.

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 01:57PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. But people seem happy to go along with it.

You're starting to get just as bad as Fran now for ignoring points.

Why haven't you been at the posters bringing up the religious points so if it matters to so much, instead of responding to us and saying responses to their posts are irrelevant?

Daith · 07-07-2014 01:59PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

You're starting to get just as bad as Fran now for ignoring points.

Why haven't you been at the posters bringing up the religious points so if it matters to so much, instead of responding to us and saying responses to their posts are irrelevant?

Cos the No side can say whatever they want of course.

It's the YES side stepping out of line with those wavering no voters.

VinLieger · 07-07-2014 02:02PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. But people seem happy to go along with it.

More of us are trying to get a straight answer out of fran than anything else, he like many others who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds are using the bible as a reference for their opposition yet when called on many of the other things the bible declares wrong or immoral they run for the hills.

Also he declared his opposition, he was asked for what reasons and gave them as religion thus the argument became about religion, how would you prefer we proceed, just ignore the discussion at hand?

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 02:02PM

Daith wrote: »

Cos the No side can say whatever they want of course.

It's the YES side stepping out of line with those wavering no voters.

Ah but IHI isn't on the yes, or the no side... apparently.

They're just waiting to see the wording of the amendment before making their decision, because to say whether you're for or against the concept of giving equal rights can't be decided until you see a piece of paper.

Corkfeen · 07-07-2014 02:02PM

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?

I have no opinion on Jesus Christ tbh, I'm not religious. Odds are he wasn't the son of a god though.

Same sex marriage already exists so that is fairly untrue. Also ignores the likes of polygamy and historical same sex marriages.

Same sex parents are proven to be as good as any other parent. So nope that one isn't true either.

The Catholic interpretation of the Bible says it doesn't however if you haven't noticed, there are many branches of Christianity that hold different stances on it. Either way, your religious beliefs should not have a baring upon the rights of others.

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 02:05PM

Daith wrote: »

It's the YES side stepping out of line with those wavering no voters.

Well leave those votes on the shelf so Daith, sure the yes side doesn't need them(?)

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 02:07PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Ah but IHI isn't on the yes, or the no side... apparently.

They're just waiting to see the wording of the amendment before making their decision, because to say whether you're for or against the concept of giving equal rights can't be decided until you see a piece of paper.

I'm broadly on the Yes side. I can't give you a cast-iron guarantee as the wording of the proposed amendment IS important.

And it's my humble opinion that talking about a mentally-ill Jesus will do nothing except cost the Yes side votes.

Daith · 07-07-2014 02:10PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Well leave those votes on the shelf so Daith, sure the yes side doesn't need them(?)

But you don't quote that the No side can say what they want huh? You seem to focus more on what the Yes side do.

Surprising using religion to defend bigotry in modern Ireland may be more of a help to the Yes side than anything.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And it's my humble opinion that talking about a mentally-ill Jesus will do nothing except cost the Yes side votes.

Nor will linking gay people to pedophiles but you don't bring this up as hurting the no side at all.....

Kiwi in IE · 07-07-2014 02:19PM

Own anything made of Polyester Fran?

Ever had a scallop?

Oh wait, I'm wasting my time because there is a score of similar questions asked by others prior to this post that remain unanswered.

You believing that your Christian 'values' should be imposed upon everyone whether they share you beliefs or not, becomes even more absurd when you don't follow the bible properly yourself.

Please explain why eating oysters and wearing polyester is acceptable to Christians to whom SSM is not? Surely Iona etc should be as dedicated to campaigning against clothing manufacturers who mix fibres?

K-9 · 07-07-2014 02:21PM

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Why should religion be automatically worthy of respect?

It seems Monty Pythons The Life of Brian would be classed as disrespectful by some! Hell even Fr. Ted was. I don't think there is any talking to people who can't take jokes at religion.

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 02:21PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm broadly on the Yes side. I can't give you a cast-iron guarantee as the wording of the proposed amendment IS important.

And it's my humble opinion that talking about a mentally-ill Jesus will do nothing except cost the Yes side votes.

You've still dodged my question of why you're solely going after the Yes side for things the No side are bringing up.

Were so you so concerned for religion being exempt from this debate, you'd go after the source.

And regarding your stance you can firmly be in favour of a concept like SSM marriage. I don't need to see legislation for absorption to know I am fully supportive of the concept of choice for women to avail of it if needs be, for example.

Muise... · 07-07-2014 02:24PM

K-9 wrote: »

It seems Monty Pythons The Life of Brian would be classed as disrespectful by some! Hell even Fr. Ted was. I don't think there is any talking to people who can't take jokes at religion.

Yup:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ni559bHXDg

and a delicious comic response:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1981637/

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 02:25PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

You've still dodged my question of why you're solely going after the Yes side for things the No side are bringing up.

Were so you so concerned for religion being exempt from this debate, you'd go after the source.

Fran, chillax with the oul religion talk will ya. It has little or nothing to do with civil marriage.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

And regarding your stance you can firmly be in favour of a concept like SSM marriage. I don't need to see legislation for absorption to know I am fully supportive of the concept of choice for women to avail of it if needs be, for example.

I am against absorption. Totally opposed.

Like I say, it's vital to see a proposed constitutional amendment before deciding on how to vote on it.

A good example is the "abortion" referendum in 2002. There were pro-lifers and pro-choicers on BOTH sides of that vote (Yes and No) based on the wording.

Daith · 07-07-2014 02:29PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Fran, chillax with the oul religion talk will ya. It has little or nothing to do with civil marriage.

Can you say this to the No voters who keep bringing it up so? Instead of quoting another user?

_Redzer_ · 07-07-2014 02:36PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Fran, chillax with the oul religion talk will ya. It has little or nothing to do with civil marriage.

I am against absorption. Totally opposed.

Like I say, it's vital to see a proposed constitutional amendment before deciding on how to vote on it.

A good example is the "abortion" referendum in 2002. There were pro-lifers and pro-choicers on BOTH sides of that vote (Yes and No) based on the wording.

You're not seeing my point at all.

I'll try to be clearer.
I am all behind the concept and idea of giving gay people full and equal rights, but if the amendment was very poorly written I might not vote yes to that, yet I would still be still unmoving in my support of marriage equality.

You see the distinction now?

It's very possible and far more common to be know your voting inclination on the top and how you see the concept of what you're voting for before seeing the documentation.

As I said, I'm fully supportive of the choice of abortion to all who seek it, that's unchanging and I make that clear and I don't hide or obscure my position on the matter by stating that it depends how it's worded.

Kiwi in IE · 07-07-2014 02:42PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And it's my humble opinion that talking about a mentally-ill Jesus will do nothing except cost the Yes side votes.

Why? How do you know he was not suffering from Bipolar? It cannot be proven either way of course but why is the idea so absurd?

Religious ideation (believing that one is a god or prophet is included) delusions of grandeur, believing that one has special powers, excessive levels of motivation/animation (often resulting in presenting as very charismatic) isolating oneself from others and not eating for long periods are all consistant with the elevated mood/depressive phases of bipolar disorder.

You would have no idea without having spent a considerable amount of time in a psychiatric ward, how many people when in the elevated mood phase of bipolar believe they have special powers/are a supernaturally appointed leader. And many of these people are very articulate, charismatic and I imagine in times gone by, highly convincing.

Anyway because a few people who also randomly happen to be in favour of SSM may agree with the above theory, why would that make undecided people be likely to vote no in a SSM referendum? The two subjects are not related and only entered this thread (although entirely off topic) because Fran asked a non religious person a random, irrelevant question about Jesus and then became offended at the answer given.

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 02:43PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

You're not seeing my point at all.

I'll try to be clearer.
I am all behind the concept and idea of giving gay people full and equal rights, but if the amendment was very poorly written I might not vote yes to that, yet I would still be still unmoving in my support of marriage equality.

You see the distinction now?

Yes. And I saw it the last time.

You are pro SSM but reserve the right to vote No if the proposed amendment doesn't cut the mustard.

That's exactly what I'd advise too.

I won't be able to tell you which way I'll be voting until I see the amendment.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments