Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Brian Shanahan

aloyisious wrote: »

I find it interesting that Enda is worried that the referendum on marriage equality may be won by those who oppose it (RTE), while the equalities minister is telling-off the B.A.I. for their "chilling" rulings on the topic and debates on air (The Examiner). Do I hear vote-seeking in the air?

I reckon Enda's only spoiling for a fight on this one simply because he knows he's up against the luders of Iona. He know's he's bad when put up against others in a debate setting, but surely he couldn't be worse than that crowd. All he has to do to beat them is stand his ground and show how ludicrous their position actually is.

david75

Who exactly will he be debating?

not Iona...surely not..

VinLieger

david75 wrote: »

Who exactly will he be debating?

not Iona...surely not..

I hope to god not, giving them any kind of platform would be a digrace also them debating directly with the taoiseach would give them way too much legitimacy

david75

agree completely. Hopefully they're all but shut out of this debate on any platform but a few of them seem to have their own parking spaces at RTE etc so...

oscarBravo

david75 wrote: »

People are going to project their anger about other issues onto this, rightly or wrongly...

Not rightly or wrongly; just wrongly. Anyone who'll vote against a referendum proposal not on its merits but just in anger at the government is a blithering idiot who doesn't deserve a vote, frankly.

david75

If facebook and twitter and the journal are anything to go by then, this referendum is buried on that basis alone..

TheChizler

david75 wrote: »

If facebook and twitter and the journal are anything to go by then, this referendum is buried on that basis alone..

Luckily the polls aren't operated via Facebook, Twitter, and The Journal then!

aloyisious

We'll just have to work a bit harder to offset any disinformation spread around mixing up citizens Civil Marriage rights and Church or Religious Marriages, and anything said about "The Children".

aloyisious

Just listening to Lucinda and the new party announcement. Noting Billy Timmins (also former FG TD) is mentioned as being on the starting list. RTE radio news (drive-time programme) running Lucinda's statements about Marriage, the Constitution and procreation of children. I guess (rightly, I hope) that Enda may have been settling out the battle-lines for FG TD's nd Senators on the referendum ahead of Lucinda making hedlines. Re the Equalities Minister and his mention of the B.A.I., it may not have been a coincidencer, and may have been a way of the Gov't ensuring that each side would be given due respect in broadcasting when the B.A.I. may be called on to rule on complaints. Not thinking that any member of the B.A.I. might be swayed by religiosity.

Just copped this on facebook... http://www.tv3.ie/vincent_browne_form.php. Ta to gent responsible for the info. It will be interesting if Billy Timmins will be on the panel as a Wicklow TD.

I'm only hoping now that Eddie Hobbs will be the weak link in the chain, like the time that FG hooked a financial genius and it went wrong. Does anyone have connects or info as to Eddie's background on Civil Liberties issues vis a vie the Iona-style stance on the issue?

aloyisious

Maybe I got it wrong on Lucinda's stance on Equal Civil Marriage, but there's a BIG "but" in what she say's now. According to today's Irish Times, Lucinda confirmed that she is now in support of it, think's it is hugely important for gay people and "maybe I didn't appreciate that before". The rest of her statement concerning the issue seem wishy-washy, almost like "I have gay friends".

I get the feeling that Lucinda has realized that it is not merely the votes of LGBT people that she won't get, but also those of the close and extended family members of those people as well, plus their friends. Lucinda has stated that she won't campaign in the referendum, so I take it that she does not want to be seen as identifying with either the Yes or No camps now, and doesn't want to put off any possible allies this early in party-formative talks.

The Black Oil

I heard some of that as well. It sounds like she's read the political winds on marriage equality (like Hilary Clinton, I suppose), or where she perceives they're blowing and wants to sound more open to it. At the same time, she still maintains a traditional stance on family/procreation (maybe I misheard as they replay some clips of her from 2010?), which came across as the 'but' you referred to.

The ground game still needs a lot of work from the Yes side to ensure this passes.

wp_rathead

Check out @stevenconlon's Tweet: https://twitter.com/stevenconlon/status/552071465794027520?s=09

"sound of sodomy"?
Jaysus

robindch

wprathead wrote: »

Check out @stevenconlon's Tweet: https://twitter.com/stevenconlon/status/552071465794027520?s=09

"sound of sodomy"?

As one of the commenters points out, "the scarament of marriage" is a splendid misspelling in the context. And I'm sure Freud would have had something to say about that lampstand.

Delirium

wprathead wrote: »

Check out @stevenconlon's Tweet: https://twitter.com/stevenconlon/status/552071465794027520?s=09

"sound of sodomy"?
Jaysus

I'm curious to know how they determined that the sound of one sexual act is bad but all others are fine for children to hear? And will hetero couples now be monitored for "sounds of sodomy" and subsequently have kids removed if they are flagged for such sound?

And referring to a sex act as "beastly" doesn't reflect well on the author(s) of the leaflet either.

They're not being entirely honest either as the sound they are complaining about isn't something that is exclusive to homosexual couples.

aloyisious

Clicked on first twitter address in wprathead's post, was informed it didn't exist, tried Robindch's version, worked ok. Just lol.

shruikan2553

wprathead wrote: »

Check out @stevenconlon's Tweet: https://twitter.com/stevenconlon/status/552071465794027520?s=09

"sound of sodomy"?
Jaysus

The hills are aliveeee with the sound of sodomy!

Nice to see Christians caring about the wellbeing of children for a change. These people do know that sodomy is very common amongst straight people as well?

robindch

shruikan2553 wrote: »

These people do know that sodomy is very common amongst straight people as well?

I've suggested as much to Popette on a few occasions, but so far as I can gauge from the reaction, sodomy appears to be ritually impure only when gay men do it and the analogs for the lesbian and hetero population seem to be irrelevant.

shruikan2553

robindch wrote: »

I've suggested as much to Popette on a few occasions, but so far as I can gauge from the reaction, sodomy appears to be ritually impure only when gay men do it and the analogs for the lesbian and hetero population seem to be irrelevant.

Its much like the ability to create a child with your partner then. Only matters if you arent a man and a woman. It's as if their problem is with the people and they are just trying to come up with poor excuses to attempt to make it socially acceptable.

Still, hope to see someone handing these out today so I can ask them what kind of campaign they took part in to get the church to be a bit more helpful about finding paedophiles.

seamus

Once again the Christian obsession with anal sex rears its head (pun intended). And specifically male-on-male anal sex.

I'd really love to know if there's something specific that makes them so crazy about it, or if it's just "cos the bible says so".

shruikan2553

I found the sounds of sodomy we need to be worried about (NSFW)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM2PwriqOjc

If you ever see a black woman with a grapefruit make sure to throw a bible at her, she is coming into your house to make your children listen to the noises.

Brian Shanahan

SW wrote: »

They're not being entirely honest either as the sound they are complaining about isn't something that is exclusive to homosexual couples.

They are also wrong about homosexuals not being allowed to adopt (they are scaremongering that legislation will allow them to adopt, implying they can't currently). A single gay person can adopt in this country, it is simply a matter that his or her partner won't also be recognised as a legal parent (this problem is also one faced by unmarried heterosexual couples).

robindch

seamus wrote: »

I'd really love to know if there's something specific that makes them so crazy about it, or if it's just "cos the bible says so".

The violation of "ritual purity" appears to cause the greatest offence - the bible doesn't actually mention male-on-male anal sex and IMHO, rather than reflecting authoritarian disgust at the practice, simply reflects it.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has talked about ritual purity, usefully, I think in this talk.

robindch

News in from Florida -

Bad - some courthouses in the state are to stop performing all wedding ceremonies, so that they don't need to perform any same-sex ceremonies:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/2/florida-courthouses-stop-all-weddings-to-avoid-per/

Good - a judge has ruled that marriage equality can begin in Miami-Dade immediately; rest of the state from midnight:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/287526221.html

wp_rathead

david75 wrote: »

Enda is doing far more harm than good supporting this referendum or even speaking about it, but it's not that tinfoil hatted to think that might be part of the plan. People are going to project their anger about other issues onto this, rightly or wrongly, and He's going to be the lightning rod for it, so he really shouldn't toxify it by speaking about it.

That is nonsense imo. Why shouldn't he be supporting it? I think it is great to see the Taoiseach out supporting SSM
If idiots vote no "As a protest vote" then they are lowest of the low, gombeen, individualist ****.

Penn

wprathead wrote: »

That is nonsense imo. Why shouldn't he be supporting it? I think it is great to see the Taoiseach out supporting SSM
If idiots vote no "As a protest vote" then they are lowest of the low, gombeen, individualist ****.

Yeah, I really doubt anyone would use this vote of all things as a way of protesting against the government. Those who do, I'd have to wonder if they'd just be using that as an excuse to vote no.

smokingman

Anyone hear the last word on today fm yesterday? Had a discussion with una Mullaly and some new guy from Iona that I hadn't heard from before. Predictable stuff from them on "won't someone think of the children" but enjoyed the bit when Cooper brought up the "sounds of sodomy" leaflets thing; to which Iona said he was abhorred by that sort of thing.... As if!

wp_rathead

off topic, but I love your "location" smokingman!
Made me wanna watch Aliens

freyners

smokingman wrote: »

Anyone hear the last word on today fm yesterday? Had a discussion with una Mullaly and some new guy from Iona that I hadn't heard from before. Predictable stuff from them on "won't someone think of the children" but enjoyed the bit when Cooper brought up the "sounds of sodomy" leaflets thing; to which Iona said he was abhorred by that sort of thing.... As if!

Ben Conroy I believe.

Pherekydes

The

hills are alive with the

"Sounds of Sodomy" leaflet makes it onto the Friendly Atheist's site.

Umm, next up: Fox News. :pac:

The Black Oil

smokingman wrote: »

Anyone hear the last word on today fm yesterday? Had a discussion with una Mullaly and some new guy from Iona that I hadn't heard from before. Predictable stuff from them on "won't someone think of the children" but enjoyed the bit when Cooper brought up the "sounds of sodomy" leaflets thing; to which Iona said he was abhorred by that sort of thing.... As if!

freyners wrote: »

Ben Conroy I believe.

Here is the podcast link.

I may have heard wrong, or perhaps Conroy was implying that Iona was undecided as to whether it would be campaigning directly, but he definitely seemed to suggest that they'd be doing 'media work'. I don't have a problem with that in general, however, it's little hard to any denial of campaigning seriously. We know they'll be on the big shows like Prime Time, but come on, given Quinn et al's tendency to throw around a hostile language like 'marriage is under attack' (often on the point of children and families in particular) er, how will they not be campaigning?

As for the sodomy leaflet, that's been so heavily mocked now I wonder if the usual columnists will go near it. Even if they do not, I think we all know what to expect in the coming months when the debate heats up. Not all opponents of SSM are bigots. You can be against SSM and not be a homophobe. The liberal media. Liberal tolerance is intolerant. Conscience. Had a conservative written this there'd be uproar. Most media welcomes pro-gay research uncritically, any research favouring traditional values is roundly attacked. On this note, iirc, the Heritage foundation had a document up before re flaws in the research only I can't find it. Maybe that angle will be used here. Lack of balance, etc. Expect plenty of that. On the more fringe element, no doubt there'll be a bit more of comparing gays to paedophiles and some other degree of mental. Even when the debate is away from this nonsense I hope we've a few incidents of mask slippage from certain people as I don't think those on the fence will be persuaded by some pro-SSM speakers such as Una Mulally.

Back to the family for a second, one area I feel where the anti-SSM narrative fails is that it's a bit too obsessive around definitions and the 'natural' rights of kids - they don't seem to elaborate on it much. Family is about a load a stuff they don't* seem to mention. Note - privilege alert. It's that fall in the school yard, a class note home to check your child's hair for lice, your first pet, moving to secondary school, your first back account, going to a football match with your dad, and on and on.

Are gays inherently incapable of providing this or will their access to marriage undermine children of other couples, or the 'unique' nature of heterosexual marriage as an institutional societal building block, blah blah blah? No.

*ETA, thinking back now, actually the pro-SSM don't exactly talk up this type of stuff, either.

david75

wprathead wrote: »

That is nonsense imo. Why shouldn't he be supporting it? I think it is great to see the Taoiseach out supporting SSM
If idiots vote no "As a protest vote" then they are lowest of the low, gombeen, individualist ****.

You really should have a look around on irish websites and forums. There's a huge amount of people voting no just to give an FU to Enda & this government.
It is ridiculous but it is also happening.

lazygal

freyners wrote: »

Ben Conroy I believe.

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/ben-conroy-and-homosexuality

Not everyone agrees with him!

Daith

david75 wrote: »

You really should have a look around on irish websites and forums. There's a huge amount of people voting no just to give an FU to Enda & this government.
It is ridiculous but it is also happening.

Then I'd really hope the other parties in particular SF and the AAA (or whatever they're called) try to dissuade people of that notion.

Bringing it back from politics and to show that it is affecting real Irish people is the important thing.

MrPudding

The Black Oil wrote:

Not all opponents of SSM are bigots. You can be against SSM and not be a homophobe. The liberal media. Liberal tolerance is intolerant. Conscience. Had a conservative written this there'd be uproar. Most media welcomes pro-gay research uncritically, any research favouring traditional values is roundly attacked.

I am not sure I can think of a valid reason why one might be against SSM and not be a bigot... With respect to research, the reason the traditional values research tends to be rounded in is that it tend to be sh1t.

MrP

Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

lazygal

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

The only ones I've heard are the 'marriage is an outdated institution which we should abandon entirely' one from people who don't think anyone should be getting married and the 'why would gays want to be so conformist as to be involved in such a traditional institution as marriage' one. Neither of which are valid, IMO. There's also the old 'look at this GAY PERSON WHO SPEAKS FOR ALL OF THE GAYS' who doesn't want to get married so neither do any of the other gays silliness.

Otacon

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

The only argument I have ever heard that fits that bill is allowing same-sex couples to marry and enjoy tax benefits would cost the state too much money. Of course that doesn't hold up when you think that it is still discriminatory but it is the closest I have seen to a non-religious argument.

MrPudding

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

There are quite a few non-religious arguments. The more pertinent question is are there any valid, rational and reasonable non-religious arguments. The answer to that question is not so far.

MrP

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

As MrP says, there are a few, but I don't believe they extend much beyond "it's icky".

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

CHILDREN!

What about children, I don't know. But it's generally the go-to shriek of opposition.

robindch

Penn wrote: »

What about children, I don't know. But it's generally the go-to shriek of opposition.

...which, given the biological issues concerned, seems an odd worry at best.

lazygal

Meant to say, I'm pretty sure Ben Conroy is Breda O'Brien's son.

macyard

Will the marraige referendum allow polygamy, I mean it between consenting adults and a staple of islam and lds religion, I cannot see a reason for it to be disallowed and I think all adults should have the right to marraige.

If the referendum doesn't give that right to everyone I will have to vote no till it's inclusive of all.

TheChizler

That's tongue-in-cheek, right?...

lazygal

macyard wrote: »

Will the marraige referendum allow polygamy, I mean it between consenting adults and a staple of islam and lds religion, I cannot see a reason for it to be disallowed and I think all adults should have the right to marraige.

If the referendum doesn't give that right to everyone I will have to vote no till it's inclusive of all.

FYI LDS prophets outlawed polygamy in the 1890s and it is not a staple of the mainstream church, you might be thinking of Fundamendalist LDS sects.
Why would you vote no because polygamy isn't part of the referendum? Unless you think allowing two consenting adults of the same gender to marry is some sort of 'slippery slope' or means we need to further examine which type of relationships should receive legal recognition?
I don't understand why polygamy would influence one when voting on the rights of gay people to marry.

ETA you may be confused - this about the recognition of civil marriage. Religious groups can make their own rules about marriage, as long as they don't try to legally marry a person to more than one partner. FLDS ceremonies aren't legally binding, polygamy works on an internal church system, which is not recognised by civil law.

macyard

TheChizler wrote: »

That's tongue-in-cheek, right?...

If you mean me no why?

Should all consenting adults not be allowed to marry, it's the culture of many religions and it doesn't effect anyone same as SSM doesn't, it's a marraige referendum not a SSM referendum we should be inclusive of all now why not give rights to all adults why discriminate

lazygal

macyard wrote: »

If you mean me no why?

Should all consenting adults not be allowed to marry, it's the culture of many religions and it doesn't effect anyone same as SSM doesn't, it's a marraige referendum not a SSM referendum we should be inclusive of all now why not give rights to all adults why discriminate

Actually, a quick read of the experience of the Lost Boys of the FLDS sects in the USA would show you very quickly that polygamy is incredibly harmful to children and women. Particularly as it is inherently unequal, only men can have multiple wives and the secretive nature of the relationships leaves women and children in a very vulnerable state.

macyard

lazygal wrote: »

FYI LDS prophets outlawed polygamy in the 1890s and it is not a staple of the mainstream church, you might be thinking of Fundamendalist LDS sects.
Why would you vote no because polygamy isn't part of the referendum? Unless you think allowing two consenting adults of the same gender to marry is some sort of 'slippery slope' or means we need to further examine which type of relationships should receive legal recognition?
I don't understand why polygamy would influence one when voting on the rights of gay people to marry.

ETA you may be confused - this about the recognition of civil marriage. Religious groups can make their own rules about marriage, as long as they don't try to legally marry a person to more than one partner. FLDS ceremonies aren't legally binding, polygamy works on an internal church system, which is not recognised by civil law.

I would vote no cause they don't allow polygamy.

All adults should be allowed to marry and if we are going to fix marraige now we might as well fix it right, leaving out polygamy is discrimination against muslims and the likes.

Daith

macyard wrote: »

Should all consenting adults not be allowed to marry, it's the culture of many religions and it doesn't effect anyone same as SSM doesn't, it's a marraige referendum not a SSM referendum we should be inclusive of all now why not give rights to all adults why discriminate

No it's a referendum about whether marriage should be between people of different sexes only or that it it can include people of the same sex.

Feel free to campaign for what you want but it's not what the referendum will be about.

lazygal

macyard wrote: »

I would vote no cause they don't allow polygamy.

All adults should be allowed to marry and if we are going to fix marraige now we might as well fix it right, leaving out polygamy is discrimination against muslims and the likes.

Why would you vote no? Surely polygamy has nothing to do with allowing two men or two women to marry each other? What is the Muslim 'and the likes' position on polygamy anyway? I've already pointed out your mistake regarding the LDS position.

Given your other posts, I suspect I'm wasting my time on trying to enlighten you so I'll stop bothering now.