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

steamengine · 22-04-2015 06:08PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

https://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/same-sex-marriage-referendum-a-cross-denominational-response-leaflet-urging-a-no-vote/

Rev Stephen Taylor, that's literally one Reverend that called for a no vote. The official document from Methodist Church that I linked to previously, negates it....

Yes fair enough, but someone should contact the Irish Times then. I was only quoting.

katydid · 22-04-2015 06:13PM

hinault wrote: »

Maybe he/she thinks that you're the CoI spokesman?:D

Have you something to confess, steamengine:)

What are you talking about? Why would I think he was the CofI spokesman? Nothing in the post I made even vaguely suggests he knows anything about the CofI. I told HIM the CofI hadn't come out about it.

katydid · 22-04-2015 06:22PM

steamengine wrote: »

Katydid, just to be clear about the attitude of the C of I.

http://www.catholicireland.net/church-leaders-call-referendum/

Did you actually read the article? If you did, you'll find that while it made a particular statement regarding marriage in synod (after very heated debate, by all accounts), it also stated in terms of this referendum that it would not be advocating a NO or a YES vote, but would allow people to make up their minds.

There are some in the CofI, mainly in the North, who are vehemently anti same sex marriage, while in the Republic, the attitude is much more relaxed. Paul Colton is not the only member of the clergy who would hold the attitude he has stated publicly. In any case, the church's working through of this issue is a religious matter, nothing to do with the referendum we're discussing.

katydid · 22-04-2015 06:24PM

steamengine wrote: »

Katydid, the various churches are full of very well educated priests and clergymen. Scientists, Theologians, Jesuits - do you think they are all fools ? sometimes following expert advice is extremely rational.

They are indeed well educated, and more than qualified to expound on church issues.

But their opinions on church issues have NOTHING TO DO WITH A REFERENDUM ON A SECULAR ISSUE.

How hard is that to grasp.

katydid · 22-04-2015 06:25PM

steamengine wrote: »

Yes fair enough, but someone should contact the Irish Times then. I was only quoting.

Maybe you should read things properly before you quote...

steamengine · 22-04-2015 06:26PM

katydid wrote: »

What are you talking about? Why would I think he was the CofI spokesman? Nothing in the post I made even vaguely suggests he knows anything about the CofI. I told HIM the CofI hadn't come out about it.

In my family including uncles aunts, I had (saying that as some are not here any longer) or have C of I, Presbyterian, Free Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholic. So I have fair idea of how they all tick.

PS one atheist, i forgot that.

steamengine · 22-04-2015 06:30PM

katydid wrote: »

Maybe you should read things properly before you quote...

Anything else, while you're at it ? :rolleyes:

steamengine · 22-04-2015 06:51PM

katydid wrote: »

Did you actually read the article? If you did, you'll find that while it made a particular statement regarding marriage in synod (after very heated debate, by all accounts), it also stated in terms of this referendum that it would not be advocating a NO or a YES vote, but would allow people to make up their minds.

There are some in the CofI, mainly in the North, who are vehemently anti same sex marriage, while in the Republic, the attitude is much more relaxed. Paul Colton is not the only member of the clergy who would hold the attitude he has stated publicly. In any case, the church's working through of this issue is a religious matter, nothing to do with the referendum we're discussing.

As I said in a previous post, a fudge, the synod upholds the traditional view of marriage, meanwhile from the pulpit someone else is advocating SSM. And then the individual members can all do their own thing.

NuMarvel · 22-04-2015 07:21PM

steamengine wrote: »

Katydid, the various churches are full of very well educated priests and clergymen. Scientists, Theologians, Jesuits - do you think they are all fools ? sometimes following expert advice is extremely rational.

You're right; sometimes following expert advice is rational. But only in regards to the area they are experts in.

While not fools, these men could not be considered experts on civil laws pertaining to marriage and related matters. And based on the link you previously supplied, many of their objections fall into the civil arena; not the religious areas they would be experts in.

shruikan2553 · 22-04-2015 07:26PM

Listen to the experts!*

*Unless they are psychologists, doctors or work in the area of child welfare. In these situations turn to the nearest 2000 year old book.

katydid · 22-04-2015 08:10PM

steamengine wrote: »

In my family including uncles aunts, I had (saying that as some are not here any longer) or have C of I, Presbyterian, Free Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholic. So I have fair idea of how they all tick.

PS one atheist, i forgot that.

No Buddhists, Sikhs, or Rastafarians? I'm surprised.

Your rather colourful, if slightly suspect, family background that makes you an expert in the doctrines of various Christian denominations how, exactly? I have a brother who is an engineer - I know nothing about engineering.

katydid · 22-04-2015 08:15PM

steamengine wrote: »

As I said in a previous post, a fudge, the synod upholds the traditional view of marriage, meanwhile from the pulpit someone else is advocating SSM. And then the individual members can all do their own thing.

The synod is a democratic gathering of bishops, clergy and laity. It discussed the matter and came up with a certain stance. That could change in future synods. Bishop Colton is not the only bishop who holds the opinion he holds, and certainly many of the clergy and laity do too.

Nobody is advocating anything from the pulpit. Bishop Colton gave his personal opinion on the matter in a radio interview, as he is fully entitled to.

Bishop Ferran Glenfield has taken a personal decision to put his name to the document advocating a no vote, as he is fully entitled to.

The bottom line is that the CofI has specifically said it would not advocate one way or the other. That remains the case.

steamengine · 22-04-2015 08:19PM

katydid wrote: »

And that makes you an expert in the doctrines of various Christian denominations how, exactly? I have a brother who is an engineer - I know nothing about engineering.

Pass on my regards, there are two engineers here at the moment, one has just told me he's voting YES for peace and quiet, he doesn't really care about it and there's a mob mentality taking hold. Also he's just telling me now that he's heard that NO voters are being labelled as homophobic.

Well done on a very thoughtful campaign.

steamengine · 22-04-2015 08:24PM

katydid wrote: »

The synod is a democratic gathering of bishops, clergy and laity. It discussed the matter and came up with a certain stance. That could change in future synods. Bishop Colton is not the only bishop who holds the opinion he holds, and certainly many of the clergy and laity do too.

Nobody is advocating anything from the pulpit. Bishop Colton gave his personal opinion on the matter in a radio interview, as he is fully entitled to.

Bishop Ferran Glenfield has taken a personal decision to put his name to the document advocating a no vote, as he is fully entitled to.

The bottom line is that the CofI has specifically said it would not advocate one way or the other. That remains the case.

Reminds me of the Hoky Poky song. You put one leg in, One leg out, One leg and you shake it all about, Do the Hoky Poky, then you turn around, that's what it's all about.

katydid · 22-04-2015 08:31PM

steamengine wrote: »

Pass on my regards, there are two engineers here at the moment, one has just told me he's voting YES for peace and quiet, he doesn't really care about it and there's a mob mentality taking hold. Also he's just telling me now that he's heard that NO voters are being labelled as homophobic.

Well done on a very thoughtful campaign.

You spout more and more irrelevant nonsense by the minute.

katydid · 22-04-2015 08:32PM

steamengine wrote: »

Reminds me of the Hoky Poky song. You put one leg in, One leg out, One leg and you shake it all about, Do the Hoky Poky, then you turn around, that's what it's all about.

I refer to my last post

steamengine · 22-04-2015 08:40PM

katydid wrote: »

You spout more and more irrelevant nonsense by the minute.

That's what one of them is saying - not me. Don't shoot the messenger, and the same feedback is widespread.

steamengine · 22-04-2015 08:41PM

katydid wrote: »

I refer to my last post

I refer to my last post.

katydid · 22-04-2015 08:43PM

steamengine wrote: »

That's what one of them is saying - not me. Don't shoot the messenger, and the same feedback is widespread.

What they say to you is irrelevant. The point I made went WHOOOOSH over your head, or you're deliberately trying to avoid answering.

Bannasidhe · 22-04-2015 08:49PM

steamengine wrote: »

Well done on a very thoughtful campaign.

Perhaps you can explain why posters like this are being used by the No campaign when it has nothing to do with the Referendum?

11174847_10153134719623796_776062911889809883_n.jpg?oh=34325e9cec92ec2cef7b043d1bb28894&oe=55995287&__gda__=1436533207_d60a83a96e6cc0c4dfe702e57c342f85

11174847_10153134719623796_776062911889809883_n.jpg?oh=34325e9cec92ec2cef7b043d1bb28894&oe=55995287&__gda__=1436533207_d60a83a96e6cc0c4dfe702e57c342f85

Why do the No side need to lie?

steamengine · 22-04-2015 08:51PM

katydid wrote: »

What they say to you is irrelevant. The point I made went WHOOOOSH over your head, or you're deliberately trying to avoid answering.

Of course it's irrelevant, I didn't expect otherwise. I'm also getting weary of this constant questioning. The only thing that's missing are the bright lights and the white noise machine.

Ve hav vays ov making you vote YES :pac::pac::pac::pac:

Kiwi in IE · 22-04-2015 08:52PM

katydid wrote: »

The synod is a democratic gathering of bishops, clergy and laity. It discussed the matter and came up with a certain stance. That could change in future synods. Bishop Colton is not the only bishop who holds the opinion he holds, and certainly many of the clergy and laity do too.

Nobody is advocating anything from the pulpit. Bishop Colton gave his personal opinion on the matter in a radio interview, as he is fully entitled to.

Bishop Ferran Glenfield has taken a personal decision to put his name to the document advocating a no vote, as he is fully entitled to.

The bottom line is that the CofI has specifically said it would not advocate one way or the other. That remains the case.

Quite clearly the C of I are far less interested in power and control, over both their own followers and the entire country, than the RCC is. This can be seen in countries which were traditionally Anglican, of which all are more socially liberal than Ireland, which has been held back by RCC control!

The mind boggles that anyone would think that a church encouraging their followers to vote with their own conscience on a civic issue, as opposed to attempting to bully them to vote a particular way, is a bad thing!

(Prior to disputing my bullying claim, think back to the the threat made against TDS in order to 'encourage' them to vote the way the RCC wanted them to on the abortion issue?).

steamengine · 22-04-2015 08:55PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps you can explain why posters like this are being used by the No campaign when it has nothing to do with the Referendum?

Why do the No side need to lie?

I'm part of no campaign, pardon the pun. Nothing to do with me.

katydid · 22-04-2015 08:55PM

steamengine wrote: »

Of course it's irrelevant, I didn't expect otherwise. I'm also getting weary of this constant questioning. The only thing that's missing are the bright lights and the white noise machine.

Ve hav vays ov making you vote YES :pac::pac::pac::pac:

Maybe you could try answering a question now and then, and no one would have to ask you anything

katydid · 22-04-2015 08:57PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps you can explain why posters like this are being used by the No campaign when it has nothing to do with the Referendum?

Why do the No side need to lie?

Because they don't actually have an argument. They rely on people like Steamengine blindly accepting what they say.

henryporter · 22-04-2015 08:58PM

steamengine wrote: »

Of course it's irrelevant, I didn't expect otherwise. I'm also getting weary of this constant questioning. The only thing that's missing are the bright lights and the white noise machine.

Ve hav vays ov making you vote YES :pac::pac::pac::pac:

Funny that you resort to a Nazi type pun, the RCC was well in with that bunch too.

Delirium · 22-04-2015 09:01PM

steamengine wrote: »

Pass on my regards, there are two engineers here at the moment, one has just told me he's voting YES for peace and quiet, he doesn't really care about it and there's a mob mentality taking hold. Also he's just telling me now that he's heard that NO voters are being labelled as homophobic.

Well done on a very thoughtful campaign.

but I'm guessing you've no problem with that as you were essentially using it to justify a No vote on your behalf.

steamengine wrote: »

I'm following the recommendation of the Catholic, Methodist and Presbyterian churches to vote NO. I agree with their traditional view of marriage for starters and their warning about the unknown quantity this whole thing is.

as to the charge of no voters being homophobic, what exactly would you call people who vandalise a persons home that displays pro-marriage equality banners?

https://twitter.com/Gemonamission/status/589105625004646401

steamengine · 22-04-2015 09:39PM

SW wrote: »

but I'm guessing you've no problem with that as you were essentially using it to justify a No vote on your behalf.

He was voting YES and I have no problem with that. I respect his democratic rights. The negative campaign the YES side is running has been well reported in particular on various radio programs. I don't think I am, but if others do, that's fine. We are all entitled to our opinions.

SW wrote: »

as to the charge of no voters being homophobic, what exactly would you call people who vandalise a persons home that displays pro-marriage equality banners?

There is an example of real homophobia. Now perhaps you might see how that term is not applicable to someone who is voting from a sincere religious point of view.

https://twitter.com/Gemonamission/status/589105625004646401[/QUOTE]

steamengine · 22-04-2015 09:48PM

henryporter wrote: »

Funny that you resort to a Nazi type pun, the RCC was well in with that bunch too.

Look my friend, I know it's hard to gauge moods on the internet, but that was really tongue in cheek. Perhaps we all need to lighten up.

steamengine · 22-04-2015 10:10PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Quite clearly the C of I are far less interested in power and control, over both their own followers and the entire country, than the RCC is. This can be seen in countries which were traditionally Anglican, of which all are more socially liberal than Ireland, which has been held back by RCC control!

The mind boggles that anyone would think that a church encouraging their followers to vote with their own conscience on a civic issue, as opposed to attempting to bully them to vote a particular way, is a bad thing!

(Prior to disputing my bullying claim, think back to the the threat made against TDS in order to 'encourage' them to vote the way the RCC wanted them to on the abortion issue?).

You are aware that C of I was the establishment Church in Ireland, and whilst now portraying a socially liberal outlook have amongst its membership some of the most conservative people you could ever meet. Some ok people too though.

Catholics have taken a leaf out of the Protestant book in recent decades, in that they don't let the priests push them round, the way some of them used to, hence the bullying charge is OTT IMO.

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

Comments