Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

1…147148150152153…218

Comments

  • #4472
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    It seemed to me that a lot of posters actively supporting gay marriage wanted to take a pop at the conservative Christian point of view, that didn't readily accord with their expectation of a liberal Christian environment in here, along with an automatic YES vote.


  • #4473
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    J C wrote: »
    ... and its not just about homosexuality ... but the redefinition of marriage ... which could have all kinds of ramifications for the Church Ministers who conduct the vast majority of civil and religious weddings in this country.

    And how would affect them? Nobody would force them to be involved in celebrating or solemnising same sex marriage. It need have no effect on them whatsoever.


  • #4474
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    Was that the spreadsheet ... that showed that it could all be done by legal amendments?

    If it wasn't that link ... please provide it again as the transfer to this thread hasn't included all posts on the archbishop thread after a certain point.

    That's the one. In theory yes. The legislation could be done, go through the process and then same sex couples could be married.

    The problem is it could be contested. The referendum makes it done and dusted. Once it's in the constitution it is there until another referendum is done to remove it.


  • #4475
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    steamengine wrote: »
    It seemed to me that a lot of posters wanted to take a pop at the conservative Christian point of view, that didn't readily accord with their expectation of a liberal Christian environment in here, along with an automatic YES vote.

    It seems to most YES posters here are simply questioning the very idea that the Christian viewpoint has anything whatsoever to do with the upcoming referendum.


  • #4476
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    katydid wrote: »
    And how would affect them? Nobody would force them to be involved in celebrating or solemnising same sex marriage. It need have no effect on them whatsoever.
    How do you know that? ... if somebody can be prosecuted for not decorating a cake for a gay union why not a minister who might refuse to marry them?


  • Advertisement
  • #4477
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    J C wrote: »
    How do you know that? ... if somebody can be prosecuted for not decorating a cake for a gay union why not a minister who might refuse to marry them?

    It hasn't happened post divorce, why should it happen with this?


  • #4478
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    J C wrote: »
    How do you know that? ... if somebody can be prosecuted for not decorating a cake for a gay union why not a minister who might refuse to marry them?
    Because a baker doesn't have a get out clause that the baking profession is against homosexual marriage.


  • #4479
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    katydid wrote: »
    It seems to most YES posters here are simply questioning the very idea that the Christian viewpoint has anything whatsoever to do with the upcoming referendum.

    So why the obsession with posting on a forum which has so little to do with the referendum ?


  • #4480
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    That's the one. In theory yes. The legislation could be done, go through the process and then same sex couples could be married.
    Why do they need to be married, in the first place ... I'm still asking the question why we need to redfine marriage if all that is needed is equality of Civil Partnerships before the law
    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    The problem is it could be contested. The referendum makes it done and dusted. Once it's in the constitution it is there until another referendum is done to remove it.
    ... so we're being asked to insert a amendment instead with nobody knowing what unintended consequences might result ... and a requirement for another amendment if this happens.
    Why not go the legislative route first ... and amend the constitution, if this doesn't work out on something that everyone agrees is a serious issue ...

    ... and not some vague idea of 'equality' ... that might end up having totoally different effects to what everyone thinks it will have.


  • #4481
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    steamengine wrote: »
    So why the obsession with posting on a forum which has so little to do with the referendum ?
    Um, because posters are starting threads trying to conflate the two.


  • Advertisement
  • #4482
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    J C wrote: »
    Why do they need to be married, in the first place ... I'm still asking the question why we need to redfine marriage if all that is needed is equality of Civil Partnerships before the law

    ... so we're being asked to insert a amendment instead with nobody knowing what unintended consequences might result ... and a requirement for another amendment if this happens.
    Why not go the legislative route first ... and amend the constitution, if this doesn't work out on something that everyone agrees is a serious issue ...

    ... and not some vague idea of 'equality' ... that might end up having totoally different effects to what everyone thinks it will have.

    Why does anyone want/need to be married :confused:


  • #4483
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    katydid wrote: »
    Because a baker doesn't have a get out clause that the baking profession is against homosexual marriage.
    ... and will a Minister of religion have such a 'get out clause' when the ink dries on this amendment?

    ... and does it matter if the 'baking profession' (whatever that is) is/isn't against homosexual marriage or anything else, if an individual baker doesn't want to do it ... why not get somebody else who will?

    That would be the liberal approach ... to not ask anybody to do anything that they have a conscientious objection to ... and go get somebody to do it, that doesn't.


  • #4484
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    J C wrote: »
    ... and will a Minister of religion have such a 'get out clause' when the ink dries on this amendment?

    ... and does it matter if the 'baking profession' (whatever that is) is/isn't against homosexual marriage or anything else, if an individual baker doesn't want to do it ... why not get somebody else who will?

    That would be the liberal approach ... to not ask anybody to do anything that they have a conscientious objection to ... and go get somebody to do it, that doesn't.
    Of course a minister of religion would have a get out clause. Their employer has made it clear for centuries that they are against this. No employee has the option of going against this policy.


  • #4485
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    J C wrote: »
    ... and will a Minister of religion have such a 'get out clause' when the ink dries on this amendment?

    ... and does it matter if the 'baking profession' (whatever that is) is/isn't against homosexual marriage or anything else, if an individual baker doesn't want to do it ... why not get somebody else who will?

    That would be the liberal approach ... to not ask anybody to do anything that they have a conscientious objection to ... and go get somebody to do it, that doesn't.

    Why do you think this will be an issue? Not one group has come forward to say that if the referendum is passed that they will try and force the church to perform same sex weddings. That is not the aim of the Yes campaign. When divorce became legal no couple or group tried to force the church to accept second weddings did they? Why would it happen here?


  • #4486
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Why does anyone want/need to be married :confused:
    Everybody has their own reasons, I guess.
    ... and many don't wish to marry at all.

    Society has the right to define marriage as it sees fit ... and any 'equality' issues between marriage and other domestic contractual situations can easily be addressed via Civil Partnership legislation.


  • #4487
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    J C wrote: »
    Everybody has their own reasons, I guess.
    ... and many don't wish to marry at all.

    Society has the right to define marriage as it sees fit ... and any 'equality' issues between marriage and other domestic contractual situations can easily be addressed via Civil Partnership legislation.

    But CP isn't marriage. Its nearly there but not quite and its the principal of the thing. If a union is good enough to be classed as like marriage then why not let it be called marriage and given all the legal recognition marriage is? Why try and reframe it?


  • #4488
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    Why do they need to be married, in the first place ...

    The same reason as everyone else.
    J C wrote: »
    I'm still asking the question why we need to redfine marriage if all that is needed is equality of Civil Partnerships before the law

    If me and my girlfriend marry tomorrow or in June what will be the difference in our marriage? Everyone's marriage will be the same except now a few more people can join in.

    If civil partnerships will be the same as marriage why not just call it marriage? For civil partnerships to be equal they need to be added to the constitution anyway.
    J C wrote: »
    ... so we're being asked to insert a amendment instead with nobody knowing what unintended consequences might result ... and a requirement for another amendment if this happens.

    Why have any referendum?
    J C wrote: »
    Why not go the legislative route first ... and amend the constitution, if this doesn't work out on something that everyone agrees is a serious issue ...

    ... and not some vague idea of 'equality' ... that might end up having totoally different effects to what everyone thinks it will have.

    The same people who are campaigning against SSM were also the people against civil partnerships and tried what they could to stop it.

    The only vagueness are these consequences that luckily nobody has any idea of.


  • #4489
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    J C wrote: »

    Society has the right to define marriage as it sees fit.

    And if our society decides to define it as something that is a right for all couples...will you accept that?


  • #4490
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Why do you think this will be an issue? Not one group has come forward to say that if the referendum is passed that they will try and force the church to perform same sex weddings. That is not the aim of the Yes campaign. When divorce became legal no couple or group tried to force the church to accept second weddings did they? Why would it happen here?
    I haven't heard of a baker being prosecuted for not providing a cake for a second wedding ... but it has happened with a same sex one.
    ... so I don't see any reason why a Minister could not be prosecuted ... or have his civil solemnising rights revoked.
    There is no conscience clause proposed ... so Ministers of Religion will be 'wide open' to prosecution ... whatever the 'yes' campaign may say, they are not the law on the matter.


  • #4491
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    katydid wrote: »
    Um, because posters are starting threads trying to conflate the two.

