And it begins... (bigot brigade anti-SSM leaflets) - ### Mod Warning in 1st Post ###

StudentDad · 05-01-2015 08:34PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

Doesn't that undermine their beliefs?

There is a distinction between church and state. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy. On that basis alone we need marriage equality.

An individuals right to believe in a god is fine for individuals. They are accorded that right in law. The law does not or ought not entitle any religious individual or group of individuals to impose their beliefs on citizens who do not agree with those religious views.

Simply put it has nothing to do with religion. It is a matter of fairness, human rights and equality in law.

SD

My name is URL · 05-01-2015 08:34PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm merely pointing out the farcical idea that practicing Catholics vote in a way which differs from what their Church is telling them.

It's usually called progress. People lead and churches are forced to follow or become irrelevant. Its been happening for thousands of years.

lazygal · 05-01-2015 08:35PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is stoning people still part of the teachings (it's in the bible afterall)?

Only if you're horsing into the prawns while wearing poly cotton blend clothes and on your period.

hoodwinked · 05-01-2015 08:35PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

I'm not 100% convinced either way. Mainly because I haven't heard any debate on gay adoption, none has occured whatsoever so I'm not fully informed.

However a family member made the point that when it comes to adoption the only consideration should be that of the best interests of the child, the interests of the couple trying to adopt are secondary to the equation, be that couple homosexual or hetreosexual. If it is the case that children are better served by having a male and a female influence in their life then it is in the childs best interests that they have both a male and a female influence. For my sibling this isn't about denying gay couples rights, its about doing whats best for children who are up for adoption. I guess its not that much different to a single parent trying to adopt- the parent might be the perfect parent but most people would agree that its in the childs best interests to have two parents where possible. In the case of adoption demand outweighs supply so it should always be possible to find two parents for an adoptee.

in fact after reading through pages of documents so far all studies coming from america have shown a child raised with two same sex parents are indistinguishable from children raised by two heterosexual parents,

i think the overall consensus was no matter how many parents a child had as long as they were loved and secure they in general did better in life, so a single mother, or a child with two mothers, or two fathers was likely to do better than the child raised by a mother and father who didn't give that child love or security.

hotmail.com · 05-01-2015 08:35PM

StudentDad wrote: »

There is a distinction between church and state. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy. On that basis alone we need marriage equality.

An individual right to believe in a god is fine for them as individual citizens. They are accorded that right in law. The law does not or ought not entitle any religious individual or group of individuals to impose their beliefs on citizens who do not agree with those religious views.

Simply put it has nothing to do with religion. It is a matter of fairness, human rights and equality in law.

SD

I agree with same-sex marriage!

Grayson · 05-01-2015 08:36PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

But surely if they consistently don't agree with Church teachings including gay marriage...it just makes it all a joke?

The EU did a survey on religious beliefs in all the member countries. Apparently there's something like 20% of Catholics in Ireland who don't believe in life after death.
They're cultural catholics. They go to weddings and funerals etc but that's it. As for the rest, they all have varying levels of commitment. From the bible bashing, gay hating, hardcore Iona/Precious life guys, to someone who goes to mass but still has premarital sex and uses contraception.

Edit: hadn't seen the mod note. I really just wanted to say that the catholic church contains a huge range of people. In a smaller church groups you'd be more likely to find a homogeneous set of beliefs (yep, I said homo)

mrsbyrne · 05-01-2015 08:40PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is stoning people still part of the teachings (it's in the bible afterall)?

Of course it is. Have you not noticed all the Sunday.lunchtime stonings. It currently at an all time record high. Most likely to get stoned to death next are ""The Damned" caught asking about it on internet forums.

StudentDad · 05-01-2015 08:41PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

I agree with same-sex marriage!

Okay. I'm just tired of religious argument being dragged into this. It's irrelevant. The sooner we have a total separation of church and state the better. Never going to happen, but a guy can hope.

SD

david75 · 05-01-2015 08:42PM

excellent:)https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10397812_10152954850683162_8111704837471945883_n.jpg?oh=b8b0b2e8549f12c06d26535ffff4be0a&oe=55222AD0

lazygal · 05-01-2015 08:44PM

david75 wrote: »

excellent:)https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10397812_10152954850683162_8111704837471945883_n.jpg?oh=b8b0b2e8549f12c06d26535ffff4be0a&oe=55222AD0

I literally lolled.

hotmail.com · 05-01-2015 08:45PM

StudentDad wrote: »

Okay. I'm just tired of religious argument being dragged into this. It's irrelevant. The sooner we have a total separation of church and state the better. Never going to happen, but a guy can hope.

SD

I was just playing devil's advocate.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 05-01-2015 08:47PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

I'm not 100% convinced either way. Mainly because I haven't heard any debate on gay adoption, none has occured whatsoever so I'm not fully informed.

However a family member made the point that when it comes to adoption the only consideration should be that of the best interests of the child, the interests of the couple trying to adopt are secondary to the equation, be that couple homosexual or hetreosexual. If it is the case that children are better served by having a male and a female influence in their life then it is in the childs best interests that they have both a male and a female influence. For my sibling this isn't about denying gay couples rights, its about doing whats best for children who are up for adoption. I guess its not that much different to a single parent trying to adopt- the parent might be the perfect parent but most people would agree that its in the childs best interests to have two parents where possible. In the case of adoption demand outweighs supply so it should always be possible to find two parents for an adoptee.

Anyway I just think there has been a total lack of debate on the issue. Gay marriage brings rights for gay adoption yet I haven't heard any pro or anti arguments to this in advance of the referendum thus far. I'm sure there are many voters who are pro-SSM but might have differing opinions on adoption.

The studies show that the sexual orientation of your parents is not going to be a positive or negative influence on your development. No offence, but that's a red herring thrown up by a lot of people who are grasping for a respectable reason to oppose SSM.

And, anyways, again: are you proposing that it's reasonable to vote against SSM because of the absolutely tiny chance that two couples wanting to adopt at the same time will be the same age, have the same income, be exactly as physically and mentally healthy as each other, be together for exactly as long, but one couple is straight and the other gay, and you just have a gut feeling that the absence of a male or female influence would't be in the best interests of the child?

lazygal · 05-01-2015 08:47PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

I was just playing devil's advocate.

Said the actress to the bishop!

markfinn · 05-01-2015 08:49PM

Foxhound38 wrote: »

The child in the leaflet has a face on her like a car alarm - she must have heard some sodomy because she doesn't look like a happy camper!

Nah, that's a bit harsh. That, right there, is the realization filtered back from later life, that her parent have (quite literally) made her the poster child for bigotry and intolerance.

RDM_83 again · 05-01-2015 08:53PM

Colten Tasty Fern wrote: »

The studies show that the sexual orientation of your parents is not going to be a positive or negative influence on your development. No offence, but that's a red herring thrown up by a lot of people who are grasping for a respectable reason to oppose SSM.

And, anyways, again: are you proposing that it's reasonable to vote against SSM because of the absolutely tiny chance that two couples wanting to adopt at the same time will be the same age, have the same income, be exactly as physically and mentally healthy as each other, be together for exactly as long, but one couple is straight and the other gay, and you just have a gut feeling that the absence of a male or female influence would't be in the best interests of the child?

I had a theoretical concern and it was literally my only concern with this in that we would have a situation where a religious mother would not be able to choose to "hand over" her child to a family of her faith (making an already painful process harder) due to the impact of equality legislation RE: The case in England (which was decided by court judgment).

Its not actually a practical concern I found out though because the number of internal adoptions in Ireland that don't go to relatives or other associated persons is truly minuscule.

Deenie123 · 05-01-2015 08:54PM

I'd hope that a leaflet like that will make people who are on the fence stop and think...

