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

shruikan2553 · 21-04-2015 02:30PM

If the churches views should be put into law shouldn't that mean the church has to change its views to comply with the law? Or does religious freedom only work one way?

lazygal · 21-04-2015 02:31PM

steamengine wrote: »

It would appear not. I keep saying that I believe in the mainstream churches view of marriage as that between one man and one woman. In light of the forthcoming referendum and following my beliefs and voting NO, that is then represented continually as engaging in active discrimination against LGBT couples.

But why can't gay couples have civil marriage? As reflected in the civil law on marriage? What about couples who are married in another country but who's marriages are not recognised here, should the State recognise such marriages?

steamengine · 21-04-2015 02:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Can we infer that you also wish that all of the Roman Catholic Church's teachings should be reflected in law?

No, but it shouldn't come as any surprise that a majority Christian point of view is reflected in the law of a Christian country. The majority religion is Catholic, so everyone has to listen to the Angelus, and do without a pint on Good Friday. That's the way it works.

Kiwi in IE · 21-04-2015 02:49PM

steamengine wrote: »

No, but it shouldn't come as any surprise that a majority Christian point of view is reflected in the law of a Christian country. The majority religion is Catholic, so everyone has to listen to the Angelus, and do without a pint on Good Friday. That's the way it works.

But it is not a Christian country. It is a secular republic with lots of Christians in it. There is a big difference.

Do you think divorce and contraception should be illegal? They are also against your religious beliefs I assume? I also assume that you are probably happy with the status quo where those who wish to avail of them can, but those whose for whom it is against their religion can choose to refrain? Why can you not accept the same stance on equal marriage?

21-04-2015 02:54PM

steamengine wrote: »

No, but it shouldn't come as any surprise that a majority Christian point of view is reflected in the law of a Christian country. The majority religion is Catholic, so everyone has to listen to the Angelus, and do without a pint on Good Friday. That's the way it works.

Can you explain how you'd decide which of the Roman Catholic Church's teachings on life which you would like to be reflected in Irish law?

On one hand you're saying that following the church's teachings gives you reasoning to support a No vote.

steamengine wrote:

I keep saying that I believe in the mainstream churches view of marriage as that between one man and one woman.

However, you've now said that you wouldn't wish that all of the Roman Catholic Church's teachings should be reflected in Irish law.

So (to me) it appears that your position requires more fleshing out in order to avoid further misrepresentation.

katydid · 21-04-2015 03:01PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

MThey see no discrimination in not having marriage for gay people, it's just the way it is. They don't discriminate against gay people, they don't hate gay people, they just don't think about it that way.
Once change is proposed they fear change because it might affect them, it doesn't have to be a real threat just a niggling concern because for them things are fine as they are.

That's no excuse. If you fear change because it MIGHT affect you, and you plan to vote against a proposal for change that will positively affect other people, the onus is on you to find out if/how the changes would affect you. If you can find no evidence for it, you have no moral right to vote in a way that would deny other people its positive effects for them.

katydid · 21-04-2015 03:02PM

steamengine wrote: »

A perfect example of words being put in my mouth. How do you know I don't have a rational reason ? Or a reason which came about for rational reasons.

Because you haven't offered one. We're not mind readers.

katydid · 21-04-2015 03:03PM

steamengine wrote: »

Possibly not rational in your book. I hold the traditonal Christian viewpoint that marriage is between one man and a woman.

That's not rational in anyone's book. The referendum is about secular marriage. Not about religious marriage. There is no connection. Your reason is irrational.

lazygal · 21-04-2015 03:11PM

steamengine wrote: »

No, but it shouldn't come as any surprise that a majority Christian point of view is reflected in the law of a Christian country. The majority religion is Catholic, so everyone has to listen to the Angelus, and do without a pint on Good Friday. That's the way it works.

This isn't a christian country. I'm Irish, I'm not christian. Are those not of the same faith as you not Irish? And I don't have to do without a pint on good Friday, if I'm staying in a hotel or have the right train ticket. When did Jesus say people in Ireland can't have a pint on good Friday and the national broadcaster has to play the Catholic call to prayer?

21-04-2015 03:16PM

In terms of being a "X" Country. Would you think it appropriate to call Ireland a "White Country", and promote the views of white supremacists over the views of egalitarians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland
Roman Catholic 84.16%, No Religion 7.63%, Church of Ireland 2.81%, Islam 1.07%, Orthodox 0.99%, Presbyterian 0.54%, Methodist 0.15% (2011)

Ethnic backgrounds: White Irish: 84.5%, Irish Travellers: 0.7%, Other White: 9.1% (total White: 94.3%), Asian: 1.9%, Black: 1.4%, Other: 0.9%, Not Stated: 1.6% (2011)[18]

Would that not be 'more apt' given the demographics of the country, than to call it a Christian Country?

steamengine · 21-04-2015 03:22PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you explain how you'd decide which of the Roman Catholic Church's teachings on life which you would like to be reflected in Irish law?

On one hand you're saying that following the church's teachings gives you reasoning to support a No vote.

However, you've now said that you wouldn't wish that all of the Roman Catholic Church's teachings should be reflected in Irish law.

So (to me) it appears that your position requires more fleshing out in order to avoid further misrepresentation.

Render on to Caesar what is Caesar's - unto God what is God's. A quote from the man himself. The state carries on it's own path, the church on it's path.

I'm a spectator really, however the law of the land will reflect the majority viewpoint, and it's here for some of you guys, the problem seems to lie.

It would appear democracy must produce the result you want. Why not just wait and see does it ?

MrPudding · 21-04-2015 03:24PM

steamengine wrote: »

Render on to Caesar what is Caesar's - unto God what is God's. A quote from the man himself. The state carries on it's own path, the church on it's path.

I'm a spectator really, however the law of the land will reflect the majority viewpoint, and it's here for some of you guys, the problem seems to lie.

What does civil marriage have to do with god? if we follow 'the man himself' he seems to be suggesting that civil marriage has nothing to do with god. Surely if that is the case then the correct thing for you to do, as a christian, is to not vote...?

MrP

lazygal · 21-04-2015 03:28PM

steamengine wrote: »

Render on to Caesar what is Caesar's - unto God what is God's. A quote from the man himself. The state carries on it's own path, the church on it's path.

I'm a spectator really, however the law of the land will reflect the majority viewpoint, and it's here for some of you guys, the problem seems to lie.

It would appear democracy must produce the result you want. Why not just wait and see does it ?

I had a civil marriage. No god was present at all. Why can't gay couples have what I had?

steamengine · 21-04-2015 03:40PM

Deleted User wrote: »

In terms of being a "X" Country. Would you think it appropriate to call Ireland a "White Country", and promote the views of white supremacists over the views of egalitarians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland
Roman Catholic 84.16%, No Religion 7.63%, Church of Ireland 2.81%, Islam 1.07%, Orthodox 0.99%, Presbyterian 0.54%, Methodist 0.15% (2011)

Ethnic backgrounds: White Irish: 84.5%, Irish Travellers: 0.7%, Other White: 9.1% (total White: 94.3%), Asian: 1.9%, Black: 1.4%, Other: 0.9%, Not Stated: 1.6% (2011)[18]

Would that not be 'more apt' given the demographics of the country, than to call it a Christian Country?

Really, have you any more tangents to shoot off on ? :rolleyes:

MrPudding · 21-04-2015 04:01PM

steamengine wrote: »

Really, have you any more tangents to shoot off on ? :rolleyes:

So another special pleading for the religious... It is valid to call ireland a christian country because a % are apparently christian, but we can't call it a white country when a larger % are white? Why is that? Why can we call it christian but not white?

MrP

Kiwi in IE · 21-04-2015 04:10PM

Can you answer why you cannot just accept equal marriage as I assume you do divorce and contraception being legal? They are legal but if you don't want to avail of them, or if it is against your beliefs to do so, you are not obliged to in any way. Why should equal marriage be different? What is it that causes a problem for you? I'm sure that you do not feel impacted or personally affected by other people divorcing or using contraception, which I am assuming is also against your religious beliefs?

aloyisious · 21-04-2015 05:10PM

I had a look at Section 41 of the constitution and it mentions the woman and the mother, but not in the same sub-section. It doesn't define by word what the family consists of. It doesn't mention the father at all. The child is only mentioned when there is a break-up between the spouses. I get the impression that as the section does NOT define what a family consists, merely implies it consists of a mother (because of these sub-setions- in particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. - AND - the State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home), a spouse (presumably a father) and a child (in the dissolution of marriage sub-section).

