Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

Jimoslimos wrote: »

You're confusing conservative Catholicism with evangelical Protestantism. One group believes everything the Pope/clergy tells them, the other take literal meanings from a 2000 year old book of mad ramblings.

Both groups however share an inability for independent thought.

But the pope/clergy get their nonsense from the same 2000 year old book of mad ramblings.

The fact is that to say 'the bible says being gay is a sin, so I'm going to vote against them having the same rights as me' means absolutely nothing if you eat cheeseburgers, shave, wear clothes of more than one fabric, talk to women/men you're not related to, have tattoos, or 100 other things. If you're going to cite Leviticus as a reason to be against homosexuals you'd bloody well better be adhering to all the other stupid rules in there or you're just trying to hide your bigotry under assumed piety.

kylith wrote: »

But the pope/clergy get their nonsense from the same 2000 year old book of mad ramblings.

The fact is that to say 'the bible says being gay is a sin, so I'm going to vote against them having the same rights as me' means absolutely nothing if you eat cheeseburgers, shave, wear clothes of more than one fabric, talk to women/men you're not related to, have tattoos, or 100 other things. If you're going to cite Leviticus as a reason to be against homosexuals you'd bloody well better be adhering to all the other stupid rules in there or you're just trying to hide your bigotry under assumed piety.

No, I think I'm correct in saying that the Pope has a direct line to the big guy himself. Papal infallibility and all that jazz.

kylith wrote: »

Regardless, if you ask people where their religion says 'no homos' they'll point at Leviticus, in complete and total ignorance of every single other word contained in Leviticus.

Catholics? No. I doubt most would even be able to recite a verse from any of the OT books let alone point out any as being behind their beliefs.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Catholics? No. I doubt most would even be able to recite a verse from any of the OT books let alone point out any as being behind their beliefs.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say most Irish Catholics have barely ever read the bible.

My experience with Christians (only my experience I can not extrapolate it to a generalization so simply compare it to your own) is that the vast majority of them have not even SEEN one, let alone owned or read one.

When I show them one they are often quite shocked at the size of it. They have literally heard the same cherry picked hand full of stories over and over again at school and mass that they were convinced they had heard it all and knew it all. That there is so much more in there, all written in a tiny font in a packed large book of extra thin paper is.... pardon the pun.... a revelation. When I did my scientific experiments on Catholic Magic Crackers I discovered that a not insignificant portion of Catholics did not even know what the ceremony _actually_ represented or what catholic teaching actually was on the effects the ceremony is meant to have.

I have managed to convert a few Christians in my life to being not christian (mostly atheist but some just.... not christian). I did not do it with science or atheist arguments or anything of the sort. I did it by getting them a bible and making sure they read it. Really read it. The reaction invariably was "I was meant to believe THAT stuff????"

So yea overall, I rather suspect the majority of people citing scripture and/or religious reasons for voting no, or for the immorality of Homosexuality, are doing it from cherry picked information they were fed from some second or third hand source, and not directly from their personal magic book of choice. Mercifully I have to admit that while following the campaign the number of religious arguments have been surprisingly tiny. A big contrast to similar arguments on similar law changes on US and other country forums I also frequent.

The laughable thing is that I know very feminine gay guys and very butch lesbian women so this whole "you need a mother and father" is kinda silly when there's gay men who are more feminine that some mothers and visa versa...

kunst nugget wrote: »

So we should only let butch lesbians marry feminine gay guys?

This is getting too confusing. I thought we had decided that we should only let people marry if they sign a legally binding contract to procreate together?

MrWalsh wrote: »

Well "Two Women double a Mothers love" wouldnt make much sense would it?

Indeed.

I feel sorry for Keith Mills though. He was sitting at this press conference, acknowledging that the idea of two gay men raising a child 'resonated' negatively with more people than the idea of two gay women, and so they would harp on this in the final straight. He, himself, a gay man, calling on the more common inclination toward homophobia around gay men than lesbians.

The more intellectually offensive part of this message, though, is also that it completely ignores that gay people will have kids whether there is a yes or a no. Again, the no camp must make this a referendum on whether gay people should raise families rather than how to treat their families, and their children, given that they are.

kunst nugget wrote: »

So we should only let butch lesbians marry feminine gay guys?

If they want I suppose?

But what I'm saying is there are people complaining that girls won't get a female role model in their lives... but some gay men I know can be more feminine than straight women. Same way butch women can be more masculine then men. It's purely gender roles, same way the argument that children need a mother and father is.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My experience with Christians (only my experience I can not extrapolate it to a generalization so simply compare it to your own) is that the vast majority of them have not even SEEN one, let alone owned or read one.}.

I was very surprised to notice that here in Colombia most families actually seem to have a copy of the Bible in their homes. They probably don't read it but I'd assumed they'd be like Irish Catholics who've never even seen one.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

If you bet a tenner on yes winning, and it does, you'll get 1 Euro back (Plus your tenner).
If you bet a tenner on no winning, and it does, you'll get 50 Euro back (Plus your tenner).

That's all.

This is the first time I've ever understood odds! Thank you!