'THAT's the best argument they have against SSM? Children hearing the "sounds of sodomy???"'

And realize...

'If that's the best argument that can be put forward to oppose SSM... There's not much argument against SSM really...'

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 05-01-2015 09:00PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its not actually a practical concern I found out though because the number of internal adoptions in Ireland that don't go to relatives or other associated persons is truly minuscule.

Yup, and yet somehow people are more concerned about the hypothetical welfare of adoptive children in cases that are never likely to arise than they are about the welfare of actual children living with a parent and that parent's same sex partner. Again, leaving aside that this referendum has zilch to do with adoption.

bodice ripper · 05-01-2015 09:04PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Of course it is. Have you not noticed all the Sunday.lunchtime stonings. It currently at an all time record high. Most likely to get stoned to death next are ""The Damned" caught asking about it on internet forums.

Hey, don't blame me because you are a la carte.

mikom · 05-01-2015 09:09PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=421pZgg-vlY

RDM_83 again · 05-01-2015 09:16PM

Colten Tasty Fern wrote: »

Yup, and yet somehow people are more concerned about the hypothetical welfare of adoptive children in cases that are never likely to arise than they are about the welfare of actual children living with a parent and that parent's same sex partner. Again, leaving aside that this referendum has zilch to do with adoption.

Yeah to be clear my concern was not for the child as I believe that as long as an effort is made to have some socialization of the opposite gender in the childs life, adoption between same sex couples is a completely valid family unit (and arguably they are more likely to be more 'motivated' parents as its long hard highly vetted process that isn't just fallen into).

It was to do with the idea that it would make the process harder for the birth mother (and its not that out there an idea as I'm sure of the women who choose adoption to handle crisis pregnancy are motivated by religious principles). As I said it was a minor concern that wouldn't have caused me to vote no and looking at the actual rates its not even that

As you say though this referendum isn't about this adoption as such but I thought part of the reasoning was why this is needed (apart from the obvious equality angle) is that the partnership agreements that exist currently have issues legal issues around a gay couples children (like in terms of death of a partner and so on?)

Edit: Anyway these issues could have been solved by a softening of the churches stance

jimboblep · 05-01-2015 09:28PM

from my own perspective, the weakness i see in the yes campaign is a presumption that people will vote yes.
we had a presentation from the LGBT society in college and all they talked about was how to register to vote, not one word on the positive reasons to vote yes or why people should vote yes and to be honest this presumption did annoy me.
I believe it is important that the supporters of this referendum start trying to reach the undecided, which i believe is what will sway the vote in the yes campaigns favour, just my two cents.

sheesh · 05-01-2015 09:51PM

jimboblep wrote: »

from my own perspective, the weakness i see in the yes campaign is a presumption that people will vote yes.
we had a presentation from the LGBT society in college and all they talked about was how to register to vote, not one word on the positive reasons to vote yes or why people should vote yes and to be honest this presumption did annoy me.
I believe it is important that the supporters of this referendum start trying to reach the undecided, which i believe is what will sway the vote in the yes campaigns favour, just my two cents.

Yeah there should be more put out about how this is to benefit fellow citizens in a practical way in ordering their lives, clearer legal definition of the relationship and the ability to be named next of kin and finally equality. emphasis on the civil nature of the change and how it is not impacting in any the religious marriage.

Baggy Trousers · 05-01-2015 09:55PM

I have an uncle who would absolutely endorse this leaflet.
I love having arguments with him but it's amazing how warped people can make themselves.
He now thinks if he brings me back to religion, he will get a superb seat in heaven.

mrsbyrne · 05-01-2015 09:57PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Hey, don't blame me because you are a la carte.

Yes . Your right. I really shouldn't be ignoring my religious leaders regular public instructions to commence stoning asap. I mean You hear it announced constantly ,so it's just me?

Baggy Trousers · 05-01-2015 09:59PM

The Bould Rabbit wrote: »

When is the gay wedding referendum?

Do we have to put up with this kind of tripe for the next few months?