The parts about the woman and the mother imply that they are there for one reason only, to get pregnant and bear babies so a family exists, and to ensure this happens, they must NOT work outside the home. I nearly laughed at the section about the state ensuring the mother shall not be obliged for economic reasons to work outside the home (fire them when they get pregnant). The sub-section about the state protecting the institution of marriage, well that's well past it's use-by date and hasn't been valid for some decades now, one due to the way Irish family relationships have altered - AND - two, the introduction by the state of divorce. It's all A + B + C = D (the family) without once linking them up directly in one sub-section by word or title, pure smoke and mirrors by the writers to give the appearance that all is rosy on the emerald isle.

katydid · 21-04-2015 05:54PM

steamengine wrote: »

There is in Ireland with a minority of objections, but the Catholic Church is as usual straight and unambiguous about it. C of I the same, but with the usual fudge clause, leaving it up to the voter's conscience.

What's "fudge" about allowing people to use their conscience?

katydid · 21-04-2015 05:56PM

steamengine wrote: »

Yet another misrepresentation of what I said.

So you don't believe LGBT people should not be able to marry the person of their choice, even thought it's contrary to your religious beliefs? Is that what you're saying now?

Christy Anity · 21-04-2015 05:57PM

I will be voting YES so that someday i can stand in front of my family and friends and marry the woman i love, secure in the knowledge that in the eyes of the state, my marriage will be as valued and equal as anyone elses.
The only thing that will change with a YES vote, is that my relationship amd the love within it will have equal standing within the law. It will also show our young LGBT people that they are supported by their people amd country, and hopefully discrimination and suicide within that group will begin to decrease.
For all those voting NO for religious reasons, I hope you cant stand infront of God someday and explain why you directly ignored his fundamental teachings of 'love thy neighbour', 'do on to others as you would have them do to you' and ' Dear friends, let us love one another,for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.'
All I have done is fall in love with a woman, and I dont believe my God condemn me for that.

katydid · 21-04-2015 06:03PM

steamengine wrote: »

It would appear not. I keep saying that I believe in the mainstream churches view of marriage as that between one man and one woman.

In light of the forthcoming referendum and following my beliefs and voting NO, that is then represented continually as engaging in active discrimination against LGBT couples.

You keep saying that about your belief, and other people keep saying that that is irrelevant, since this referendum is not about changing what the mainstream churches believe, and bears no relation to their practice in relation to marriage in their churches.

If you vote no in this referendum, on the basis of your religious beliefs, then you are actively discriminating against same sex couples, since you are trying to deny them a right in terms of something which has nothing to do with your religious belief

katydid · 21-04-2015 06:05PM

steamengine wrote: »

Render on to Caesar what is Caesar's - unto God what is God's. A quote from the man himself. The state carries on it's own path, the church on it's path.

But you want the state to carry on on the church's path.

katydid · 21-04-2015 06:10PM

steamengine wrote: »

Really, have you any more tangents to shoot off on ? :rolleyes:

It's called being rational. You claimed to have a rational basis for your opinions and intentions, but despite several requests, have failed to provide this rational basis.

People here are providing you with rational argument and it's clearly an alien concept to you.

tommy2bad · 21-04-2015 06:20PM

katydid wrote: »

That's no excuse. If you fear change because it MIGHT affect you, and you plan to vote against a proposal for change that will positively affect other people, the onus is on you to find out if/how the changes would affect you. If you can find no evidence for it, you have no moral right to vote in a way that would deny other people its positive effects for them.

Well you and I might feel informed opinion is better but unfortunately that's not how it works. Most people will base their decision on their personal bias, I'll do the same, I may have a better argument but I will still have a bias. That bias dosnt have to be homophobia, it's more likely inmate conservatism.
This is what needs to be overcome not some religious plot to keep people discriminated against. Remember most people are rejecting marriage all together, for them they can't see what the fuss is about.

katydid · 21-04-2015 06:26PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well you and I might feel informed opinion is better but unfortunately that's not how it works. Most people will base their decision on their personal bias, I'll do the same, I may have a better argument but I will still have a bias. That bias dosnt have to be homophobia, it's more likely inmate conservatism.
This is what needs to be overcome not some religious plot to keep people discriminated against. Remember most people are rejecting marriage all together, for them they can't see what the fuss is about.

