lazygal wrote: » Humanist ceremonies are secular. Spiritualist ones are religious. Only the hse provides civil ceremonies.
flunkyfearsome wrote: » It seems to be your just running around the block to suit your own mindset with stupid arguments, the church have rules about not allowing divorced people remarry but I know a few high profiled Dublin couples that have had church blessings. ➕ we talking bout CIVIL MARRIAGE and not anything else.
lazygal wrote: » People having church weddings also have to sign the register from the hse. That's why most Catholic weddings are just mass with a marriage ceremony in the middle to make things legal.
lazygal wrote: » You did. Why did you bring religious ceremonies into a debate on civil marriage eligibility?
MayoAreMagic wrote: » Point out where I did. I brought it in because it is part of the wider topic. Just like someone referred to humanist marriage. Why don't you have an issue with that in the same manner? Edit - Actually, it was yourself that brought up humanist marriage. Why the double standard?
flunkyfearsome wrote: » Because humanists don't have rules and they are pretty much secular humanist is not a religion
MayoAreMagic wrote: » First off I will say, I believe all people are entitled to the same rights, and have no issue with 2 people same-sex or otherwise, being able to have a civil marriage, where they are entitled to the same things every other 2 people who are together.My question is around same-sex marriage in religion. A religion is what it is, that can be defined as backward or whatever, that isn't really the point. The fact is the parameters are set. For that reason, Im wondering if same-sex marriage should be allowed in specific religions. I mean the entire premise is that this was set down thousands of years ago for us by God, or various gods etc, depending on the religion, so can it now be redefined? And if so, surely that means everything can be redefined... Surely the religion cant allow it to be redefined as it would undermine the entire thing...
floggg wrote: » In that case though, the priest is legally entitled to fill out the paper work, obviating the need for a HSE official. Generally religious celebrants are authorised to conduct the marriage on behalf of the state. for atheists, humanist and spiritualists have been recognised as religious celebrants I think so can do the same. I could be wrong on this, but I think that you aren't actually have religious celebrants do a civil partnerhsip, so have no choice to use a HSE official. Though I think many people go to the HSE office to sign the forms but will then have a "ceremony" elsewhere with a third party officiant.
MayoAreMagic wrote: » I know it isn't, my point is why is referring to religious marriage on a civil marriage thread any different to referring to humanist marriage? Im getting read the riot act for one while the other was actually referred to by one of those doing the reading! Double standard.
MayoAreMagic wrote: » Why would they be relevant to a question specifically about the ones who don't? You see, the problem here is, people are assuming that I am against same-sex marriage, or that I am a religious person etc, I am actually neither. It is just an observation, and general question, do people think religions against gay marriage should be directed/pressured/whatever you want to call it, into changing their rules? Surely discussion in all aspects of the topic is a good thing?
flunkyfearsome The catholic church have a pretty obvious view on all the things LGBT HUMANIST isn't even a religion
lazygal Humanist celebrants have certain rules just like religious ones do. What does civil marriage have to do with non civil rules and regulations? Why is religious or humanist marriage relevant to this debate?
MayoAreMagic wrote: » SW that entire paragraph relates to religious marriage alone. Civil marriage isn't mentioned at all. I don't know how you came to that conclusion tbh with you.
MayoAreMagic wrote: » Sorry, but if the topic of civil marriage can be discussed on a thread about how you will vote in a referendum, then I don't see why religious marriage wouldn't have a place in the wider discussion too ... Surely it is a good thing to get people's opinions across all facets of the topic? All I did was ask a question on that facet, nobody had to answer it if they weren't interested. I am for civil marriage for everyone by the way, just in case you missed it. And I think that both topics are fine for discussion. Maybe I am missing something but I don't really understand why people have an issue with what I asked.
lazygal wrote: » Everyone has to register intent with the hse and return the same paperwork. I'd favour a French style system where everyone has to do exactly the same legal civil ceremonies and then it's up to the couple whether they have a religious or other ceremony afterwards.
SW wrote: » that's exactly what you asked to be pointed out
floggg And nobody is debating whether humanist ceremonies should be one way or the other, or if they should do them - they are just discussing the legal status of ceremonies conducted by humanist and other celebrants - including church weddings.
MayoAreMagic wrote: » Where in that paragraph do I make a point about 'the rules of a religious group impacting on civil marriage rules'? I cant see it, so can you highlight the exact part please? By the way, Im making a big deal about this because you have misrepresented my point, and I want to point this out.
SW wrote: » we're talking about a referendum. You post asking can religious marriage be changed. So either the inability of religions to potentially change their sacrament is a stumbling block to civil marriage or it was a pointless tangent. So I possibly incorrectly read your post to be arguing the former. If that is so, then apologies.
One eyed Jack wrote: » YShould we also dismiss the opinions of LGBT youth who have just finished their Leaving Cert? I'm not sure alienating a core demographic is a good strategy.
They may be too young to vote, but they speak a lot more sense than a lot of the back and forth bitching and devious tactics like dragging up posters histories I've seen going on in here. It's dickish behaviour, and for people that are saying this referendum is going to get nasty, well, it really doesn't have to go that way.
There are some posters here are hardly painting the prettiest picture of the 'yes' campaign either, but thankfully they're far from the average 'yes' voter. They're enough to cause voter apathy and campaign fatigue though, and I worry that the 80%+ support we've seen could easily be tanked by the efforts of the 20% of advocates of LGBT equality to go after the 20% of the electorate who are against the idea. Concentrate on the 80% support, make this a positive campaign, that way the 20% against won't gain any ground. I personally will be avoiding all the political posturing and media "debates" around this issue as I don't think it's likely anyone will change their mind about this issue, but I do think it's more important to concentrate our efforts on supporting those people who support us, rather than getting distracted by those who don't.
MayoAreMagic wrote: » Apology accepted... Now, about your pointless tangent into humanist marriage...:rolleyes:
Billy86 wrote: » To be fair, for all your complaining about not being allowed to ask question, I answered already only 10 minutes or so after you posted and you ignored it.
Larry Wildman wrote: » Like many people, I will speak in the polling booth. This thread is a complete joke. Anyone who is against homosexual "marriage" is subjected to personal abuse. Bans are handed out unjustly by overzealous and biased moderators. It is also a haven for people who seem incapable of understanding basic English. There's a big difference between describing homosexual relationships as inferior and describing homosexuals as inferior. But then that's the media agenda and the agenda of the majority who inhabit forums like this.
Larry Wildman wrote: » There's a big difference between describing homosexual relationships as inferior and describing homosexuals as inferior.