May.

I heard that Enda is actually going to take part in the debate on this referendum. I think we might all be better off if he didn't bother.

bodice ripper · 05-01-2015 10:02PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Yes . Your right. I really shouldn't be ignoring my religious leaders regular public instructions to commence stoning asap. I mean You hear it announced constantly ,so it's just me?

Dude, don't get in my face because you are a la carte. I will take any bleating about religious people being described as thick with a massive pinch of salt, as there seems to be a free pass for religions talking **** about everything else.

that you are picking and choosing which tenants of your faith to believe is beyond the point.

Meangadh · 05-01-2015 10:16PM

It will never cease to amaze me why anyone would get themselves in a tizzy about what two consenting adults want do with their genitalia.

It will also never cease to amaze me why anyone would want to prevent a child from being adopted into a loving home where they will be cared for and given so much more in life than they would if they were left in whatever situation they are currently in.

I can only assume that the naysayers have f**k all else going on in their lives because I don't know about ye, but I have neither the time nor the energy to be worried about two men or two women wanting to live their lives like any other couple. I couldn't give less of a flip. I will say though that it would mean so much to my gay friends, and by association I would be delighted for them too.

Apathy aside though- when the referendum day comes, I will absolutely be voting, and anyone else who "doesn't care" should show that very feeling by voting for same sex marriage. Given the presence of people who will go about with leaflets like we're talking about here, it's absolutely of the utmost importance that as many as possible get out and vote. Don't assume this is safe.

mrsbyrne · 05-01-2015 10:16PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Dude, don't get in my face because you are a la carte. I will take any bleating about religious people being described as thick with a massive pinch of salt, as there seems to be a free pass for religions talking **** about everything else.

that you are picking and choosing which tenants of your faith to believe is beyond the point.

Im not a dude.
It's a tenet. Tenants rent property.
Here, read up about the tenets. No stoning.

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/tenets-of-catholicism.html

Muahahaha · 05-01-2015 10:20PM

hoodwinked wrote: »

in fact after reading through pages of documents so far all studies coming from america have shown a child raised with two same sex parents are indistinguishable from children raised by two heterosexual parents,

i think the overall consensus was no matter how many parents a child had as long as they were loved and secure they in general did better in life, so a single mother, or a child with two mothers, or two fathers was likely to do better than the child raised by a mother and father who didn't give that child love or security.

I've heard of these studies but havent yet have time to read them or how they draw conclusions on children of homosexual couples doing just as well as those as hetreosexual couples. Like its one thing to survey adopted kids when they're older and check how they did education wise, career wise, etc and come to the conclusion that everyone does the same. But I'm wondering do these these surveys ever look at minute details like two gay men raising a young girl and how well equipped they are at understanding her perspective as she goes through puberty, chnages in her body, hormone levels, attention from boys and (inevitably) dissappointment from boys, all those things that mothers have been dealing with for years. Thats the part I'm unsure of, I'm not saying that a two male gays can never manage such a child but it does appear to me that they are at a distinct disadvantage over a maternal influence who herself has gone through all the things a teenage girl will and therefore has a unique perspective that two gay males do not. I think psychologists would call it tacit knowledge, i.e. its the things a woman knows from her experience of being a woman.

Thats the part I'm not sure of. As stated before I'm not against the idea of gay couples adopting, I'm more so interested in being sure that adoption takes place from a child-centric point of view and it is always the childs best interests that are at the heart of it, not the couples, irrespective of their sexuality.

Calhoun · 05-01-2015 10:24PM

That leaflet is hilarious, don't know about any of you guys but regardless of sexual orientation hearing your parents having sex is not something and child regardless of age wants to hear.

Think the only answer is to ban sex, we need to go to a future demolition man type of virtual sex so the kids won't be harmed.

Artificial insemination for all.

And it begins... (bigot brigade anti-SSM leaflets) - ### Mod Warning in 1st Post ###

Comments