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

jobbridge4life · 19-05-2015 04:52PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Oh dear...I didn't deny that case was my reasoning I just said that lowering the argument to just being about any old cake in N.I was stupid! Well done for going through the thread to find my first post though time well spent

Well done on registering just so you could spew arguments in favour of discrimination in this thread. Time well spent.

gandalf · 19-05-2015 04:53PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

I just feel the need to add this to the list of vitriol from No campaigners. Makes me laugh that the Yes said is said to be bullying by engaging in debate, and yet No campaigners can get away this this-
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFYSHikWYAA-HQ3.jpg

A letter received by Una Mullally today telling her that her cancer is "the will of God" and that she should accept she is "both homosexual and not very pretty" but that "there are worse fates, you could be black for instance".

I'd urge any soft No's out there to reconsider your stance, because this is the sort of vile human being that you're allied with.

Ah no that's not bullying that's them expressing their religious right to look down on others !!!!

I have a feeling the author of that letter has a bigger chance of burning in hell than Una does!

Jimoslimos · 19-05-2015 04:53PM

gandalf wrote: »

I am getting my facts correct most of the people I know are citing Leviticus as their reasoning.

Most Catholics have never even picked up a Bible, let alone be able to quote from it - that's the priests job, to read and interpret it for you.
If Iona are pushing a No vote it's because that's what the Catholic church want (who may or may not have based that on something in Scripture).

But quoting it directly from the Bible - that's a no no, otherwise why would we need a lavishly funded church?

Grayson · 19-05-2015 04:54PM

Ironé wrote: »

Many people genuinely don't get that this is civil marriage and is seperate completely from religious marriage.

And what I like about the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage is that it demonstrates how it's a "Civil Right" that gay people are being refused.

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 04:55PM

Vivisectus wrote: »

If you still stand by that point, then I expect you to speak up in support when I claim that human sacrifice should be allowed, since it is part of a religion.

Gay Marriage is not the law in N.I, not murdering people is in the law. What a stupid point.

osarusan · 19-05-2015 04:56PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

I just feel the need to add this to the list of vitriol from No campaigners. Makes me laugh that the Yes side is said to be bullying by engaging in debate, and yet No campaigners can get away with this-
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFYSHikWYAA-HQ3.jpg

A letter received by Una Mullally today telling her that her cancer is "the will of God" and that she should accept she is "both homosexual and not very pretty" but that "there are worse fates, you could be black for instance".

I'd urge any soft No's out there to reconsider your stance, because this is the sort of vile human being that you're allied with.

Where did that picture come from?

aloyisious · 19-05-2015 04:56PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I think most religious people wouldn't know Romans or Leviticus if it bit them

Probably including the SSM opponents here in Bray felt-marking the Dublin Bus shelters with quotations from Roman's.

jobbridge4life · 19-05-2015 04:56PM

osarusan wrote: »

Where did that picture come from?

Una Mullally twweeted it.

valoren · 19-05-2015 04:57PM

God Says No.

Should be one that says "Go in Studs Up on God. Vote Yes"

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 04:57PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Gay Marriage is not the law in N.I, not murdering people is in the law. What a stupid point.

Discrimination is illegal in NI though....

gandalf · 19-05-2015 04:58PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Most Catholics have never even picked up a Bible, let alone be able to quote from it - that's the priests job, to read and interpret it for you.
If Iona are pushing a No vote it's because that's what the Catholic church want (who may or may not have based that on something in Scripture).

But quoting it directly from the Bible - that's a no no, otherwise why would we need a lavishly funded church?

I have a feeling that a lot of the arguments being put forward are regurgitation of the extreme religious rights arguments from the US. Certainly the dirty campaign seeded with misinformation and lies to create an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and deception is right out of the political playbook of the US far right.

Remember these are the organisations that are suspected of funding the likes of the Iona "Institute" and their many Hydra like sub-groups.

Grayson · 19-05-2015 04:59PM

valoren wrote: »

God Says No.

Should be one that says "Go in Studs Up on God. Vote Yes"

What constituency is he registered in?

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 05:00PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Discrimination is illegal in NI though....

It wasn't discrimination. A gay couple who owned a bakery wouldn't have baked a No to gay Marriage cake.
They didn't refuse to bake it because the orderer was gay, they disagreed with the statement on the cake supporting gay marriage which everyone is entitled to do I presume you agree?

6am7f9zxrsjvnb · 19-05-2015 05:01PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

I just feel the need to add this to the list of vitriol from No campaigners. Makes me laugh that the Yes side is said to be bullying by engaging in debate, and yet No campaigners can get away with this-
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFYSHikWYAA-HQ3.jpg

A letter received by Una Mullally today telling her that her cancer is "the will of God" and that she should accept she is "both homosexual and not very pretty" but that "there are worse fates, you could be black for instance".

I'd urge any soft No's out there to reconsider your stance, because this is the sort of vile human being that you're allied with.

I'd imagine that Una is bright enough to realise that in a nation of over 4 million people there might be the odd cretin about the place.

Jimoslimos · 19-05-2015 05:02PM

gandalf wrote: »

I have a feeling that a lot of the arguments being put forward are regurgitation of the extreme religious rights arguments from the US. Certainly the dirty campaign seeded with misinformation and lies to create an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and deception is right out of the political playbook of the US far right.

Remember these are the organisations that are suspected of funding the likes of the Iona "Institute" and their many Hydra like sub-groups.

I have no doubt that shady ultra-conservative Catholic groups have a hand in funding the No campaign here. I'm just bewildered as to why they would use a tactic associated with hardline Protestant fundamentalists

gandalf · 19-05-2015 05:03PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I have no doubt that shady ultra-conservative Catholic groups have a hand in funding the No campaign here. I'm just bewildered as to why they would use a tactic associated with hardline Protestant fundamentalists

Because they believe it will work?

jobbridge4life · 19-05-2015 05:03PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

It wasn't discrimination. A gay couple who owned a bakery wouldn't have baked a No to gay Marriage cake.
They didn't refuse to bake it because the orderer was gay, they disagreed with the statement on the cake supporting gay marriage which everyone is entitled to do I presume you agree?

So if they refused to make a gay wedding cake or a wedding cake for a gay wedding you would accept that was discrimination?

traprunner · 19-05-2015 05:04PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

It wasn't discrimination. A gay couple who owned a bakery wouldn't have baked a No to gay Marriage cake.
They didn't refuse to bake it because the orderer was gay, they disagreed with the statement on the cake supporting gay marriage which everyone is entitled to do I presume you agree?

How many times will it take??

it was discrimination. The courts ruled it was.

Ironé · 19-05-2015 05:04PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

It wasn't discrimination. A gay couple who owned a bakery wouldn't have baked a No to gay Marriage cake.
They didn't refuse to bake it because the orderer was gay, they disagreed with the statement on the cake supporting gay marriage which everyone is entitled to do I presume you agree?

Except that they were found guilty of discrimination today by a court in NI ... but I'm sure you know better.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 05:07PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

It wasn't discrimination. A gay couple who owned a bakery wouldn't have baked a No to gay Marriage cake.
They didn't refuse to bake it because the orderer was gay, they disagreed with the statement on the cake supporting gay marriage which everyone is entitled to do I presume you agree?

The NI legal system would beg to differ. Hence the NI legal system deems what happened to be discrimination which is illegal in NI. Like murder.

They can disagree with the statement all they like. Nobody is stopping them from disagreeing. Withholding services based on that belief though is discrimination, whether you see that or not.

Like I said before, there are certain sections of Muslims who believe women are second class citizens. That religious belief does not give them the right to act on it though. I presume you agree?

gandalf · 19-05-2015 05:07PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

It wasn't discrimination. A gay couple who owned a bakery wouldn't have baked a No to gay Marriage cake.
They didn't refuse to bake it because the orderer was gay, they disagreed with the statement on the cake supporting gay marriage which everyone is entitled to do I presume you agree?

Ok so lets say the person ordering the cake was Muslim and the message was in support of Shariah Law?

Or the person was disabled and it was in support of the Special Olympics?

Or the person was Black and it was in support of immigrants rights?

Or the person was Catholic and it was in support of Opus Dei?

Or the person was Jewish and it was in support of Jewish rights?

Or the person was a traveler and it was in support of a new halting site?

Are they allowed to deny these people their cake as well?

osarusan · 19-05-2015 05:09PM

Any chance the cake stuff could be left to the other thread?

I'd be more interested in hearing how to get that letter to Mullally publicised as much as possible.

Zubeneschamali · 19-05-2015 05:11PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I'm just saying people are being forced to support something that is against their religion

People will not be forced to support same sex marriage. You will still be allowed to say no to same-sex marriage proposals, and even decline invitations to same-sex weddings. You won't even be forced to send a gift or a card.

People are being asked to tolerate something in society that would be against their religion if they did it themselves, but does not affect them in the slightest, just like heathens availing of civil divorce and remarriage or Big Macs on Good Friday.

frostyjacks · 19-05-2015 05:11PM

gandalf wrote: »

Ok so lets say the person ordering the cake was Muslim and the message was in support of Shariah Law?

Or the person was disabled and it was in support of the Special Olympics?

Or the person was Black and it was in support of immigrants rights?

Or the person was Catholic and it was in support of Opus Dei?

Or the person was Jewish and it was in support of Jewish rights?

Or the person was a traveler and it was in support of a new halting site?

Are they allowed to deny these people their cake as well?

No way they'd turn down a traveller cake. You ever see the size of them? It would put your kids through college.

jobbridge4life · 19-05-2015 05:13PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

People will not be forced to support same sex marriage. You will still be allowed to say no to same-sex marriage proposals, and even decline invitations to same-sex weddings. You won't even be forced to send a gift or a card.

People are being asked to tolerate something in society that would be against their religion if they did it themselves, but does not affect them in the slightest, just like heathens availing of civil divorce and remarriage or Big Macs on Good Friday.

And that there is were society began its sad decline

Zubeneschamali · 19-05-2015 05:24PM

Red Alert wrote: »

My issue is that a heterosexual marriage naturally provides parents with the opportunity to have children.

My Dad married my stepmother when they were of an age where this was obviously and utterly untrue, and the priest never said a word.

Odd, that.

traprunner · 19-05-2015 05:35PM

Please someone. Just one valid reason! It's such a black and white issue.

Ironé · 19-05-2015 05:40PM

traprunner wrote: »

Please someone. Just one valid reason! It's such a black and white issue.

It's been months now and I still have not heard one argument that doesn't boil down to homophobia. No voters ignore facts, independent experts to cling on to their own prejudices.

traprunner · 19-05-2015 05:45PM

It is ok No voters. If you are voting No due to homophobia it's not too late to change your ways. Redemption awaits.

HIB · 19-05-2015 05:46PM

traprunner wrote: »

Please someone. Just one valid reason! It's such a black and white issue.

Is this one?

Surrogacy has not yet been legislated for. If the lawmakers want to deny homosexual couples the right to adopt through surrogacy, then under the current constituition, one way to do this is to state that only married couples can adopt through surrogacy. If we vote yes, it would be impossible to deny homosexual couples equal treatment to heterosexual couples in relation to surrogacy.

And before everyone jumps down my throat, I actually am not against surrogate adoption by gay couples.

But if you are against it, then shouldn't you be voting no?

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

Comments