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

StewartGriffin wrote: »

It's called democracy, it's not perfect but it's about the best we as a species have come up with so far.

And please stop whining as if the LGBT community are treated as some downtrodden lower caste. They're not.

We're holding a referendum on same sex marriage so married gay people can have the same legal rights as married heterosexual people, it looks like it will pass very, very comfortably, we're not abolishing slavery here.

Obviously marriage is a fairly trivial issue, but its more the principle that there are STILL constitutional laws which treat certain people in our society different to others, its the fact that there isn't even equality at a state level that is the issue here. Marriage isn't that major of an issue. The marriage law just highlights the inequalities.

fran17 wrote: »

Firstly its not an idea it the cold hard truth of the matter.There is no religion which either condones or promotes homosexual activity.
A man to lie with another man is an abomination Lev 18:22.
To approach men with desire is to behave ignorantly Quran 4:16
Many people may be members of the church as it supports them by promoting celibacy for people with same sex attractions.The sin is to act on these attractions and to do so and also claim to be a practicing Christian is both offensive to the church and completely self destructive.To promote any other misconception can be highly damaging to an individuals well being.
The contempt and vilification that the faiths are received with in this forum completely nullifies that theory without the above.

Im gay and a practising Christian. Frankly I don't care, Im a good person and try to be the best person I can be. I treat others as I would like to be treated and thats my Christian ethos. I know that if gods real they'll respect that and not send me to a fiery death for eternity because of who I choose to go to bed with.I didn't choose to be attracted to males, so if its anyones fault its his. If gods as fair and wise a being as people think then he will send bigots who treat gay people like **** to hell and not homosexuals who are good people.

fran17 wrote: »

Firstly its not an idea it the cold hard truth of the matter.There is no religion which either condones or promotes homosexual activity.
A man to lie with another man is an abomination Lev 18:22.
To approach men with desire is to behave ignorantly Quran 4:16
Many people may be members of the church as it supports them by promoting celibacy for people with same sex attractions.The sin is to act on these attractions and to do so and also claim to be a practicing Christian is both offensive to the church and completely self destructive.To promote any other misconception can be highly damaging to an individuals well being.
The contempt and vilification that the faiths are received with in this forum completely nullifies that theory without the above.

Ah Leviticus. You do, of course, realise that posting anything from Leviticus means we also get to post from Leviticus? Because that's a whole barrel of crazy talk I'm more than happy to start delving into, because there's some real beauties in there.

fran17 wrote: »

Firstly its not an idea it the cold hard truth of the matter.There is no religion which either condones or promotes homosexual activity.
.

Here are four Christian religions who are pro-Gay.

Unitarian Universalist Association
United Church of Christ
Ecumenical Catholic Church
Metropolitan Community Church.

In case you were not aware of the existence of religions that do not owe their origins to a few Jewish nomads living in a Middle Eastern desert which pre-date Christianity you might be interested to learn the Mayans and the Aztecs both had specific gods of homosexuality before the Conquistadors arrived to tell them all about Jesus and slaughtered anyone who refused to believe.

Too far away - how about the Greeks? In their Pantheon Aphrodite was, among other things, the goddess of lesbianism.

Too ancient for you? How about the fact that the Dalai Lama has publicly stated his support for same-sex marriage.

Perhaps Buddhism is too exotic for you, you might prefer a more local religion like Wicca. Wiccans believe homosexuality is a healthy expression of human sexuality.

Maybe you will wish to dismiss the Dalai Lama as just one man (rather like the Pope is...) and Wicca is too decentralised to count as an actual religion due to not having any dedicated, constructed by humans, places of worship but in Taiwan - right now- there is a Taoist Temple dedicated to Tu Er Shen, a deity specifically dedicated to the love and affection between men.

But that's not really relevant to Ireland is it? Can't imagine we have many Taoists (although I do know a surprising large number of Wiccans...). We need some more 'normal', Something 'nice'. Something 'non-threatening'. Like the Vicar of Dibley... or rather the Bishop of Los Angeles. Her name is Mary Glasspool. She is an out lesbian. But that's L.A.... hardly Dibley is it. Brighton and Hove is more like it. In 2005 the Rev Debbie Gaston civil partnered with her girl friend of 16 years Elaine Gaston

Which brings us to various Anglican Communions.. openly bisexual bishop ordained in the Episcopal Church in 2003, Anglican Communion of New Zealand welcome non-celibate gay clergy, The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) love the gays - they issued a lengthy statement in 2013 saying so... The 'Mother church' of Anglicanism - The Church of England ordains gays, as does The Church of Scotland...

The Lutheran Church in Germany and Sweden not only condones homosexuality - they welcome sexually active gays into the clergy... AND since 2006 the Swedish Lutheran Church has been performing same-sex marriages...

I am not saying there is not debate or that every member of the religions named above are mad about the gays but the evidence is clear that your contention that There is no religion which either condones or promotes homosexual activity. is demonstrably false.





Have you ever considered carrying out some basic research before you post?

Moonriver99 wrote: »

I don't know why anyone would take away someones human rights to marry the person they love. About forty years ago, black people were treated appallingly and throughout history people have been isolated. Why do we still have backward people in our country. You think it's okay to decide the fate of someone who loves someone else? imagine being treated like you were nothing more then a waste of space. I'm sure there has been a time in your life when you were treated like you weren't good enough! Don't do it to gay people. Please I beg of you, as a fellow citizen, I'm not gay myself but I'd like to know in this recessionary time that we can all band together, be good people and not allow what we perceive to be normal cloud our judgement. In America, people use the argument that marriage is for procreation. It's not in fact a huge percentage of couples have no children. If you had to chose for a child to grow up with two loving gay parents or a nasty alcoholic mother and father which would you chose? Please try to be tolerant. Not every gay person who over the top, camp and annoying. They are people, human beings and they deserve your respect. I'm saying it to you personally cos I want to show you it's not all that bad.

Don't even waste your breath, anyone who specifically comes onto this thread to announce to us that they're now voting no because of how unfriendly gay people are to bigots who say cruel things to them was never going to vote yes in the first place.

Deleted User wrote: »

Its going to be a landslide YES vote

It will be a no vote if this keeps getting repeated.

fran17 wrote: »

There is no religion which either condones or promotes homosexual activity.

Oh Fran, you should read a little before you post such ill-informed things.

Homosexuality is condoned in very many religions, and in some it is even promoted. I suspect that you have limited your selection of religions very severely when you posted that little gem.

Also, quoting Leviticus as an indicator for Christianity is flawed. Leviticus was written in the era before Christ was born, and so is inherently un-Christian. Perhaps you should look at the New Testament books to see what Jesus said about loving one another before you waste your years obeying Leviticus, and consequently seeking to put gay people to death, or to punish people for wearing a fabric made of more than one material?

According to "what it say's in the papers" on RTE, Diarmuid Martin is reportedly considering asking the Gov't to include a "conscience" clause in the changed section on Marriage. I suppose he mean's this in the best possible interests of the average Christian (RC) citizen, while claiming "I did my best without interfering directly in the affairs of state", unless of course he's including peoples of other faiths here.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

There's one thing which I've noticed. The word Bigot, an insult which has been liberally thrown around this thread has a definition of a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief or opinion.

Could some of the majority Yes side on here be guilty of not accepting different beliefs and opinions? Argue and debate for sure but please don't try and shout down opponents with petty insults, sarcasm, and 'gang up em' tactics.

Discuss the issue like adults.

When someone's beliefs and opinions are that sections of our society should be treated unequally due to their sexual orientation, it shouldn't be accepted.

fran17 wrote: »

Once again Joey you are distorting and misrepresenting the issue in question.You have in the past went to great lengths to make me aware that a large percentage of lgbtq people do not engage in these sinful acts and these are who you are referring to when you speak of the faiths condoning such.There are many people struggling with sexuality issues who find compassion and the strength to abstain from acting on such thoughts in the church.However,there is no faith which condones sodomy.To make claims to the contrary only sets back any individual who is struggling with this matter.

I don't see how explaining to you sections of the Christian faith could be deemed as "hardline".Its all there in the Bible,but you always were a stickler for the dramatic.The churches teaching on sodomy is very clear and how an individual who is fighting that battle deals with it should not be used as a tool in a debate.I genuinely hope they find peace someday.But both issues cannot exist in harmony.

The real offensive thing here for me and all people of faith in this forum is not just the ignorance of the mob,as they will always exist,but the collusion of those who are deemed to know better.

Fran many many people of faith do not share your views whatsoever.

RobertKK wrote: »

Not religion but certain things were not allowed for Catholics like education, ban on buying land, ban on being in parliament, ban on being in the legal profession, plus lots more.

So much wrong with your understanding of events during the 17th century I don't know where to start..

On this quoted bit above, if this was as absolutely true as you maintain - explain Daniel O'Connell.

Highly educated member of a very wealthy, Catholic, landowning family. A barrister at Law who enrolled in Lincoln's Inn in 1794 and in 1796 transferred to King's Inn in Dublin...

Do you know what the drive behind the repeal of the Penal Laws in Ireland was?
It was to get the support of the Roman Catholic Church for the Act of Union.
That same Roman Catholic Church which granted control of Ireland to the English monarch in the 12th century (Henry II) and reaffirmed it in the 16th when it declared the Catholic Mary I as Regina Regnant of Ireland - Mary was delighted and started a piece of social engineering known as Plantations made a deal with Westminster to support the removal of any vestige of self-determination in Ireland.

Have a read of History Ireland - it has lashings of peer reviewed articles on topics that show the Nationalist Catholic version you are spouting is nowt but spin.

RobertKK wrote: »

I am voting no as it is what my conscience tells me. This comes from the following:
I come from a conservative background, and growing up there was no such thing as same sex marriage, no such thing was ever heard of same sex marriage being a right. For me marriage was always a man/woman thing.

It has nothing to do with hating people who are homosexual, I don't carry around hate for people, life is short enough than to be hating people when one should be looking after their own lives.

My parents were great, couldn't have had a better childhood or young adult life without them. They had a very strong faith which they passed on.
We are our own people, but I respect the generations who went before me. A lot of people turn their backs on what their parents taught them or tried to.
My parents didn't hate anyone and never taught anyone to hate anyone else for that matter. They didn't have a love for civil marriage either and that is for heterosexual people...I'm the same, I don't believe the state should have a role in marriage, which is something from recent centuries.

I also don't like being labelled, one Yes advocate called me a bigot for having traditional views of marriage. Then you see generalisations by some of No voters being homophobic. Like, why would one want to change sides when there is a lack of understanding.
A lot of No voters are simply people who simply believe marriage is a male/female thing, and it has nothing to do with hating anyone or denying some new found right or equality.
If the Yes side keep failing to understand this, then it is their problem.

So essentially what it boils down to is that because of a certain viewpoint you have on the issue, and because you're not comfortable with it, people shouldn't be allowed marry othe people of the same gender. And you don't see how people might have a problem with that?

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Maybe they just felt education was for protestants, not Catholics. Why wont you respect their beliefs?

Catholics could go to Protestant schools.