Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

1…4849515354…66

Comments

  • #1502
    enda1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,165 ✭✭✭enda1


    lazygal wrote: »
    Humanist ceremonies are secular. Spiritualist ones are religious. Only the hse provides civil ceremonies.

    Both humanist and religious ceremonies provide the civil component of marriage in Ireland too. Not fully sure I understand what you are trying to say though :confused:


  • #1503
    MayoAreMagic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,946 ✭✭✭MayoAreMagic


    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.

    No actually Im just pointing out that words are being put into my mouth and so my point seems to be getting misrepresented. I never made any point about rules of religious groups impacting on civil marriage rules. Just like the above actually, I am supposed to be 'running around the block', yet I made one point and am at pains to stop people attributing other points to me. My point hasn't moved an inch, and also take issue with my argument being called stupid. What part of it is stupid exactly?


  • #1504
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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.

    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.


  • #1505
    MayoAreMagic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,946 ✭✭✭MayoAreMagic


    lazygal wrote: »
    You did. Why did you bring religious ceremonies into a debate on civil marriage eligibility?

    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?


  • #1506
    flunkyfearsome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 74 ✭✭flunkyfearsome


    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?

    Because humanists don't have rules and they are pretty much secular humanist is not a religion


  • Advertisement
  • #1507
    MayoAreMagic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,946 ✭✭✭MayoAreMagic


    flunkyfearsome wrote: »
    Because humanists don't have rules and they are pretty much secular humanist is not a religion

    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.


  • #1508
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,084 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    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?
    hear you go.
    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...

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1509
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    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.

    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.


  • #1510
    flunkyfearsome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 74 ✭✭flunkyfearsome


    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.

    The catholic church have a pretty obvious view on all the things LGBT
    HUMANIST isn't even a religion


  • #1511
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    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?

    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #1512
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    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?

    Random question... If you brought in a pen, left a small mark with it on your self too gently, then a large nark over it with the pencil strongly so as to hide it completely... How could they mark it down as invalid? ;)


  • #1513
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Hairs are being split :)

    can we have the homophobes back please? they made for a good laugh at least.


  • #1514
    MayoAreMagic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,946 ✭✭✭MayoAreMagic


    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.

    flunkyfearsome The catholic church have a pretty obvious view on all the things LGBT
    HUMANIST isn't even a religion

    Again I point out, I never said humanist was a religion. I asked why it was ok to refer to humanist marriage on a civil marriage thread, but not religious marriage, as I was told. Also, do you have an answer to that?

    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?

    Well since you are the person who mentioned humanist marriage, maybe you could tell me?


  • #1515
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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.

    It's because debating religious marriage is a cluster****, and will just confuse people over the upcoming referendum which has nothing to do with religious marriage.

    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.

    Ultimately the state recognises them on the same grounds as religious ceremonies and registry office ceremony ceremonies, and all are equal in the eyes of the law.

    We ccan debate the state rules applicable to same if you wish, since they should apply universally.

    But arguing whether a religion should be required to believe in or allow one thing or the other is pointless since its a subjective matter for the believers concerned.


  • #1516
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,084 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    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.
    that's exactly what you asked to be pointed out:confused::confused:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1517
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    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.

    I dont have an issue with what you asked. I was trying to clarify the issue as some people seem confused.

    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



  • #1518
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 22,378 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    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.
    what does that say about religion?


  • #1519
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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.

    Yes, that's corrcet. I was talking about the conduct of the ceremony and completion of paper work on the day though.


  • #1520
    MayoAreMagic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,946 ✭✭✭MayoAreMagic


    SW wrote: »
    that's exactly what you asked to be pointed out:confused::confused:

    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.

    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.

    Well, actually SW brought humanist marriage into it, the same way I brought religious marriage into it. If the only issue with my point was that the debate is strictly about civil marriage, then why aren't the same people who were getting onto me, getting onto SW about referring to humanist weddings?


