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

Bannasidhe · 23-03-2015 12:32AM

Flem31 wrote: »

As per my earlier comment, we have this obsession that the world monitors us.

There will be probably less than 1% of the world's population paying any attention to this vote. Now that's about 20 times the population of the 26 counties so that's a lot of people.
The people outside of Ireland paying attention are media and interested parties.

Really... funny that as every time same-sex marriage is introduced anywhere in the world my FB new feed lights up with shared rainbow flags and huzzah huzzah type comments (or at least I'm assuming that is what the comments using Arabic, Greek and Cyrillic alphabets are saying based on the smiley faces).

I understand what you are saying about a perception that we Irish are too concerned about what the world thinks of us but to be honest I think most of us - Enda an his cronies excepted - are far more concerned with what our next door neighbours think of us ...

However, because this is a controversial issue and because it is a public vote in what is perceived (even by itself) as a conservative country it will make global news especially if it passes. If it doesn't pass the world will shrug and say 'ah, Ireland. What did you expect? It's Catholic...still in the 19th century'. If it does pass people will say 'Wait! What??? Wow. Didn't think that would happen!' and then move on to the rest of their day having had their view of Ireland either confirmed or challenged.

What more do you want? A parade?

Flem31 · 23-03-2015 12:32AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Actually it's much more wider significance than that. It is the first country in the world where the entire nation is voting in a referendum to remove the ban on same sex marriage. America will be watching, Europe will be watching and you can guarantee it will be mentioned on Eurovision.

Some Americans and some Europeans.

RobertKK · 23-03-2015 12:34AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

All right, assuming you genuinely weren't attempting to compare homosexuality and pedophilia, do you not see in hindsight how the argument doesn't work as an argument against gay marriage? Firstly, it concerns adoption rather than marriage which is not the subject of this referendum, and secondly it could also be used as an argument against male/female marriage, which you seem to be in favor of on at least some level.

The government stated they would need to change adoption laws so if the referendum is passed, the laws would be the same for gay people who marry.
So the it is the referendum that is the catalyst for the change in adoption law and other changes that are being made.
People say people who adopt are vetted and the process is not easy.
One could argue with no changes this applies to single people who adopt, a single paedophile could go through this process, and maybe be successful in adopting a child.
But I would argue it would be similar to the church, 96% of known abuse happened outside the church, yet the media sensationalism would make one think the church was the main source for abuse.
People then would generalise with paedophile priests when talking about the church, might get angry with you if you said the vast vast majority of priests are good people. One would then get accused of making excuses for the church. This is my experience.
Let's say the same thing happens to gay people as happened to priests and a number of abuse cases appear by paedophiles who abused the system. You will get the same disgusting generalisation towards gay people as priests received and because there is a prejudice by some some towards gay people in that they have an irrational hatred. It will be history repeating and it will be innocent people that once again will get tarnished by people they equally are disgusted with.
There is not the same prejudice towards heterosexual couples or single people that would lead to the same reaction by some.
This comes from how I felt during the darkest days of the sex abuse scandals in the church, I remember sitting in my seat at church, the priest reading out a statement by the bishops. How child protection people have to be with children if alone with a priest. It felt at that time very dark, very sinister, you would be affected to the extent you would wonder even though you knew the priest was a good person.
I saw how people who hated the church used the sexual abuse as a weapon to beat the church with.
I don't want other people to go through that. Hatred of other people will not go away however anyone thinks society is progressing or will progress. There are always people who are there waiting to beat you if they believe they have something to beat you with.
In my life I try to avoid giving people the stick to use.
I think the change in the laws will unintentionally produce a stick that can be used in the future, not just here but elsewhere.
We still have people who hate people with a different skin colour, that is not going away, neither will homophobia, hatred of people who have different beliefs, looking down on people who are maybe poorer than oneself, hating people who made a success of their lives.
It is a sad world we live in that it is groups that are vulnerable that are the ones who are most taken advantage of.
That isn't going to change. I don't hate anyone, hate is like carrying around a weight, dragging one down, doing them no good when they should just be getting on with their lives and not concerning themselves with what others do.
I would be very happy with gay adoption and in the process less abortions given there are not enough children for those who want to adopt and so foreign adoption becomes an issue.
The state has a poor record when it comes to children, yet we are suppose to believe they can offer gay people the protection they deserve from people who will abuse the system.
I don't believe they can. The state is usually part of the problem and the people waiting with their sticks to beat gay people with, will be there acting all concerned, when they generalise and go over the top, like we saw some claim celibacy led to child abuse in the church. The church is an evil organisation. The generalised term of paedophile priests.
Rest assured there will be people waiting to do the same to gay people, and will be secretly happy while acting concerned when it does arise.
Some people are just waiting to beat others over something they are not responsible for.
It is fine for people to talk about rights, but it doesn't mean all it will bring is good things.
Too much reverence, respect and too willing to believe in good towards priests in the church was the perfect conditions for paedophiles.
Now people are afraid of being called homophobic, a bigot or whatever when it comes to gay people, lots if people feel they can't say stuff or it will be taken up wrong or as a hatred. Society is doing to gay people what they did to priests and that is not healthy.
I for example was wrongly accused of saying gay people were sexual abusers. This is why most people are afraid to say anything, and only anything positive is allowed.
I don't think it is healthy. If we care about people we have to discuss everything, bad stuff often happens to good people. Good people are more easily taken advantage than the person with bad intentions.
The yes side is all rosy and light. No one wants a proper debate it seems.
If we care about people we should discuss our concerns for them.

Annasopra · 23-03-2015 12:35AM

Flem31 wrote: »

Some Americans and some Europeans.

You carry on being an extreme pedant there. Meanwhile the rest of us knew what was meant.

StewartGriffin · 23-03-2015 12:38AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Actually what I would want would mean no need for a referendum and same sex couples could marry whether one agreed or not with it.
I mean marriage could be a religious event, it could be a humanist event or something in between.
I am fed up of people who feel they need the state to recognise their love. It is like for some they feel ' I need the state involved in my private life'.

I think this is the most enlightened post of the thread.

I also am a little puzzled at how people of all leanings crave the recognition of a state or Church to validate their relationship. I do understand the legal argument of inheritance, etc., but surely these contracts could be easily sorted with a solicitor. (Greedy bstrd they are, but cheaper than a standard wedding).

Kiwi in IE · 23-03-2015 12:47AM

RobertKK wrote: »

The government stated they would need to change adoption laws so if the referendum is passed, the laws would be the same for gay people who marry.
So the it is the referendum that is the catalyst for the change in adoption law and other changes that are being made.
People say people who adopt are vetted and the process is not easy.
One could argue with no changes this applies to single people who adopt, a single paedophile could go through this process, and maybe be successful in adopting a child.
But I would argue it would be similar to the church, 96% of known abuse happened outside the church, yet the media sensationalism would make one think the church was the main source for abuse.
People then would generalise with paedophile priests when talking about the church, might get angry with you if you said the vast vast majority of priests are good people. One would then get accused of making excuses for the church. This is my experience.
Let's say the same thing happens to gay people as happened to priests and a number of abuse cases appear by paedophiles who abused the system. You will get the same disgusting generalisation towards gay people as priests received and because there is a prejudice by some some towards gay people in that they have an irrational hatred. It will be history repeating and it will be innocent people that once again will get tarnished by people they equally are disgusted with.
There is not the same prejudice towards heterosexual couples or single people that would lead to the same reaction by some.
This comes from how I felt during the darkest days of the sex abuse scandals in the church, I remember sitting in my seat at church, the priest reading out a statement by the bishops. How child protection people have to be with children if alone with a priest. It felt at that time very dark, very sinister, you would be affected to the extent you would wonder even though you knew the priest was a good person.
I saw how people who hated the church used the sexual abuse as a weapon to beat the church with.
I don't want other people to go through that. Hatred of other people will not go away however anyone thinks society is progressing or will progress. There are always people who are there waiting to beat you if they believe they have something to beat you with.
In my life I try to avoid giving people the stick to use.
I think the change in the laws will unintentionally produce a stick that can be used in the future, not just here but elsewhere.
We still have people who hate people with a different skin colour, that is not going away, neither will homophobia, hatred of people who have different beliefs, looking down on people who are maybe poorer than oneself, hating people who made a success of their lives.
It is a sad world we live in that it is groups that are vulnerable that are the ones who are most taken advantage of.
That isn't going to change. I don't hate anyone, hate is like carrying around a weight, dragging one down, doing them no good when they should just be getting on with their lives and not concerning themselves with what others do.
I would be very happy with gay adoption and in the process less abortions given there are not enough children for those who want to adopt and so foreign adoption becomes an issue.
The state has a poor record when it comes to children, yet we are suppose to believe they can offer gay people the protection they deserve from people who will abuse the system.
I don't believe they can. The state is usually part of the problem and the people waiting with their sticks to beat gay people with, will be there acting all concerned, when they generalise and go over the top, like we saw some claim celibacy led to child abuse in the church. The church is an evil organisation. The generalised term of paedophile priests.
Rest assured there will be people waiting to do the same to gay people, and will be secretly happy while acting concerned when it does arise.
Some people are just waiting to beat others over something they are not responsible for.
It is fine for people to talk about rights, but it doesn't mean all it will bring is good things.
Too much reverence, respect and too willing to believe in good towards priests in the church was the perfect conditions for paedophiles.
Now people are afraid of being called homophobic, a bigot or whatever when it comes to gay people, lots if people feel they can't say stuff or it will be taken up wrong or as a hatred. Society is doing to gay people what they did to priests and that is not healthy.
I for example was wrongly accused of saying gay people were sexual abusers. This is why most people are afraid to say anything, and only anything positive is allowed.
I don't think it is healthy. If we care about people we have to discuss everything, bad stuff often happens to good people. Good people are more easily taken advantage than the person with bad intentions.
The yes side is all rosy and light. No one wants a proper debate it seems.
If we care about people we should discuss our concerns for them.

Robert, should heterosexual marriage be banned because heterosexual couples have sexually abused and exploited children within those marriages?

RobertKK · 23-03-2015 12:58AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Robert, should heterosexual marriage be banned because heterosexual couples have sexually abused and exploited children within those marriages?

I dealt with that in my post you quoted. I am not talking about heterosexual or homosexual abusers.

Flem31 · 23-03-2015 01:02AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Really... funny that as every time same-sex marriage is introduced anywhere in the world my FB new feed lights up with shared rainbow flags and huzzah huzzah type comments (or at least I'm assuming that is what the comments using Arabic, Greek and Cyrillic alphabets are saying based on the smiley faces).

I understand what you are saying about a perception that we Irish are too concerned about what the world thinks of us but to be honest I think most of us - Enda an his cronies excepted - are far more concerned with what our next door neighbours think of us ...

However, because this is a controversial issue and because it is a public vote in what is perceived (even by itself) as a conservative country it will make global news especially if it passes. If it doesn't pass the world will shrug and say 'ah, Ireland. What did you expect? It's Catholic...still in the 19th century'. If it does pass people will say 'Wait! What??? Wow. Didn't think that would happen!' and then move on to the rest of their day having had their view of Ireland either confirmed or challenged.

What more do you want? A parade?

Is your FB feeds from interested parties or does it include others for whom the matter doesn't impact them ?

IMO, by world standards I don't believe we are considered as a conservative country as there are far more intolerant nasty regimes in the world. We are conservative by western standards and have many gaps in our approach towards a truly fair society but we are getting there very slowly.

I also believe that this referendum is not as controversial as it would have been say 5 years ago and partly because some European countries have implemented it before us and if getting it passed was in doubt, Enda would have delayed it until after the next election. He already has two failed referendums behind him already.
The only unique aspect from a world viewpoint is that we are voting.

If we were the first European country to pass this, then yes the world would notice it, but unfortunately like in so many things, we have to wait for someone else braver to take the first step.

Now if we wanted to be controversial at least in our country, we would finally decide to put the right to life\right to choose question to a referendum.

Re your parade comment.......wouldn't be surprised if there was one when this passes. And I do hope it passes as it may indirectly start the ball rolling on another inequality but that's for another thread

Flem31 · 23-03-2015 01:06AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You carry on being an extreme pedant there. Meanwhile the rest of us knew what was meant.

Why is amending your exaggeration such a issue for you, just helping you afterall

marienbad · 23-03-2015 01:08AM

Flem31 wrote: »

Is your FB feeds from interested parties or does it include others for whom the matter doesn't impact them ?

IMO, by world standards I don't believe we are considered as a conservative country as there are far more intolerant nasty regimes in the world. We are conservative by western standards and have many gaps in our approach towards a truly fair society but we are getting there very slowly.

I also believe that this referendum is not as controversial as it would have been say 5 years ago and partly because some European countries have implemented it before us and if getting it passed was in doubt, Enda would have delayed it until after the next election. He already has two failed referendums behind him already.
The only unique aspect from a world viewpoint is that we are voting.

If we were the first European country to pass this, then yes the world would notice it, but unfortunately like in so many things, we have to wait for someone else braver to take the first step.

Now if we wanted to be controversial at least in our country, we would finally decide to put the right to life\right to choose question to a referendum.

Re your parade comment.......wouldn't be surprised if there was one when this passes. And I do hope it passes as it may indirectly start the ball rolling on another inequality but that's for another thread

The fact that is a referendum should not be underestimated- that is what makes it an international story rather than a one liner.

Flem31 · 23-03-2015 01:11AM

marienbad wrote: »

The fact that is a referendum should not be underestimated- that is what makes it an international story rather than a one liner.

Only time will tell

Kiwi in IE · 23-03-2015 01:13AM

RobertKK wrote: »

I dealt with that in my post you quoted. I am not talking about heterosexual or homosexual abusers.

Can you point put where?

Your argument (presently) seems to be that equal marriage should not be allowed because if an LGBT couple marry and then abuse a child they have adopted, people might think all LGBT people are paedophiles. Do people currently think all heterosexual couples are paedophiles because some sexually abuse and exploit their adopted, fostered or biological children? No? Well there goes that argument!

Annasopra · 23-03-2015 01:24AM

Flem31 wrote: »

Why is amending your exaggeration such a issue for you, just helping you afterall

Still on a pedantic roll?

StewartGriffin · 23-03-2015 01:25AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Can you point put where?

Your argument (presently) seems to be that equal marriage should not be allowed because if an LGBT couple marry and then abuse a child they have adopted, people might think all LGBT people are paedophiles. Do people currently think all heterosexual couples are paedophiles because some sexually abuse and exploit their adopted, fostered or biological children? No? Well there goes that argument!

No, it's very clear if you read what he says. His point is that a male paedo ring have used the cover of being married men to smuggle children through borders. The assumption being that if two men having a child was not the norm, they would be questioned about the child.

A thought provoking point.

People throughout history have been persecuted for thought provoking points.

WoolyJumper · 23-03-2015 01:28AM

Almost every step leading to this referendum made it onto international newspapers. The results of constitutional convention, the announcement that a referendum will be held, the year it would be held, that it was pushed back to 2015, Leo Varadkar coming out, the wording of the referendum, the exact date of the referendum. Any time there is news around this I look to see if it has been reported internationally (why? because i'm a nerd) and it has.

So don't under estimate how much attention is on Ireland over this. It's a big deal because we are voting on the issue and because Ireland still has the reputation of being a conservative catholic country.

RobertKK · 23-03-2015 01:42AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Can you point put where?

Your argument (presently) seems to be that equal marriage should not be allowed because if an LGBT couple marry and then abuse a child they have adopted, people might think all LGBT people are paedophiles. Do people currently think all heterosexual couples are paedophiles because some sexually abuse and exploit their adopted, fostered or biological children? No? Well there goes that argument!

It was stated in terms of prejudice, it doesn't exist for heterosexual couples or single people.

marienbad · 23-03-2015 01:44AM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

No, it's very clear if you read what he says. His point is that a male paedo ring have used the cover of being married men to smuggle children through borders. The assumption being that if two men having a child was not the norm, they would be questioned about the child.

A thought provoking point.

People throughout history have been persecuted for thought provoking points.

No it is not , it is just far fetched scaremongering . And don't bother trawling the net to find that ''one case''.

Kiwi in IE · 23-03-2015 01:48AM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

No, it's very clear if you read what he says. His point is that a male paedo ring have used the cover of being married men to smuggle children through borders. The assumption being that if two men having a child was not the norm, they would be questioned about the child.

A thought provoking point.

People throughout history have been persecuted for thought provoking points.

As Robert pointed out many paedophiles used the Catholic church to gain access to children and abuse them. Should we therefore ban the Catholic church? Or the boyscouts? Or schools? Makes as much sense as denying all LGBT people equal rights because some male paedophiles used a marriage as a cover to assist the activities of a paedophile ring.

Kiwi in IE · 23-03-2015 01:53AM

RobertKK wrote: »

It was stated in terms of prejudice, it doesn't exist for heterosexual couples or single people.

Oh right, so people should vote against equal marriage to protect LGBT people from prejudice?

StewartGriffin · 23-03-2015 02:12AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have no interest in RobertK's boner glistening in the sunshine (whatever you're into I suppose, none of my business),

Hey, I only got that now, that is kinda funny.:D

StewartGriffin · 23-03-2015 02:24AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm planning on lying in the gutter and looking at the stars.

Push over, You're in my mud!:)

Nodin · 23-03-2015 07:18AM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

No, it's very clear if you read what he says. His point is that a male paedo ring have used the cover of being married men to smuggle children through borders. The assumption being that if two men having a child was not the norm, they would be questioned about the child.

A thought provoking point.

People throughout history have been persecuted for thought provoking points.

The overwhelming majority of paedophilia is carried out by married heterosexuals, yet I can't see any surge to ban straight marriage.

Shrap · 23-03-2015 09:19AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Hopefully we have seen the last of this and it has no influence on younger generations.
........ It made me feel hopeful and optimistic about future generations.

Well, to cheer you on, my eldest is raging that he can't vote yet but posted this to his FB page with a link to checking the voting register. "Can't tag all my over 18 mates but whoever sees this should indeed vote Will do absolutely no harm whatsoever! And if there's anyone on my friends list who does think it'll do harm, you shouldn't be on my friends list.."

We live in rural Ireland, and his school has two "out" teachers, one of whom is the most caring and popular teacher in the school and is the year head for 6th yr. - His concern and support for young adults under pressure is phenomenal. I doubt if there's less than a 95% yes vote among the 6th year - if it doesn't pass this time, these future voters will want to know why.

tigger123 · 23-03-2015 09:34AM

Shrap wrote: »

Well, to cheer you on, my eldest is raging that he can't vote yet but posted this to his FB page with a link to checking the voting register. "Can't tag all my over 18 mates but whoever sees this should indeed vote Will do absolutely no harm whatsoever! And if there's anyone on my friends list who does think it'll do harm, you shouldn't be on my friends list.."

We live in rural Ireland, and his school has two "out" teachers, one of whom is the most caring and popular teacher in the school and is the year head for 6th yr. - His concern and support for young adults under pressure is phenomenal. I doubt if there's less than a 95% yes vote among the 6th year - if it doesn't pass this time, these future voters will want to know why.

That's fantastic. It really warms my heart to see how open and accepting young people are these days.

floggg · 23-03-2015 09:42AM

fran17 wrote: »

So who are most no voters then?
To be honest your hot coffee analogy is ridiculous,it's the same as claiming that this referendum is simply about exchanging rings and cutting a cake.
And this little old lady you don't seem to mind being abused has more right than any of use to vote no in this referendum.She and hundreds of thousands like her made this country what it is today.A life based on Christian values she raised her family with her husband.Every child in this country has a right to a mother and father figure in their lives to give them the balance and support needed to develop just as nature intended.That unfortunately doesn't happen in some cases naturally but to legislate and create a manmade circumstance for this is wrong and immoral.And that is what this referendum,if passed,will do.Redefine the family for some deluded perception of equality.

1. She isn't being abused. Her reasoning and motives are being challenged. That is not abuse - its political discourse. If her reasoning and motives cannot stand up to scrutiny, then it is her reasoning and motives which are at fault - not those debating them.

2. The fact that she may have contributed to the development of the economy or the nation doesn't give her the right to deny equality to others.

Also what about the many negative contributions her repressive and prejudicial reasoning and way of viewing family life and sexual orientation have made to the nation and our society (as to which, see the letter referred to at No. 3 below).

3. What about the gay men and women of a similar age who have also contributed greatly to the economy and the nation? Who is she to deny them equality?

Read this letter and tell me she is entitled to deny the author equality because of her "contributions" to society - http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/at-60-and-gay-i-can-dream-letter-to-the-editor-31085474.html

4. Can you please evidence what this balance is, and why it is important/beneficial? Can you also let us know what it is you know that the over whelming majority of academics who have considered this issue aren't aware of?

5. What exactly is it that children of same sex couples are lacking?

6. Sonics2k recently did an AMA on being raised by two mothers. Who are you to tell him the loving home he was raised in wasn't ideal, or lacking?

7. Same sex couples are already raising children and will continue to do so regardless of the result. The referendum doesn't legislate for this - it simply changes how the parents relationships is viewed as a matter of law.

8. Divorce is also a situation where we legislate for a man made scenario where children wouldn't be raised by a "mother and father figure." Do you believe divorce legislation should be repealed?

Surely being raised by two parents of the same sex is beneficial to being raised by one? So why prohibit the former if we allow parents to choose the latter.

9. Why do we as a society permit sex outside of marriage if the raising of children outside of a traditional family structure is so undesirable?

Annasopra · 23-03-2015 09:55AM

Shrap wrote: »

Well, to cheer you on, my eldest is raging that he can't vote yet but posted this to his FB page with a link to checking the voting register. "Can't tag all my over 18 mates but whoever sees this should indeed vote Will do absolutely no harm whatsoever! And if there's anyone on my friends list who does think it'll do harm, you shouldn't be on my friends list.."

We live in rural Ireland, and his school has two "out" teachers, one of whom is the most caring and popular teacher in the school and is the year head for 6th yr. - His concern and support for young adults under pressure is phenomenal. I doubt if there's less than a 95% yes vote among the 6th year - if it doesn't pass this time, these future voters will want to know why.

When is he 18? Anyone who is 18 on or before referenfum day can vote.

aloyisious · 23-03-2015 09:55AM

Am listening to David Quinn and Colm O'Gorman debating the proposal to put a conscience clause into any changes so that a business with religious beliefs can refuse service to LGBT folk. It's on RTE's radio 1 news.

Re the voting issue, you can register your name to vote before you are 18. It's not voting, so he can do it. Get him to his local Garda station with photo I/D (passport) and a (business) letter bearing his name and address, get the form filled, signed and stamped by a member there, then get it to your local council to get him on the supplementary register of electors.

floggg · 23-03-2015 10:04AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Y'know, all this stereotyping of your 'typical' no voter kinda tends to miss the point that the same attitudes will still be there in society no matter what happens come referendum day. For many more people, I suspect the reason they will vote no to marriage equality for LGBT people is simply - because they can. That's all the reason they need. It doesn't have to be based on a religious or social war or anything else.

It's simply based on the fact that they feel they're now the people being ignored and excluded from society, and they're getting pissed off about it, so while everyone thought Ireland was lovely and welcoming and modern society and all the rest of it, I still see examples of the kind of frustration with being ignored that breeds an irrational hatred towards people who they perceive are being treated better in society than them, and so you get posters like this -

NSFW

http://omg.wthax.org/56Emmk.jpg

This is why I think sometimes on the Internet people can tend to be misled into a false sense of power, which feeds into the group think, that they have the referendum result in the bag, and so they can abuse "no" voters, because "yes" voters are in the majority, apparently.

I don't want to see families and friends split by this referendum, so instead of going after people who are voting no, and suggesting that nobody has come up with a valid reason why they're voting no... How about we give people enough reasons to vote "yes" instead?

That way at least, when we show people that we understand them and their concerns, they're more likely to be amenable to supporting us and our concerns. That's how a society is supposed to work - together!

Or, I dunno, we could just continue to put our head in the clouds and ignore other people, then expect them to support us, when we previously turned our backs on them.

You see, we don't understand concerns about gay people being harmful to children, or incapable of raising them, or our relationships being unnatural, unequal or undeserving - and to pretend we do gives them an undeserved legitimacy.

Would you suggest that a black man show the KKK that he understands their concerns - or the KKK to be swayed by from their position of he told them their fears were understandable?

floggg · 23-03-2015 10:32AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Sorry, but what you state isn't Christian.

Child abuse is not Christian.
Selling children is not Christian.
Homosexuality is not a crime in Christianity, it was and is in law in some countries. The bible states homosexual sex is a sin, not the homosexual.

The way you put it, it would be like using the Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao, or Cambodia under Pol Pot to describe what a state run by an atheist would be like.
That would be wrong, what you describe as Christian is wrong.

While they may not be "christian", with the exception of child sexual abuse (which is the result of opportunity rather than doctrinal teachings) most of those things appear to be inevitable and unfortunaue results of the practice and teachings of Christianity in practically every country in which it is the dominant religion.

It's only as we begin to abandon religion that we are able to reject those prejudices.

So while we can point to many examples of secular democratic states which haven't debolved into repressive dictatorships, how many examples of christian States which have traditionally offered protection and acceptance to those who don't conform to its demands.

PS - homosexuality is contrary to canon law and traditional punishable by various sanctions, not to mention the whole punishment by death prescribed by the bible. So don't pretend that Christianity is all lovey Dovey and doesn't require harm to be done to anybody.

Unless of course we are to ignore Leviticus - in which cases shouldn't we ignore it all, including the parts condemning homosexuality, and not just the parts calling for my death? Or is it only those parts which make God look like a dick we can ignore as and when suits our argument?

Not to mention of course the man christian organisations which campaigned against the decriminalisation of homosexuality, divorce, women's equality etc.

Kiwi in IE · 23-03-2015 10:44AM

If I were in a hypothetical scenario where I had to choose adoptive parents for my biological child, the gender and sexual orientation of perspective couples would be a complete non issue. Very religious couples however would not be considered, as I don't believe that a household with very religious parents is an ideally healthy environment for a child. These are my beliefs. Should I be campaigning to ban very religious couples from adopting because they are my beliefs? If I were to do so should I expect my beliefs to be 'respected' and unchallenged? Should I consider any challenge to my prejudice actions as 'discrimination'? Of course I shouldn't all of the above would be ridiculous behaviour!

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

Comments