    That thread is closed, I thought it would be time to cut and run, or is the allure of hanging around with Christians just too much to resist ? :D


  • Advertisement
  • #4492
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    steamengine wrote: »
    That thread is closed, I thought it would be time to cut and run, or is the allure of hanging around with Christians just too much to overcome ? :D

    I AM a Christian. Just not a deluded one.


  • #4493
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    katydid wrote: »
    And if our society decides to define it as something that is a right for all couples...will you accept that?
    As a democrat, I'll accept whatever society defines civil marriage as ... and I expect every other democrat to do the same.


  • #4494
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    katydid wrote: »
    I AM a Christian. Just not a deluded one.

    We have something in common then apart from the Christianity. :)


  • #4495
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    J C wrote: »
    I haven't heard of a baker being prosecuted for not providing a cake for a second wedding ... but it has happened with a same sex one.
    ... so I don't see any reason why a Minister could not be prosecuted ... or have his civil solemnising rights revoked.
    There is no conscience clause proposed ... so Ministers of Religion will be 'wide open' to prosecution ... whatever the 'yes' campaign may say, they are not the law on the matter.

    Well lets see what happens if a case is taken. Its all a big IF at the moment, not enough of a reason to vote against ssm.


  • #4496
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Well lets see what happens if a case is taken. Its all a big IF at the moment, not enough of a reason to vote against ssm.
    It will be way too late then.
    Lets have protection for conscience in the Constitution ... for everything ... and not just the issue of Gay Marriage.

    That's actually what the constitution is for ... the establishment of broad principles ... and not narrow sectional interests ... that are best dealt with via legislation.


  • #4497
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    J C wrote: »
    I haven't heard of a baker being prosecuted for not providing a cake for a second wedding ... but it has happened with a same sex one.
    ... so I don't see any reason why a Minister could not be prosecuted ... or have his civil solemnising rights revoked.
    There is no conscience clause proposed ... so Ministers of Religion will be 'wide open' to prosecution ... whatever the 'yes' campaign may say, they are not the law on the matter.

    A minister is currently under no obligation to marry anyone. A Catholic priest can refuse to marry a couple if one member has been divorced, a rabbi is under no obligation to marry non-Jews. Nothing changes for ministers.


  • #4498
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    A minister is currently under no obligation to marry anyone. A Catholic priest can refuse to marry a couple if one member has been divorced, a rabbi is under no obligation to marry non-Jews. Nothing changes for ministers.
    The point I'm making is that this may not remain the case ... bakers historically were under no obligation to bake cakes for anybody as well ... but now they appear to be under an obligation to bake cakes for everybody.

    Why should Ministers of Religion be any different ... and if they are, why not remove any doubt and state it in the Constitution?


  • #4499
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    The point I'm making is that this may not remain the case ... bakers historically were under no obligation to bake cakes for anybody as well ... but now they appear to be under an obligation to bake cakes for everybody.

    Why should Ministers of Religion be any different ... and if they are, why not remove any doubt and state it in the Constitution?

    Incorrect , bakers just like all businesses are obliged to comply with the equality legislation . It remains to be seen if those bakers have fallen foul of that .


  • #4500
    Perla Little Slipknot
    Posts: 24,816 ✭✭✭✭ Perla Little Slipknot


    J C wrote: »
    The point I'm making is that this may not remain the case ... bakers historically were under no obligation to bake cakes for anybody as well ... but now they appear to be under an obligation to bake cakes for everybody.

    Why should Ministers of Religion be any different ... and if they are, why not remove any doubt and state it in the Constitution?

    What would you like stated in the constitution? Give me an example of a suitable sentence.


  • Advertisement
  • #4501
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    J C wrote: »
    ... so I don't see any reason why a Minister could not be prosecuted ... or have his civil solemnising rights revoked.

    The day the state tells religious organisations how to conduct their rites and ceremonies will be a bad day for Ireland.

    Marriage is a sacrament - a sacrament is not an automatic right, it is a visible sign of God's grace. It is up to the minister to decide whether or not the couple who wish to be married truly wish to receive the sacrament. Are you suggesting that religious ministers should be taken to court for refusing to baptise a child, or for refusing to administer absolution, whatever we may think of their reasons for doing it? Priests refuse to marry couples where one of the couple is divorced, for example.

    A religious minister can only act as solemniser in the course of his or her role as a religious celebrant, so there is no conflict.


Advertisement