  • #1521
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,084 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    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.
    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.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #1522
    MayoAreMagic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,946 ✭✭✭MayoAreMagic


    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.

    Apology accepted...

    Now, about your pointless tangent into humanist marriage...:rolleyes:


  • #1523
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    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.
    If an LGBT youth who just finished their leaving cert is claiming everyone should be forced into gay marriage, that same sex marriage should not be allowed, that straight people have something wrong with them and are inferior to gay people, etc... yes, yes you should. Funny enough, nobody from the 'yes' side of the debate has been claiming that.
    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.
    You are aware that I am talking about the two posters claiming homosexuality is "a choice", an illness caused by bad parenting and having no friends of the opposite sex, something that can and should be 'cured', that refer to homosexuality as 'unnatural' when that is impossible as it literally exists all over nature, that try to answer this by claiming speak to God and God tells them that all the animals worship him (which does nothing to explain gay animals), that blame the fall of empires and civilizations being wiped out on homosexuality, and that have thrown out plenty of other random assertions they flat out refuse to back up when pressed. Tell me what part of any of that makes sense?

    And if someone has posted almost nothing but gay bashing in the last six months (apart from going on about "fantasising about lesbians", showing their hypocrisy and immaturity for all to see), of course it should be brought up when people keep chiming in that it is "unfair" to call certain parts of the 'no' vote that I was referring to as homophobes. Because that is clearly what they are. That's not someone who has a worthwhile opinion for others to consider in an issue such as this, just as a gay person who hates all heterosexuals wouldn't - would you listen to a neo Nazi over a debate of if Jews should be given equal rights?
    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.
    We keep asking them for a single valid reason why same sex civil marriage should not be allowed, we keep getting given the same invalid reasons which have been covered dozens of times. If you have been following the thread you will see I have responded to several posts from the no side or people asking questions, but the thing is I have got as good as no responses from them, only for them to disappear for a few hours and come right back to post what they did in the first place, over and over and over again. This is the same with many who have been posting on the 'yes' side - we're all for debate, but the no side are not and eventually get shown up for what they are which is why a number of them have been banned from the thread.

    Again, consider this an open offer for anyone to give a valid reason why same sex marriage should not be passed.


  • #1524
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    MayoAreMagic wrote: »
    Apology accepted...

    Now, about your pointless tangent into humanist marriage...:rolleyes:
    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.


  • #1525
    MayoAreMagic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,946 ✭✭✭MayoAreMagic


    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.

    I didnt ignore it. I just didnt argue with it. I was looking for peoples opinions, maybe expand the debate a bit. You gave that and fair play. If more did the same we might have gone into that side of it a bit more. Instead I just found myself being misrepresented over and over and so had to keep restating my point again and again.


  • #1526
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,084 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    MayoAreMagic wrote: »
    Apology accepted...

    Now, about your pointless tangent into humanist marriage...:rolleyes:

    For someone complaining about being misrepresented, you're very reticent to help clear up the misunderstanding.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1527
    Aplotemerges
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8 ✭Aplotemerges


    To vote you must attend at a polling station in ireland. It's not an online survey!


  • #1528
    Larry Wildman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭Larry Wildman


    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.


  • #1529
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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.

    Just so we are clear, do you think describing same sex relationships as inferior is in any way homophobic?

    And if you think homosexual relationships are inferior, how?


  • #1530
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    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.

    Go on whats the difference that isn't incredibly insulting and based on illogical hate? Cant wait to hear this one.......


  • Advertisement
  • #1531
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Larry Wildman wrote: »
    There's a big difference between describing homosexual relationships as inferior and describing homosexuals as inferior.

    There's no difference whatsoever. If you are saying there is something inferior about any quality of homosexuality compared to heterosexuality, you are being bigoted. What possible inferiority could they have? Besides the one where the law won't let them marry, and obliges them to have inferior relationships,that is.....


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement