How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Ave Sodalis · 19-03-2015 11:07PM

lavdad wrote: »

Listen, if I'm outrageously wrong, then simply give me a valid argument as to why. You can't do that, because it contradicts your other position about how it's completely about what two people want and consent to, and what anybody else thinks is totally irrelevant.

Read the thread.

GLaDOS · 19-03-2015 11:08PM

Comparisons of homosexuality and paedophilia stop here

It's offensive, and it's trolling

Bans will be handed out if it continues

bb1234567 · 19-03-2015 11:09PM

lavdad wrote: »

Listen, if I'm outrageously wrong, then simply give me a valid argument as to why. You can't do that, because it contradicts your other position about how it's completely about what two people want and consent to, and what anybody else thinks is totally irrelevant.

Because a child would be emotionally and possibly physically harmed in the sexual activity. Children aren't physically, mentally or emotionally developed enough to engage in sexual activities. Gay adults over the age of consent are developed physically and mentally enough to engage in consensual sex. Im actually annoyed at myself for even responding to your posts.

aloyisious · 19-03-2015 11:15PM

Lavdad, I regret that you have not put up a decent argument against same-sex civil marriage. Even the church and the Iona Institute have dropped the paedophile argument, it has been debunked here so often. I'm left wondering why anyone capable of thinking of a good argument against same-sex civil marriage bothers dragging paedophilia again. It's a criminal offence to engage in paedophilia. Paedophile acts are rape of children. I hope that answers your question about the difference between it and homosexuality.

Your statement that homosexuals are not born that way, and are un-natural is just silly. I suggest that you spend some time, at least six (6) months working and living with homosexuals before you make any more statements on the topic. It might help you get a better evaluation on ho life works. If you have been "nurtured" into becoming gay at the end of that time, then I'll eat my hat.

Cody montana · 19-03-2015 11:19PM

Comparing gay marriage to child abuse is beyond insulting to gay people.

BoatMad · 19-03-2015 11:20PM

dont feed the troll people

LDN_Irish · 19-03-2015 11:20PM

Cody montana wrote: »

Comparing gay marriage to child abuse is beyond insulting to gay people.

And survivors of child abuse. Oh, and everyone else.

InTheTrees · 19-03-2015 11:22PM

lavdad wrote: »

Listen, if I'm outrageously wrong, then simply give me a valid argument as to why. You can't do that, because it contradicts your other position about how it's completely about what two people want and consent to, and what anybody else thinks is totally irrelevant.

Children cant give consent.

bodice ripper · 19-03-2015 11:24PM

Have lavdad's posts convinced any former no voters to vote yes because they are disgusted by the carry on of the no side?

No?

Shock horror.

bb1234567 · 19-03-2015 11:43PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Have lavdad's posts convinced any former no voters to vote yes because they are disgusted by the carry on of the no side?

No?

Shock horror.

lolz

shruikan2553 · 19-03-2015 11:43PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Have lavdad's posts convinced any former no voters to vote yes because they are disgusted by the carry on of the no side?

No?

Shock horror.

but because you didnt kiss his ass on the way out 5.2 people have changed to voting no supposedly.

Kiwi in IE · 19-03-2015 11:45PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Have lavdad's posts convinced any former no voters to vote yes because they are disgusted by the carry on of the no side?

No?

Shock horror.

S/he is definately not a good poster child for those who insist that being against equal marriage is not equivelant to bigotry, prejudice and homophobia either!

lavdad · 19-03-2015 11:56PM

In the comparison between allowing gay marriage and pedophilia I was playing devil's advocate in order to point out how many of society's moral objections are relative and non-rational. There is no objective evidence as to why homosexuality is morally wrong, just as there isn't any as to why the example of pedophilia I gave was morally wrong. What there are is social norms and rules, unwritten and otherwise, which we as humans we operate under as a collective species.

Throughout history human beings were primarily concerned with conforming to social norms, to the extent that any wayward impulses would simply be repressed in the individual. Now, a young, western person in the 21st century might look back on these times when things like homosexuality were heavily shunned, as being nothing more than an expression of bigotry and a sign of an underdeveloped social order. In truth these norms and restrictions were in place for a reason, so that humans could relate to one another in a clear way. It wasn't a matter of what was rational, it was a matter of giving humans the sense of security and structure as well as relatabilty with others, that they needed.

In the modern age however, we have been under the influence the myth of individualism, where everyone thinks of themselves as living lives dictated entirely by their individual will, and having little influence from and dependence from others, when in reality this is entirely untrue. As a result, there is a big disconnect and much disorder in the individual, within him/herself and in the way he/she relates to others. People are killing themselves at an alarming rate, and many people cannot even get up in the morning without taking psychiatric medication.

It truly is astounding how people like myself choosing to vote 'no' in an attempt to conserve those traditional values conductive to the good of society as a whole, are being bullied, persecuted and demonized as evil in this debate. Those doing so appear just as bigoted, if not more so, than those they are purporting to be condemning.

bodice ripper · 19-03-2015 11:59PM

No one has to demonize with you around.

bb1234567 · 20-03-2015 12:00AM

lavdad wrote: »

In the comparison between allowing gay marriage and pedophilia I was playing devil's advocate in order to point out how many of society's moral objections are relative and non-rational. There is no objective evidence as to why homosexuality is morally wrong, just as there isn't any as to why the example of pedophilia I gave was morally wrong. What there are is social norms and rules, unwritten and otherwise, which we as humans we operate under as a collective species.

Throughout history human beings were primarily concerned with conforming to social norms, to the extent that any wayward impulses would simply be repressed in the individual. Now, a young, western person in the 21st century might look back on these times when things like homosexuality were heavily shunned, as being nothing more than an expression of bigotry and a sign of an underdeveloped social order. In truth these norms and restrictions were in place for a reason, so that humans could relate to one another in a clear way. It wasn't a matter of what was rational, it was a matter of giving humans the sense of security and structure as well as relatabilty with others, that they needed.

In the modern age however, we have been under the influence the myth of individualism, where everyone thinks of themselves as living lives dictated entirely by their individual will, and having little influence from and dependence from others, when in reality this is entirely untrue. As a result, there is a big disconnect and much disorder in the individual, within him/herself and in the way he/she relates to others. People are killing themselves at an alarming rate, and many people cannot even get up in the morning without taking psychiatric medication.

It truly is astounding how people like myself choosing to vote 'no' in an attempt to conserve those traditional values conductive to the good of society as a whole, are being bullied, persecuted and demonized as evil in this debate. Those doing so appear just as bigoted, if not more so, than those they are purporting to be condemning.

He's still goin' folks..
What exactly is it you want? Do you want homosexuality to be banned again? You talk about alarming rates of suicide and depression in our society, but if homosexuality is suppressed you're going to see an alarming increase in rates of suicide and depression amongst the lgbt community!

shruikan2553 · 20-03-2015 12:01AM

lavdad wrote: »

In the comparison between allowing gay marriage and pedophilia I was playing devil's advocate in order to point out how many of society's moral objections are relative and non-rational. There is no objective evidence as to why homosexuality is morally wrong, just as there isn't any as to why the example of pedophilia I gave was morally wrong. What there are is social norms and rules, unwritten and otherwise, which we as humans we operate under as a collective species.

The only reason not to have sex with children is because it's against the law and there's no other reason for it?

lavdad wrote: »

It truly is astounding how people like myself choosing to vote 'no' in an attempt to conserve those traditional values conductive to the good of society as a whole, are being bullied, persecuted and demonized as evil in this debate. Those doing so appear just as bigoted, if not more so, than those they are purporting to be condemning.

Trying to play the victim might work better if you werent taking part if demonising and persecuting others.

Simi · 20-03-2015 12:02AM

lavdad wrote: »

In the comparison between allowing gay marriage and pedophilia I was playing devil's advocate in order to point out how many of society's moral objections are relative and non-rational. There is no objective evidence as to why homosexuality is morally wrong, just as there isn't any as to why the example of pedophilia I gave was morally wrong...

Pedophilia is morally wrong, because it is physically, emotionally and mentally damaging to a child, who is ill equipped to handle sexual contact because they are a CHILD! There, that's at least half a dozen times, this has been spelled out to you and you continue to ignore it.

BoatMad · 20-03-2015 12:04AM

forgive me I have to reply to this nonsense

lavdad wrote: »

In the comparison between allowing gay marriage and pedophilia I was playing devil's advocate in order to point out how many of society's moral objections are relative and non-rational. There is no objective evidence as to why homosexuality is morally wrong,

just as there isn't any as to why the example of pedophilia I gave was morally wrong. What there are is social norms and rules, unwritten and otherwise, which we as humans we operate under as a collective species.

The abuse of people who are not in a position to give unconstrained consent , i.e. children is wrong and is rightly criminalised. There is no comparison with the argument over the marriage referendum.

Throughout history human beings were primarily concerned with conforming to social norms, to the extent that any wayward impulses would simply be repressed in the individual. Now, a young, western person in the 21st century might look back on these times when things like homosexuality were heavily shunned, as being nothing more than an expression of bigotry and a sign of an underdeveloped social order. In truth these norms and restrictions were in place for a reason, so that humans could relate to one another in a clear way. It wasn't a matter of what was rational, it was a matter of giving humans the sense of security and structure as well as relatabilty with others, that they needed.

Nonsense logic, most " social norms " are the product of closed and inward looking societies that feared difference. This was a product of the medieval age.

In the modern age however, we have been under the influence the myth of individualism, where everyone thinks of themselves as living lives dictated entirely by their individual will, and having little influence from and dependence from others, when in reality this is entirely untrue. As a result, there is a big disconnect and much disorder in the individual, within him/herself and in the way he/she relates to others

.

whats we in this country are slowly realising is that there are diverse people and they have a right to live a normal life as anyone else. We used to ban women from the workplace, from owning property , from owning a bank account, was that correct , even in the context of the time , NO it was not.

People are killing themselves at an alarming rate, and many people cannot even get up in the morning without taking psychiatric medication.

What bearing has that on the argument,

It truly is astounding how people like myself choosing to vote 'no' in an attempt to conserve those traditional values

what " traditional" values , what tradition are you referring to, the one that abused children, disenfranished women and preached hate dressed up as religion,

conductive to the good of society as a whole, are being bullied, persecuted and demonized as evil in this debate. Those doing so appear just as bigoted, if not more so, than those they are purporting to be condemning.

inward and backward looking are not conductive to the good of society

WoolyJumper · 20-03-2015 12:04AM

lavdad wrote: »

just as there isn't any as to why the example of pedophilia I gave was morally wrong.

Wow lad, if you believe that then you need to take a good look at yourself before accusing others of being obscene and dysfunctional.

lavdad · 20-03-2015 12:07AM

Simi wrote: »

Pedophilia is morally wrong, because it is physically, emotionally and mentally damaging to a child, who is ill equipped to handle sexual contact because they are a CHILD! There, that's at least half a dozen times, this has been spelled out to you and you continue to ignore it.

No, I addressed the argument in response. I said that although some forms of sexual contact would me physically damaging to a child, others wouldn't and the only reason they would be "emotionally and mentally damaging to a child" is because of irrational social norms, the likes of which currently prohibit homosexuals from marrying. That was my argument and it is yet to be refuted.

Cody montana · 20-03-2015 12:10AM

lavdad wrote: »

In the comparison between allowing gay marriage and pedophilia I was playing devil's advocate in order to point out how many of society's moral objections are relative and non-rational. There is no objective evidence as to why homosexuality is morally wrong, just as there isn't any as to why the example of pedophilia I gave was morally wrong. What there are is social norms and rules, unwritten and otherwise, which we as humans we operate under as a collective species.

Throughout history human beings were primarily concerned with conforming to social norms, to the extent that any wayward impulses would simply be repressed in the individual. Now, a young, western person in the 21st century might look back on these times when things like homosexuality were heavily shunned, as being nothing more than an expression of bigotry and a sign of an underdeveloped social order. In truth these norms and restrictions were in place for a reason, so that humans could relate to one another in a clear way. It wasn't a matter of what was rational, it was a matter of giving humans the sense of security and structure as well as relatabilty with others, that they needed.

In the modern age however, we have been under the influence the myth of individualism, where everyone thinks of themselves as living lives dictated entirely by their individual will, and having little influence from and dependence from others, when in reality this is entirely untrue. As a result, there is a big disconnect and much disorder in the individual, within him/herself and in the way he/she relates to others. People are killing themselves at an alarming rate, and many people cannot even get up in the morning without taking psychiatric medication.

It truly is astounding how people like myself choosing to vote 'no' in an attempt to conserve those traditional values conductive to the good of society as a whole, are being bullied, persecuted and demonized as evil in this debate. Those doing so appear just as bigoted, if not more so, than those they are purporting to be condemning.

And this is the reason why people should vote yes.
It's scary that you can have a say in the outcome of this.
But that's democracy.

bb1234567 · 20-03-2015 12:11AM

lavdad wrote: »

No, I addressed the argument in response. I said that although some forms of sexual contact would me physically damaging to a child, others wouldn't and the only reason they would be "emotionally and mentally damaging to a child" is because of irrational social norms, the likes of which currently prohibit homosexuals from marrying. That was my argument and it is yet to be refuted.

You don't think paedophilia is emotionally and mentally damaging to a child? K lol. We'll listen to you in future instead of the countless psyhchologists who have studied it
Paedophilia is prohibited due to current and hopefully future social norms, they are rational and needed. Gay people cannot get married due to irrational past social norms, and hopefully this referendum will pass to show that these social norms no longer hold a place in society.

BoatMad · 20-03-2015 12:12AM

lavdad wrote: »

No, I addressed the argument in response. I said that although some forms of sexual contact would me physically damaging to a child, others wouldn't and the only reason they would be "emotionally and mentally damaging to a child" is because of irrational social norms, the likes of which currently prohibit homosexuals from marrying. That was my argument and it is yet to be refuted.

This is a classic case of a debating tactic known as reductio ad absurdum. The poster is attempting to connect by moral equivalence two distinctly different subjects, in an attempt to trap those that support homosexuality by comparing them to supporting child abuse.

It is a morally repugnant way of debating and has no place here

bodice ripper · 20-03-2015 12:14AM

lavdad wrote: »

No, I addressed the argument in response. I said that although some forms of sexual contact would me physically damaging to a child, others wouldn't and the only reason they would be "emotionally and mentally damaging to a child" is because of irrational social norms, the likes of which currently prohibit homosexuals from marrying. That was my argument and it is yet to be refuted.

You do know you are not so much arguing against SSM, as for paedophilia, right?

BoatMad · 20-03-2015 12:18AM

lavdad wrote: »

No, I addressed the argument in response. I said that although some forms of sexual contact would me physically damaging to a child, others wouldn't and the only reason they would be "emotionally and mentally damaging to a child" is because of irrational social norms, the likes of which currently prohibit homosexuals from marrying. That was my argument and it is yet to be refuted.

Just to rationalise out this argument for you

The abuse of children has long been a failure of many societies and it continues to this day, children like women, were long treated as second class citizens and regarded as disposable in certain circumstances.

to suggest that this practice was in some way a traditional " good" as you are suggesting , is immoral in the extreme , such treatment was always barbaric, it has taken the passage of time and the arrival of a much educated masses to see the truth.

simply because something was regarded as a social norm in the past, does not imbue it with respectability, slavery for example was always morally repugnant, even where it was allowed by laws to occur.

no veneer of history can justify your argument

BBJBIG · 20-03-2015 12:18AM

Yes - for the Gays.

No - for some snotty, just out of Diapers 21 year old for President. Jayzus - aren't things bad enough.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/mans-ear-bitten-off-in-st-patricks-day-attack-31078862.html

http://www.independent.ie/videos/irish-news/video-violent-fight-breaks-out-metres-from-children-enjoying-st-patricks-day-parade-31074249.html

I'll keep the Foooooookin Midget ...

Kiwi in IE · 20-03-2015 12:20AM

lavdad wrote: »

No, I addressed the argument in response. I said that although some forms of sexual contact would me physically damaging to a child, others wouldn't and the only reason they would be "emotionally and mentally damaging to a child" is because of irrational social norms, the likes of which currently prohibit homosexuals from marrying.

All sexual contact with a child is damaging. I'm not sure what you are getting at but your posts are sick, twisted and grossly offensive to anyone who has been a victim of sexual abuse.

aloyisious · 20-03-2015 12:26AM

@lavdad: so sorry, the law of the jungle (only the fittest survive) does not operate here, the laws of a thinking considerate public does. Homosexuals were not merely shunned, they were imprisoned for being homosexual (or sodomites, to use a biblical-likening) not merely repressed, and that was an advancement on earlier religious-based judgements.

I like your statement that the way homosexuals were treated was not rational, yet accord that as giving human beings security and structure, It's just a pity that it seem's almost like the older way of giving humans a sense of security and structure by executing and burning people alive if they weren't seen as fitting to the security of people (just without the brutality). It's a pity that that practice is now an almost daily event in other parts of the world carried out "rationally" to give people a sense of security and structure within a religious setting, while we in the west decry the practices as irrational.

K4t · 20-03-2015 12:30AM

c montgomery wrote: »

I was going to vote yes however now I'm voting no.

Pathetic. You can be homophobic, bigoted and prejudiced and still vote YES in this referendum or simply abstain. Voting NO out of spite is a sign of the most simplest of minds, and voting NO in general is rooted in the religious mentality of control and knowing best for others. I guess I've solidified your NO vote with this post so!

dublinman1990 · 20-03-2015 12:36AM

There is a overwhelming need for the rest of the youth's population of my generation who are in their early to mid 20's to go out and vote yes to this referendum.

As I was a young man growing up in Dublin; a lot of my cousins who live here would speak their minds and say that this is very wrong to do. They would come up in a somewhat aggressive manner to say to me not to go gay in the future. There are various examples that happened throughout my young life. I remember a time going about 9 years ago with my uncles, my cousin and his friends from school being driven back home from a meal out in a fast food restaurant. When my cousins dad and his brother went into a bookies for a few minutes to sort out a bet on the horses or whatever else; my cousin begins to ask me some personal questions about my own sexuality. I think OK this may or may not end well.

He asked me questions namely if I had a girlfriend, will I ever get one in the future to the point of asking me about my opinions on gay people will I ever go gay. My answer was really one of not knowing what to do or what to say in that situation. He then questioned me in more aggressive ways about the same thing about being gay over and over again. His friend said to him on lots of occasions to say to his mate it was best to leave him (me) alone and not to ask to him again. I thought his friend was very sensible in letting me relieve that sort of unneeded tension. It really was not any of his business for me to answer these type of questions.

Would he have the cheek to let me answer those questions to him again? The answer to that question is I really don't know. I would like to see his reaction if this referendum is to be passed. It may be priceless to look at the end of that decision.

From my own experience I didn't know about the word gay or homosexual until aged 11 or 12 years old in primary school. As I am in my mid 20's I should be able to say without fear or being shouted down from people who simply are uneducated on the subject that gay people are normal people like you or me and they deserve to be loved as they should deserve to be loved as anyone else.

I feel that it is not in my authority to deny someone their right to love each other. It is time for the Republic of Ireland to break the ranks of the past and say yes to this vote in May.

I have also learned a lot from reading the various posts on this thread and the various studies to back up the evidence of voting yes. Thanks for providing me that info.

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Comments