Just because people base decisions on their personal bias doesn't make that right. It may be reality but it's not fair. They refuse to inform themselves, or they listen to people who tell them false information and then they vote to deny other people rights based on this ignorance.

A bias is fine, but it's your duty to inform yourself if you're deciding something that doesn't affect you but affects other people.

MrPudding · 21-04-2015 06:31PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well you and I might feel informed opinion is better but unfortunately that's not how it works. Most people will base their decision on their personal bias, I'll do the same, I may have a better argument but I will still have a bias. That bias dosnt have to be homophobia, it's more likely inmate conservatism.

A rose by any other name...

People are trying to hide behind reasonable sounding 'reasons', 'I am not a bigot, I am just conservative.' 'I am not a bigot, I just believe in the christian view of marriage' etc, etc. That is all very well. Those reason might help you, or the people trying to deploy them, to sleep at night, but they are, in reality, worthless. At the end of the day what matter is the result. This is not an 'unintended consequence' as some posters might try to make you believe, but the logical and fully intended consequence of the referendum, or at least a no vote for it.

The simple fact of the matter is this: What ever your reasons for voting no, if the result is a no then you have voted for continued discrimination against a significant minority of the population. You have vote to continue discrimination against people that might be your friends or family. I am sorry to be blunt here, but I am fed up with people trying to separate their action, or proposed action from the result. Voting no is voting for discrimination.

It astounds and saddens me that people need a reason to vote yes to stop discrimination and make the world a tiny bit more pleasant for a group of people.

MrP

tommy2bad · 21-04-2015 06:36PM

katydid wrote: »

Just because people base decisions on their personal bias doesn't make that right. It may be reality but it's not fair. They refuse to inform themselves, or they listen to people who tell them false information and then they vote to deny other people rights based on this ignorance.

A bias is fine, but it's your duty to inform yourself if you're deciding something that doesn't affect you but affects other people.

Boo boo it's not fair! Life isn't fair. My entire point is it isn't fair or right but it's something that we need to counter.
It's no use calling names or arguing about religious arguments. This referendum will be won or lost by moods not reasons. The anti government feeling, a growing secularism, more and more people living openly as gay people all feed into a mix that will decide the rights of everyone.
I think the time is right for this to pass but I think it will be closer than 75/ 25 the polls predict. That const mean theirs a lot of anti homosexual feeling, it just means people don't like change unless theirs something in it for them.

tommy2bad · 21-04-2015 06:44PM

MrPudding wrote: »

It astounds and saddens me that people need a reason to vote yes to stop discrimination and make the world a tiny bit more pleasant for a group of people.

MrP

I'm far too cynical to be astounded by people needing a selfish reason to do anything.
of course you are right, no matter what the thinking behind a no vote, it is a vote to discriminate. It shouldn't be assumed that discrimination is deliberately intended though. Nor should you assume that pointing out the discrimination inherent in a no vote will change their minds.

I'm voting yes btw, I'm one of the ones who campaigned against the original civil partnership bill because it was not marriage. I'm just trying to explain that God forbid a 52% no vote would not indicate 52% homophobia. Or anti gay feeling.

jobbridge4life · 21-04-2015 06:49PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'm voting yes btw, I'm one of the ones who campaigned against the original civil partnership bill because it was not marriage. I'm just trying to explain that God forbid a 52% no vote would not indicate 52% homophobia. Or anti gay feeling.

It would however be the majority of the country deciding my relationship is not worth equal respect. Homophobia or not that is still a pretty <snip> message to send to LGBT people.

aloyisious · 21-04-2015 07:36PM

I'd really like it if all the lawyers who oppose Marriage Equality around the world were all like this bloke...

http://goo.gl/efXMae

It's the last few sentences where he's interviewed by the Washington Post that's the best part.

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

Comments