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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

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

1…173174176178179…327

Comments

  • #5252
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    I've decided to vote no, and I think I've actually come up with a cogent argument to support my position, so bear with me guys.

    You see, NASA are investigating this thing called the EmDrive. Now, it appears to break Newton's Third Law, which means in all likelihood it will turn out that it doesn't work. But so far, it has passed every test they've put it through.

    I know you're already wondering what this has to do with SSM, but just hang in there. If it turns out that the EmDrive works, then we could literally have flying cars like the ones in the Fifth Element some time inside the next decade. Now, I don't know about you, but I think the idea of flying cars is as terrifying as it is awesome.

    Imagine if the crap you see going on on our roads, day in, day out, was happening in the air instead? The death toll would be unimaginable. I'm a firm believer that men are too reckless on the roads, while women are too cautious and indecisive. Both of these things lead to accidents, and that will only get worse when we have flying cars. Imagine how many children would be killed on our roads skies?

    Now the thing about heterosexual marriage is you have men and women balancing each other out on the roads. Married couples often travel together in the same car, so the testosterone and oestrogen sort of cancel each other out. It's very scientific and I won't go into too much detail, but straight marriage makes the roads much safer.

    Now I'm not anti-gay or anything, but the idea of two men driving around in flying cars just sounds disastrous to me. They'd be crashing into children and schools and hospitals and everything, and it would really just be a murder free-for-all. So that's why I'll be voting no on Friday and I hope you will too. xxx

    But the flying cars are not traditional cars.


  • #5253
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    I'll be voting No after the verdict in the Ashers case. I know it will be a knock to gay people if it's a no vote and it's not my intention to upset people but religious freedom is being threatened at the moment and this will only add to that in my opinion.

    But they aren't a religious organisation, they're a bakery.


  • #5254
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Dimithy wrote: »
    I'm voting yes because I watched Game of Thrones yesterday.

    spoiler alert! :mad:


  • #5255
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    gandalf wrote: »
    So you champion religious freedom by denying equality and freedom of choice to others. How very Christian of you :rolleyes:

    That is very Christian. Christians are all about hypocrisy. They have been for centuries now


  • #5256
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    I'll be voting No after the verdict in the Ashers case. I know it will be a knock to gay people if it's a no vote and it's not my intention to upset people but religious freedom is being threatened at the moment and this will only add to that in my opinion.

    ah yes, youre so much for freedom you wish to restrict others freedom.


  • Advertisement
  • #5257
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    I know that but it's still a shocking result to me and seeing as the majority of the Yes side down here would support that verdict I feel I can't go along with that. It won't have an effect on discrimination law but it will encourage people not to feel that practicing their religion will have them landed in front of a judge...

    Again what about my religious liberty to marry my partner?


  • #5258
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,024 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    I'll be voting No after the verdict in the Ashers case. I know it will be a knock to gay people if it's a no vote and it's not my intention to upset people but religious freedom is being threatened at the moment and this will only add to that in my opinion.

    It's not religious freedom. Religious freedom means you don't have to do something against your religion, provided you also don't break any laws in doing so.

    If same sex marriage is against your religion, your religious freedom means you do not have to marry someone of the same sex. It does not however mean you can deny same-sex couples services which you provide to opposite-sex couples (religious organisations aside).

    If you make cakes for opposite-sex weddings, you must provide them for same-sex weddings. It's not against your religion to do so.

    A common argument against this is "What if the KKK asked me to make a cake with a racist message for them?" That would fall under Hate Speech, and you could refuse service on that point.

    Point being, a cake with icing is a cake with icing, regardless of whether it's for an opposite-sex wedding or a same-sex wedding. If you deny service to the same-sex couple purely because they're a same-sex couple, that's discrimination, and it doesn't count as religious freedom because you're not being forced to do something against your religion (the same sex couple are doing something against your religion, not you).


  • #5259
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,046 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    I know that but it's still a shocking result to me and seeing as the majority of the Yes side down here would support that verdict I feel I can't go along with that. It won't have an effect on discrimination law but it will encourage people not to feel that practicing their religion will have them landed in front of a judge...
    Okay.. So how does the concept of practicing your religion feed into same sex marriage? They're two separate issues. You're basically punishing many people because of a perception of an opinion on an unrelated matter in a different country. How is that fair?


  • #5260
    MessiHutz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72 ✭✭MessiHutz


    SireOfSeth wrote: »
    But they aren't a religious organisation, they're a bakery.

    They are individuals standing by their religious beliefs which they should be entitled to do. It's not discrimination. If they knew that the people ordering say a birthday cake were gay and refused to serve them that would be discrimination. They wanted a gay marriage cake which we are allowed to disagree with, as seen by the referendum down here.


  • #5261
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    ixoy wrote: »
    You know the Asher verdict is in a different country right? And that voting 'No' will have no effect on how discrimination law is handled here?

    A different jurisdiction where same sex marriage is not legal, no less.

    This judgment was based on European law which is effective both in NI and here regardless of same sex marriage being legal or not. It has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Whatever the outcome of the referendum, a case like this here would see the same result.

    The 'freedom' Ashers was claiming is not there to protect in the first place.
    MessiHutz wrote: »
    They are individuals standing by their religious beliefs which they should be entitled to do. It's not discrimination.

    The court has begged to differ. It wasn't a cake for a gay wedding either, by the way - it was a cake with a slogan on it that was deemed to be political. Part of judgment was also discrimination based on politics which is also illegal. If a cake shop refused to make a Fianna Fail cake because they were Fine Gael supporters, it would be the same result.

    In any case, it has zip to do with the marriage referendum. The grounds that this judgment was founded on, clearly in the case of NI, exist independent of same sex marriage.


  • Advertisement
  • #5262
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Since nobody has answered about the flying cars I think everyone agrees with me and this will be a no vote. There is nothing on Refcom about this issue either so they are not disputing it.


  • #5263
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    I'll be voting No after the verdict in the Ashers case. I know it will be a knock to gay people if it's a no vote and it's not my intention to upset people but religious freedom is being threatened at the moment and this will only add to that in my opinion.

    A case in a different country, ruled by legislative law that covers discrimination rather than constitutional law that covers marriage and ensures that public companies must treat everyone equal has convinced you how to vote on Friday?

    As excuses go that's a pretty poor one.


  • #5264
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    To be fair I can see why people have an issue with this verdict. They didn't refuse to serve people based on their sexuality, they just didn't want to actively promote something they're against. I disagree with what they did on a moral level, but I'm not sure if the ruling should have went against them.

    What it has to do with the referendum on Friday I have no fecking clue though.

    It helps to let you think that gay people deserve a no result. They started all of this.


  • #5265
    Dimithy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 351 ✭✭Dimithy


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    spoiler alert! :mad:

    No spoilers, I just thought we were giving irrelevant reasons for why we were voting.


  • #5266
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    They are individuals standing by their religious beliefs which they should be entitled to do. It's not discrimination. If they knew that the people ordering say a birthday cake were gay and refused to serve them that would be discrimination. They wanted a gay marriage cake which we are allowed to disagree with, as seen by the referendum down here.

    I think it was and I'm just using this specific case in law to back me up. They were found guilty of discrimination.


  • #5267
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    I know that but it's still a shocking result to me and seeing as the majority of the Yes side down here would support that verdict I feel I can't go along with that. It won't have an effect on discrimination law but it will encourage people not to feel that practicing their religion will have them landed in front of a judge...

    So selling a cake is practicing your religion now :rolleyes:


  • #5268
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    Since nobody has answered about the flying cars I think everyone agrees with me and this will be a no vote. There is nothing on Refcom about this issue either so they are not disputing it.

    I did. I said that they were not traditional and therefore I assumed that's why you came to your very sensible No conclusion. See everything has to be traditional like marriage. The phones we use should probably not exist because they are not traditional ways of communicating. Some of the language we use is not traditional either. Computers aren't traditional. We should all be living in caves.


  • #5269
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Dimithy wrote: »
    No spoilers, I just thought we were giving irrelevant reasons for why we were voting.

    Oh.. well in that case I'm voting yes because dragons.


  • #5270
    MessiHutz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72 ✭✭MessiHutz


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Again what about my religious liberty to marry my partner?

    Sorry replies are coming very fast! I don't know what religion supports gay marriage but if yours does vote yes on religious grounds if you wish, but people should also be entitled to vote no on religious grounds as well as say no to supporting a cause on religious grounds.


  • #5271
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    I know that but it's still a shocking result to me and seeing as the majority of the Yes side down here would support that verdict I feel I can't go along with that. It won't have an effect on discrimination law but it will encourage people not to feel that practicing their religion will have them landed in front of a judge...

    Hyperbole much?

    Seriously this is a truly terrible excuse for voting No. And let's be honest here, it's just an excuse.

    Your religious belief does not entitle you to discriminate at will.


  • Advertisement
  • #5272
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Oh.. well in that case I'm voting yes because dragons.

    Now that was a spoiler for me. I'm way behind!


  • #5273
    BonsaiKitten
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭BonsaiKitten


    Bad Horse wrote: »
    It's not religious freedom. Religious freedom means you don't have to do something against your religion, provided you also don't break any laws in doing so.

    If same sex marriage is against your religion, your religious freedom means you do not have to marry someone of the same sex. It does not however mean you can deny same-sex couples services which you provide to opposite-sex couples (religious organisations aside).

    If you make cakes for opposite-sex weddings, you must provide them for same-sex weddings. It's not against your religion to do so.

    A common argument against this is "What if the KKK asked me to make a cake with a racist message for them?" That would fall under Hate Speech, and you could refuse service on that point.

    Point being, a cake with icing is a cake with icing, regardless of whether it's for an opposite-sex wedding or a same-sex wedding. If you deny service to the same-sex couple purely because they're a same-sex couple, that's discrimination, and it doesn't count as religious freedom because you're not being forced to do something against your religion (the same sex couple are doing something against your religion, not you).

    They were asked to make a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan, not a wedding cake.
    A Bert and Ernie cake with a slogan saying support gay marriage, specifically.

    Let's say I own a bakery, and some people come in and want me to bake a cake with a pro-life message. As a pro-choicer I wouldn't want to. Should I be able to refuse it? Because while it mightn't fall under discrimination laws, thinking about how uncomfortable I'd be making that cake helps me understand how the bakery felt.

    I do think this verdict will push some people towards a No vote. Wrongly, but it might. And I'm a yes voter btw.


  • #5274
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    Sorry replies are coming very fast! I don't know what religion supports gay marriage but if yours does vote yes on religious grounds if you wish, but people should also be entitled to vote no on religious grounds as well as say no to supporting a cause on religious grounds.

    What does that have to do with decorative icing?


  • #5275
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    They are individuals standing by their religious beliefs which they should be entitled to do. It's not discrimination. If they knew that the people ordering say a birthday cake were gay and refused to serve them that would be discrimination. They wanted a gay marriage cake which we are allowed to disagree with, as seen by the referendum down here.

    I believe that EU law sees it differently.

    Also, "individuals standing by their religious beliefs" would be for the bakers to decide not to get married to someone of the same sex themselves, or to not get divorced, or to not use contraceptives, etc. Baking cakes are not covered under religious freedoms.


  • #5276
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Not a NSA agent wrote: »
    ah yes, youre so much for freedom you wish to restrict others freedom.

    Should the baker not have the freedom to not bake a cake if he so chooses?


  • #5277
    MessiHutz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72 ✭✭MessiHutz


    traprunner wrote: »
    I think it was and I'm just using this specific case in law to back me up. They were found guilty of discrimination.

    Well obviously the point I'm making is that they shouldn't have been.


  • #5278
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,046 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    What it has to do with the referendum on Friday I have no fecking clue though.
    Nothing but you can be damned sure a lot of 'No' voters will use it as further justification of the "Gay Mafia" or the "Gay Agenda".

    Personally, it seems like the judgement is probably (technically) correct but the two who brought the case were quite likely deliberately provoking the bakery, which is kind of crappy. It was not a proper approach to highlight discrimination by any means.

    Anyway, back to the actual topic which is the only thing you should be voting on: Do you want to give equal status to same sex couples to get married? To be recognised as families (in the constitutional sense) and receive the same protections as other such families enjoy.


  • #5279
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    BonsaiKitten wrote: »
    They were asked to make a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan, not a wedding cake.
    A Bert and Ernie cake with a slogan saying support gay marriage, specifically.

    Let's say I own a bakery, and some people come in and want me to bake a cake with a pro-life message. As a pro-choicer I wouldn't want to. Should I be able to refuse it?

    I do think this verdict will push some people towards a No vote. Wrongly, but it might. And I'm a yes voter btw.

    Are pro-lifers a recognised minority group now?


  • #5280
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,165 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    I'll be voting No after the verdict in the Ashers case. I know it will be a knock to gay people if it's a no vote and it's not my intention to upset people but religious freedom is being threatened at the moment and this will only add to that in my opinion.

    Perhaps I'm reading what you wrote above wrongly, but it read's like you only made up your mind on how you'll vote after the court decision came down against Ashers. Am I misreading what you mean?


  • Advertisement
  • #5281
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    BonsaiKitten wrote: »
    Let's say I own a bakery, and some people come in and want me to bake a cake with a pro-life message. As a pro-choicer I wouldn't want to. Should I be able to refuse it?

    In Ireland I think you would, as political opinion is not protected under discrimination laws.

    It is under Northern Irish law.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement