As Christians how do people feel about David Quinn's response to yes vote?

ShowMeTheCash · 28-05-2015 03:58PM

hinault wrote: »

You're right.
You're making an assumption that one day refers to a single rotation of the Earth.

Your assumption could be right or it could be wrong.

I am saying that with regard to the NT texts the writers of the texts continually refer to the fact that what is narrated in the texts is from eyewitness accounts. So either the narrator witnessed the events and the dialogue described in the text, or the narrator narrates an account given by an eyewitness to the events and words documented in the NT texts.

Whereas the majority of the Old Testament has no narration claiming to be based upon an eyewitness account.

So OT ambiguous NT not ambiguous although we have shown ambiguity in the NT also.

But marriage is definitely not ambiguous because as a fundamentalist Christian your truth is the true truth and everyone else is miss informed.

Got it.

ShowMeTheCash · 28-05-2015 04:01PM

hinault wrote: »

Incorrect.

Science makes no assertions.

Scientists make assertions.

For our current genetic gene pool as we now know it now mathematically models show that our species would have needed around 10,000 genetically unique individuals.

Take from that what you will.

RecordStraight · 28-05-2015 04:03PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So OT ambiguous NT not ambiguous although we have shown ambiguity in the NT also.

Nonsense - the New Testament is perfectly clear. It's just that there are a million interpretations of what it is clear about.

hinault · 28-05-2015 04:08PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So OT ambiguous NT not ambiguous

In terms of moral teaching.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

we have shown ambiguity in the NT also.

You've shown nothing of the sort.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

But marriage is definitely not ambiguous because as a fundamentalist Christian your truth is the true truth and everyone else is miss informed.

Got it.

Jesus teaching on marriage in the NT is crystal clear.
You don't accept Jesus teaching, that's your business.

RecordStraight · 28-05-2015 04:13PM

hinault wrote: »

You've shown nothing of the sort.

You have been given examples of things happening in different years in different gospels, key events happening on different days, journeys dozens of kilometres in the opposite direction to where they should have gone...but hey, let's keep pretending that didn't happen.

steamengine · 28-05-2015 04:14PM

RecordStraight wrote: »

Nonsense - the New Testament is perfectly clear. It's just that there are a million interpretations of what it is clear about.

In that case Christ's second commandment of 'Love thy neighbour' is subject to doubt also.

But we want to keep that one - right ?

As Darwin might say 'Natural Selectivity' :pac::pac::pac:

RecordStraight · 28-05-2015 04:16PM

steamengine wrote: »

In that case Christ's second commandment of 'Love thy neighbour' is subject to doubt also.

It definitely seems to be, based on the actions of many Christians...

steamengine · 28-05-2015 04:33PM

RecordStraight wrote: »

It definitely seems to be, based on the actions of many Christians...

Based on the actions of those who are trying to rubbish the bible - more like !

:rolleyes:

RecordStraight · 28-05-2015 05:10PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Seems a bit of a leap to suggest that anyone who disagrees with a particular interpretation of the bible is rubbishing it.

That sounds like something a heretic would say.

galljga1 · 28-05-2015 05:27PM

RecordStraight wrote: »

That sounds like something a heretic would say.

Heretic: One who challenges the doctrines of an established church.

Also known as sane person.

Skrynesaver · 28-05-2015 05:50PM

heretic (n.) Look up heretic at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., from Old French eretique (14c., Modern French hérétique), from Church Latin haereticus, from Greek hairetikos "able to choose," the verbal adjective of hairein (see heresy).

Delirium · 28-05-2015 06:01PM

galljga1 wrote: »

Heretic: One who challenges the doctrines of an established church.

Also known as sane person.

MOD NOTE

Less of the disrespectful attitude to Christian/religious posters.

Thanks for your attention

PopePalpatine · 28-05-2015 07:58PM

Looks like his post-referendum concession was just a bit of PR, inferring from this interview he did with the far-right "Family Research Council": https://t.co/kf05AdaK3S

B_Wayne · 28-05-2015 09:17PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Looks like his post-referendum concession was just a bit of PR, inferring from this interview he did with the far-right "Family Research Council": https://t.co/kf05AdaK3S

They've got a pretty horrible track record in terms of outright homophobia.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

horseburger · 28-05-2015 10:38PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Looks like his post-referendum concession was just a bit of PR, inferring from this interview he did with the far-right "Family Research Council": https://t.co/kf05AdaK3S

What I find interesting is the way he says certain things in interviews, depending on the audience to whom he is speaking.

I noticed that, in the way he spoke on a video, to which I posted a link in a different post, where, at a No campaign meeting, he makes comments that suggest he has a negative attitude towards the idea gay couples marrying, quite apart from his stated concerns regarding same sex marriage being about children of gay and lesbian couples not knowing one or other of their biological parents, and of his call for a preferential family type in cases of adoption.

He stated "if two nice fellas who love each other get married, how does that affect me, what's the harm" and then goes on to say what he thinks is wrong with gay men getting married.

Apologies for one again including this video in one of my posts, but it indicates what I'm talking about. I've noticed that he doesn't speak in this way when he's on live radio or TV debates in Irish media. He didn't speak in this way on last Saturday's results show, saying that he didn't want to rain on anyone's parade.

But he does just that in the interview with the Family Research Council

He complains in the interview with the Family Research Council, arguing that the media in Ireland opposed his stance on the referendum.

What's he complaining about?

He knows well that the media in Ireland had to give an equal amount of time to both sides in the debate.

He is part of the media.

He writes in The Irish Catholic, for which he was editor.

He writes in The Irish Independent.

He has written columns in various newspapers over the years, for example the Sunday Times, The Sunday Business Post and Irish Daily Mail.

He's on Irish TV and radio shows regularly.

He complains that none of the political parties called for a No vote.

Why should they?

Micheál Martin responded to that, on Saturday on Vincent Browne's show from The George, with reference to his debate with John Waters on TV 3 last week.

He said that it would be ridiculous if any of the political parties opposed the referendum just for the sake of it.

http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/93886/1/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/93717/1/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

David Quinn is trying to paint a picture on the Family Research Council interview that the No campaigning groups were silenced, which couldn't be more wrong.

It's not everyone else's fault if - judging by the referendum result - the groups who called for a No vote, don't represent the views of the majority of the Irish population.

These groups are linked, containing members involved in more than one of the groups, for example Catholic Comment, Iona Institute, Mothers and Fathers Matter and Family and Life.

David Quinn is complaining about the media and political parties advocating a Yes vote. But the point is, if the general population didn't want a Yes vote, it wouldn't have passed. It's just that the vast majority of the electorate disagreed with the No argument.

Their arguments for voting No didn't do them any favours either. Groups like Mothers and Fathers Matter used arguments like surrogacy as reasons to vote No, as if surrogacy wasn't already available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples, and will continue to be available regardless of the referendum. Niall Collins TD made the point on the second of the RTE results show last Saturday, that even if Ireland legislates restrictively on surrogacy, Irish citizens could avail of surrogacy procedures in other countries.

I found the stance of the group We Are Church Ireland, to be far more positive. It has a more inclusive outlook, with regard to church participation.

One of its aims is to have "an inclusive church, open and welcoming to all, which does not marginalise people because of their sexual orientation, marital status or for any other reason".

http://wearechurchireland.ie/

https://www.facebook.com/WeAreChurchIreland

Its group members aren't on TV or radio anywhere near as often as that of the Iona Institute.

hinault · 28-05-2015 11:24PM

horseburger wrote: »

What I find interesting is the way he says certain things in interviews, depending on the audience to whom he is speaking.

I noticed that, in the way he spoke on a video, to which I posted a link in a different post, where, at a No campaign meeting, he makes comments that suggest he has a negative attitude towards the idea gay couples marrying, quite apart from his stated concern regarding same sex marriage, being about children of gay and lesbian couples not knowing one or other of their biological parents and of his call for a preferential family type in cases of adoption.

He stated "if two nice fellas who love each other get married, how does that affect me, what's the harm" and then goes on to say what he thinks is wrong gay men getting married.

Apologies for one again including this video in one of my posts, but it indicates what I'm talking about. I've noticed that he doesn't speak in this way when he's on live radio or TV debates in Irish media. He didn't speak in this way on last Saturday's results show, saying that he didn't wasn't to rain on anyone's parade.

But he does just that in the interview with the Family Research Council

He complains in the interview with the Family Research Council, arguing that the media in Ireland opposed his stance on the referendum.

What's he complaining about?

He knows well that the media in Ireland had to give an equal amount of time to both sides in the debate.

He is part of the media.

He writes in The Irish Catholic, for which he was editor.

He writes in The Irish Independent.

He has written columns in various newspapers over the years for example the Sunday Times, The Sunday Business Post and Irish Daily Mail.

He's on Irish TV and radio shows regularly.

He complains that none of the political parties called for a No vote.

Why should they?

Micheál Martin responded to that, on Saturday on Vincent Browne's show from The George, with reference to his debate with John Waters on TV 3 last week.

He said that it would be ridiculous if any of the political parties opposed the referendum just for the sake of it.

http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/93886/1/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/93717/1/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

David Quinn is trying to paint a picture on the Family Research Council interview that the No campaigning groups were silenced, which couldn't be more wrong.

It's not everyone else's fault if the groups who called for a No vote are all involved in each others group, for example Catholic Comment, Iona Institute, Mothers and Fathers Matter and Family and Life.

I found the stance of the group We Are Church Ireland, to be far more positive. It has a more inclusive outlook, with regard to church participation.

One of its aims is to have "an inclusive church, open and welcoming to all, which does not marginalise people because of their sexual orientation, marital status or for any other reason".

http://wearechurchireland.ie/

https://www.facebook.com/WeAreChurchIreland

Its group members aren't on TV or radio anywhere near as often as that of the Iona Institute.

Thanks for posting that video.

I think your summary about the content of that video is not accurate.

I think what Quinn says in the video and the way in which he says what he says, both correlate what he says and the way he says it on programmes like Primetime etc.

horseburger · 28-05-2015 11:40PM

hinault wrote: »

Thanks for posting that video.

I think your summary about the content of that video is not accurate.

I think what Quinn says in the video and the way in which he says what he says, both correlate what he says and the way he says it on programmes like Primetime etc.

He said what I quoted:

"if two nice fellas who love each other get married, how does that affect me, what's the harm".

He doesn't speak like that on national TV and radio debates.

Is he not being considerably patronising and condescending and very dismissive of the fact that gay and lesbian people enter into unions of love and fidelity, the same way as heterosexual people?

He didn't speak on Saturday on RTE, the way he speaks in the interview with the Family Research Council.

In the video, he also says that there'll be a referendum on abortion in 2017 if there is a Yes vote.

I haven't heard him state that anywhere during the national TV or radio debates during the referendum.

Even if there is an abortion referendum, how is that, in any way, caused by those who campaigned for a Yes vote?

Gay and lesbian couples, who go through the process of having children, using surrogacy or sperm or egg donation, are hardly going to be the ones to contemplate having an abortion.

StealthRolex · 28-05-2015 11:41PM

The Vatican's response is much better. A defeat for humanity I think the Cardinal said.

The Vatican's Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, right-hand man to Pope Francis speaking about the referendum at a conference in Rome Tuesday night stated, "I was deeply saddened by the result."

"I think that you cannot just talk of a defeat for Christian principles, but of a defeat for humanity."

hinault · 28-05-2015 11:51PM

horseburger wrote: »

He said what I quoted:

"if two nice fellas who love each other get married, how does that affect me, what's the harm".

He doesn't speak like that on national TV and radio debates.

Is he not being considerably patronising, condescending and dismissive of the fact that gay and lesbian people enter into unions of love and fidelity, the same way as heterosexual people?.

I don't think that he was being patronising, condescending or dismissive when he said what he said in the video.

He was posing a question, a rhetorical question perhaps.

horseburger wrote: »

In the video, he also says that there'll be a referendum on abortion in 2017 if there is a Yes vote.

I haven't heard him state that anywhere during the national TV or radio debates during the referendum.

Even if there is an abortion referendum, how is that, in any way, caused by those who campaigned for a Yes vote?

RTE and Newstalk spent quite a bit of time on Monday and Tuesday, in their post referendum jubliation concerning the result, asking "new liberals" such as Joan Burton and Bastik whether or not the vote "momentum" from the "new liberals" will be harnessed for the abortionista camapign.

Why aren't you condemning RTE and Newstalk here for trying to link both campaigns?

horseburger · 29-05-2015 12:19AM

hinault wrote: »

I don't think that he was being patronising, condescending or dismissive when he said what he said in the video.

He was posing a question, a rhetorical question perhaps.

RTE and Newstalk spent quite a bit of time on Monday and Tuesday, in their post referendum jubliation concerning the result, asking "new liberals" such as Joan Burton and Bastik whether or not the vote "momentum" from the "new liberals" will be harnessed for the abortionista camapign.

Why aren't you condemning RTE and Newstalk here for trying to link both campaigns?

I think he was being patronising, condescending and dismissive. Why else would he use a phrase like ""if two nice fellas who love each other get married, how does that affect me, what's the harm"?

In the other interview, he was speaking to the Family Research Council, which has campaigned against rights for gay and lesbian people.

http://www.politics.ie/forum/us-politics/238078-family-research-council-leader-admits-molesting-children.html

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/family-research-council

http://www.towleroad.com/family-research-council/

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/tag/family-research-council/

Abortion is a totally separate issue to voting for civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

David Quinn mentioned the possibility of an abortion referendum in that video with no evidence to back it up, except his own thought process. He was just scaremongering because he knew that he was speaking to an audience who would hold similar beliefs to him on both issues.

Even if Joan Burton or Ivana Bacik are calling for a referendum on abortion, how is that anything to do with the referendum on civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples?

They are two separate issues.

hinault · 29-05-2015 12:38AM

horseburger wrote: »

I think he was being patronising, condescending and dismissive. Why else would he use a phrase like ""if two nice fellas who love each other get married, how does that affect me, what's the harm"?

In the other interview, he was speaking to the Family Research Council, which has campaigned against rights for gay and lesbian people.

I guess you and I can agree to disagree upon whether or not, DQ was being
patronising, condescending and dismissive.

You think he was.
I think he wasn't.

horseburger wrote: »

Abortion is a totally separate issue to voting for civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

David Quinn mentioned the possibility of an abortion referendum in that video with no evidence to back it up, except his own thought process. He was just scaremongering because he knew that he was speaking to an audience who would hold similar beliefs to him on both issues.

Even if Joan Burton or Ivana Bacik are calling for a referendum on abortion, how is that anything to do with the referendum on civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples?

They are two separate issues.

RTE and Newstalk were happy to indulge lots of talk about how the new liberalism of the homosexual marriage vote, could be used to fuel the liberalisation of abortion, through the Constitution.

And the politicians were only too happy to lap that up. Plenty of talk about voter momentum, about how folks through the vote could "free themselves".

You see these "liberals" and their political and media enablers all consider homosexuality, liberal abortion, as fronts in the same war.
To that extent they're actually honest in their assessment.

The fact that David Quinn quite rightly predicted that this would materialise if the YES vote was carried, is a sign of how well he understands what is happening.

horseburger · 29-05-2015 12:58AM

hinault wrote: »

I guess you and I can agree to disagree upon whether or not, DQ was being
patronising, condescending and dismissive.

You think he was.
I think he wasn't.

RTE and Newstalk were happy to indulge lots of talk about how the new liberalism of the homosexual marriage vote, could be used to fuel the liberalisation of abortion, through the Constitution.

And the politicians were only too happy to lap that up. Plenty of talk about voter momentum, about how folks through the vote could "free themselves".

You see these "liberals" and their political and media enablers all consider homosexuality, liberal abortion, as fronts in the same war.
To that extent they're actually honest in their assessment.

The fact that David Quinn quite rightly predicted that this would materialise if the YES vote was carried, is a sign of how well he understands what is happening.

He said that off the top of his head with nothing to back it up, to appeal to the audience to whom he was speaking.

As I said, I think the two issues are unrelated.

If there is going to be a referendum on abortion, it would not happen as a consequence of a Yes vote in the marriage referendum, as suggested by David Quinn.

Such a link could only be made if it was just gay and lesbian rights groups that were calling for an abortion referendum.

Even if the Labour Party, Joan Burton or Ivana Bacik want an abortion referendum, it'd be a separate party policy, unrelated to the civil marriage referendum.

An abortion referendum would only occur if it's government policy.

hinault · 29-05-2015 01:37AM

horseburger wrote: »

He said that off the top of his head with nothing to back it up, to appeal to the audience to whom he was speaking.

As I said, I think the two issues are unrelated.

If there is going to be a referendum on abortion, it would not happen as a consequence of a Yes vote in the marriage referendum, as suggested by David Quinn.

Such a link could only be made if it was just gay and lesbian rights groups that were calling for an abortion referendum.

Even if the Labour Party, Joan Burton or Ivana Bacik want an abortion referendum, it'd be a separate party policy, unrelated to the civil marriage referendum.

An abortion referendum would only occur if it's government policy.

Naive on your part.

The liberal politicians reckon that they've discovered an undisclosed seam of liberal voters.
Quinn correctly predicted that this would be the political reaction and Monday and Tuesday proved him right.

horseburger · 29-05-2015 02:25AM

hinault wrote: »

Naive on your part.

The liberal politicians reckon that they've discovered an undisclosed seam of liberal voters.
Quinn correctly predicted that this would be the political reaction and Monday and Tuesday proved him right.

What David Quinn is trying to do is position himself and other no campaigners as being victims. He is trying to suggest that the media and all the political parties are against him and others who share his views on issues like religion, marriage and abortion. In the Family Research Council interview he speaks of funding received by the Yes campaign but doesn't divulge from where No campaigning groups receive funding.

Throughout the referendum debate, the No campaign groups totally ignored the fact that what was being voted on was civil marriage, and that if there was a Yes vote, that none of the religious churches were going to be compelled to make available church premises, and that church representatives were not going to be forced to officiate at civil marriages.

He and other No campaigners ran a very negative campaign, contradicting themselves by saying they're concern was for children, being brought up by gay couples, without the child's mother, but at the same time calling for a conscience clause to enable businesses refuse to serve gay and lesbian couples.

They contradicted themselves again by arguing to keep civil partnerships despite arguing against civil partnerships in 2009-2010.

David Quinn contradicted himself once again by calling for a conscience clause, based on religious beliefs, to enable business owners with religious beliefs to refuse to serve gay or lesbian couples, for example if the owners don't agree with either civil partnerships or civil marriage.

(In March, Beulah Print in Drogheda refused to print out civil partnership invitations)

But at the same time as calling for a clause to allow businesses refuse to serve people, he complains about businesses and prominent personalities in Ireland showing support for the Yes campaign, for example the head of Twitter Ireland and former President Mary McAleese.

If that conscience clause issue doesn't indicate a negative, hypocritical, condescending attitude towards gay and lesbian people entering into a legal union of fidelity, what does?

He also complains in the Family Research Council interview, of the media "softening up" by highlighting and discussing issues relating to the rights of gay and lesbian people.

He says this as if suggesting that the media shouldn't be highlighting or discussing these topics.

Does he not consider that maybe people who are gay or lesbian, feel more free to discuss their sexual orientation in recent years because attitudes about homosexuality have changed. I would think it's understandable why anyone who is gay or lesbian, would have been reluctant to speak in national media about their sexual orientation, prior to decriminalisation in 1993.

On that subject, of how attitudes of many people in Ireland have changed over the years, here is an interesting documentary from 2003, about the campaigns for rights of gay and lesbian people, from the early 1970s onwards:

ShowMeTheCash · 29-05-2015 06:38AM

hinault wrote: »

You've shown nothing of the sort.

Yes we have, and what's more the link you posted of Dr Williams so your own source if you listen to his radio broadcast he talks about different translations of Mark and possible additions too John.

The fact that you keep choosing to ignore these will not make them going away.

Also I did not get into the contradiction argument "How many times did the cock crow!" Nonsense as I have had this argument before it does not go anywhere.

Fundamentalists always have an excuses or a reason for contradictions, ambiguity or things that just don't add up as you clearly demonstrated.

The problem with fundamentalists is this, they think they are right before examining any real facts... They have no data that would suggest they are right so the actively go about making the data fit what they believe... Anyone anywhere could do this whether it be Christian, Jew or Muslim.
People like this are not really Christian's they are just fundamentalist.

hinault wrote: »

Jesus teaching on marriage in the NT is crystal clear.
You don't accept Jesus teaching, that's your business.

I don't take the bible literally, I try to keep an open mind when trying to understand data as it is presented to me...
You clearly are not this objective, as shown with the examples from the OT you believe the Bible without question then go about trying to show it could be legitimate even though modern science shows it is very unlikely.

hinault · 29-05-2015 11:47AM

horseburger wrote: »

What David Quinn is trying to do is position himself and other no campaigners as being victims. He is trying to suggest that the media and all the political parties are against him and others who share his views on issues like religion, marriage and abortion. In the Family Research Council interview he speaks of funding received by the Yes campaign but doesn't divulge from where No campaigning groups receive funding.

Well it is a fact that every single political party opposed a NO vote by campaigning for a YES vote.
And it is a fact that every single major Irish media group opposed a NO vote
by supporting a YES vote.

I don't agree that DQ is claiming that the NO campaign are victims.

horseburger wrote: »

Throughout the referendum debate, the No campaign groups totally ignored the fact that what was being voted on was civil marriage, and that if there was a Yes vote, that none of the religious churches were going to be compelled to make available church premises, and that church representatives were not going to be forced to officiate at civil marriages.

By voting YES, the "perceived discrimination" that existed in civil law is removed.
Thus could set a precedent that the "perceived discrimination" that exists in other sectors within society may well be challenged such as access to church wedding for homosexuals.

It is a legitimate concern for those who hold that organisations who perform marriages may be forced to marry homosexuals.
Whether you think that this is a legitimate concern or not is of no relevance.

horseburger wrote: »

He and other No campaigners ran a very negative campaign, contradicting themselves by saying they're concern was for children, being brought up by gay couples, without the child's mother, but at the same time calling for a conscience clause to enable businesses refuse to serve gay and lesbian couples.

You see a contradiction where there is none.

The conscience clause is a separate issue regardless.

horseburger wrote: »

David Quinn contradicted himself once again by calling for a conscience clause, based on religious beliefs, to enable business owners with religious beliefs to refuse to serve gay or lesbian couples, for example if the owners don't agree with either civil partnerships or civil marriage.

(In March, Beulah Print in Drogheda refused to print out civil partnership invitations)

But at the same time as calling for a clause to allow businesses refuse to serve people, he complains about businesses and prominent personalities in Ireland showing support for the Yes campaign, for example the head of Twitter Ireland and former President Mary McAleese.

If that conscience clause issue doesn't indicate a negative, hypocritical, condescending attitude towards gay and lesbian people entering into a legal union of fidelity, what does?

He also complains in the Family Research Council interview, of the media "softening up" by highlighting and discussing issues relating to the rights of gay and lesbian people.

The argument for the conscience clause is to give legal protection those people who, for whatever reason, may not wish to have commercial dealings with homosexuals.

The fact is that there is a sizeable constituency out there who do not want to have anything whatsoever to do with homosexuals.
In seeking a conscience clause, this would give legal protection to those people.

If the YES vote is as clear as the poll suggest that it is, there should be an oversupply of stationary supply providers and wedding cake makers willing to meet all of the "pent up demand" that there will be resulting from future homosexual weddings.

And in this bright new future we should not be seeing any vexatious legal cases claiming "discrimination" against homosexuals regarding weddings:rolleyes:

Time will tell.

horseburger · 29-05-2015 12:32PM

hinault wrote: »

Well it is a fact that every single political party opposed a NO vote by campaigning for a YES vote.
And it is a fact that every single major Irish media group opposed a NO vote
by supporting a YES vote.

I don't agree that DQ is claiming that the NO campaign are victims.

By voting YES, the "perceived discrimination" that existed in civil law is removed.
It is a legitimate concern for those who hold that organisations who perform marriages may be forced to marry homosexuals.
Whether you think that this is a legitimate concern or not is of no relevance.

Thus could set a precedent that the "perceived discrimination" that exists in other sectors within society may well be challenged such as access to church wedding for homosexuals.

You see a contradiction where there is none.

The conscience clause is a separate issue regardless.

The argument for the conscience clause is to give legal protection those people who, for whatever reason, may not wish to have commercial dealings with homosexuals.

The fact is that there is a sizeable constituency out there who do not want to have anything whatsoever to do with homosexuals.
In seeking a conscience clause, this would give legal protection to those people.

If the YES vote is as clear as the poll suggest that it is, there should be an oversupply of stationary supply providers and wedding cake makers willing to meet all of the "pent up demand" that there will be resulting from future homosexual weddings.

And in this bright new future we should not be seeing any vexatious legal cases claiming "discrimination" against homosexuals regarding weddings:rolleyes:

Time will tell.

You are incorrect in saying that all political parties campaigned for a Yes vote. The Christian Solidarity Party called for a No vote.

The conscience clause is not a separate issue because David Quinn called for provision of a clause, to be included in the amendment in the constitution. He criticised Frances Fitzgerald and the government for not doing that, on Prime Time a few weeks ago.

http://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2015/0506/699046-prime-time-05-05-2015/

If there's a "sizeable constituency out there who do not want to have anything whatsoever to do with homosexuals", they may as well leave the country and live somewhere in permanent isolation, or remove themselves from the rest of the world, or somehow ensure they never meet or interact with people they don't know, for fear of those people they meet being gay or lesbian, because gay and lesbian people live day to day lives like heterosexual people, in all aspects of Irish society and elsewhere.

Their sexual orientation only becomes an issue because certain people decide they want nothing to do with gay and lesbian people because they decide to discriminate against them.

It has been stated numerous times, over and over again, that the referendum was on civil marriage and that churches are not going to be forced to facilitate civil marriage ceremonies.

If the religious organisations did ever change their minds, to allow marriages for gay and lesbian people to be held in their churches, that will be a decision of those churches, not as a result of this referendum.

hinault · 29-05-2015 01:12PM

horseburger wrote: »

You are incorrect in saying that all political parties campaigned for a Yes vote. The Christian Solidarity Party called for a No vote.

How many Oireachtas seats does this party hold?
How many local council seats does this party hold?

Fine Gael party campaigned for a YES vote.
The Labour Party campaigned for a YES vote.
Fianna Fail campaigned for a YES vote.
Sinn Fein campaigned for a YES vote.
The Socialist Party campaigned for a YES vote.
People before profit campaigned for a YES vote.
Workers and Unemployed Action group campaigned for a YES vote.
The majority of independent TD's and senators campaigned for a YES vote.

horseburger wrote: »

If there's a "sizeable constituency out there who do not want to have anything whatsoever to do with homosexuals", they may as well leave the country and live somewhere in permanent isolation, or remove themselves from the rest of the world, or somehow ensure they never meet or interact with people they don't know, for fear of those people they meet being gay or lesbian, because gay and lesbian people live day to day lives like heterosexual people, in all aspects of Irish society and elsewhere.

There right to protection in law to not have to have dealings with homosexuals is a denial of their rights.

A sizeable constituency now do not wish to have any dealings with homosexuals. This constituency is entitled to seek legal protection of that right under a conscience clause in our Constitution

horseburger wrote: »

It has been stated numerous times, over and over again, that the referendum was on civil marriage and that churches are not going to be forced to facilitate civil marriage ceremonies.

The consequences of the decision to redefine marriage in the Constitution will derive legal consequences as regards "perceived discrimination" in other sectors of society.

Time will tell.

horseburger wrote: »

If the religious organisations did ever change their minds, to allow marriage for gay and lesbian people marry in their churches, that will be a decision of those churches, not as a result of this referendum.

The State could well decide to force the issue.

Again time will tell.

29-05-2015 01:22PM

hinault wrote: »

A sizeable constituency now do not wish to have any dealings with homosexuals. This constituency is entitled to seek legal protection of that right under a conscience clause in our Constitution

Who is forcing them to?

PopePalpatine · 29-05-2015 01:38PM

I'm certain there's a "constituency" that doesn't want dealings with foreigners, either. Should they be allowed to use a "conscience clause"?

As Christians how do people feel about David Quinn's response to yes vote?

Comments