Gay Marriage

Nodin

RobertKK wrote: »

Some here questioned how genuine I was being, I am being deadly seriously, in heterosexual abuse cases it is near always a man that abuses, yes I am being told I am not being genuine when I raise genuine concerns about men - whether heterosexual or homosexual - using SSM and the changes to adoption for the purpose of abuse.
I think anyone who thinks this will not happen are only wanting to see happy genuine couples married and maybe with children, but it is refusing to see how it also leaves a major loophole to be abused. No different to the respect and position in society that allowed men to join the priesthood with the intention of abuse. Oh a priest would never abuse anyone, you can't be saying that....

It is sad the government wants to open up a route for sexual abusers to abuse both minors and homosexuals themselves. It would not be the first time the state has been involved in child abuse, with courts sending minors to industrial schools, where the state had inspectors and failed to see the physical, sexual and mental abuse that went on.
Then people somehow think the state will somehow be able to spot an abuser before they are given access to the minor to abuse.
Gay marriage is going to backfire, given the rights it gives also makes it easy to be abused by evil people who don't care about minors or homosexuals, just their own sexual gratification.
It anyone thinks I am not being genuine, I ask you this, would you trust a child abuser?
If you do then my argument is not genuine.

The above makes little to no sense. Adding in "would you trust a child abuser" at the end underlines my earlier point about scaremongering and argument by defamation.

david75

As a gay man I thought our bigget problem in this upcoming referendum would be the blanket indifference of anything political among young gays, even if it does mean their rights and status in equality.
But some of the mind numbing backward views in here are trio frightening. We really still are dealing with unenlightened cavemen in this country. And I've a sick feeling that they're in the majority.
At least posters here are at least being honest even if behind the shield of the keyboard. The lip service brigade are the vast majority in my experience. They're 'fine' with the gays. But don't want them near them or sharing similar rights and status.

Shocked by a lot of the posts here. Lets see what happens when the referendum happens I guess.

david75

Ps. That any of you are even being drawn into the equation of gay=paediohile debate is also shocking. That crap is best ignored.

Benny_Cake

RobertKK wrote: »

Some here questioned how genuine I was being, I am being deadly seriously, in heterosexual abuse cases it is near always a man that abuses, yes I am being told I am not being genuine when I raise genuine concerns about men - whether heterosexual or homosexual - using SSM and the changes to adoption for the purpose of abuse.

Currently, it's possible for single men to adopt, so this is an argument against changing the adoption laws, not against same-sex marriage. I think that if you are prepared to take this argument to it's logical conclusion, the safest option would be to either ban all adoption outright or to restrict it to single women and lesbian couples? Are you are suggesting that gay men can't help themselves around children?

Annasopra

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Currently, it's possible for single men to adopt, so this is an argument against changing the adoption laws, not against same-sex marriage. I think that if you are prepared to take this argument to it's logical conclusion, the safest option would be to either ban all adoption outright or to restrict it to single women and lesbian couples? Are you are suggesting that gay men can't help themselves around children?

I suggested earlier to RobertKK that the logical solution to his scaremongering would be to ban all men from adopting but this was overlooked.

RobertKK

david75 wrote: »

Ps. That any of you are even being drawn into the equation of gay=paediohile debate is also shocking. That crap is best ignored.

But that is where you are wrong in a sense.

Some equate priest to paedophile, but most priests are good honest people, there was a loophole in the priesthood where in society there was respect and trust, and that a 'man of God' would never do anything like that.
Fact is it is the respect, the trust and the belief that the person was a man of God, that allowed abuse to happen, because abusers saw this as a means to use the priesthood and how it was viewed as a means to get easier access to children.

Gay is not equal paedophile, the law changes though will make it easier for abusers who are under the radar, maybe heterosexuals, to form same sex unions, adopt children, maybe marry, not because they are gay but it gives cover to the abuse, just like the priesthood and what it stood for gave cover for abuse for many decades.
I was reading up on the paedophile networks for research to see if I was being naive, one network of 'boy lovers' was part of it's name, the police found had over 70,000 members worldwide, just one network and the authorities around the world were only able to identify just over 600 people from that network, all men.

We hear people say 'paedophile priest'. That is because paedophiles abused the church, the church was embarrassed which ended up prolonging the abuse.
Like it or not, these same people who joined the priesthood to abuse, will use the loopholes in the proposed law changes and referendum as a means to an end, they don't care about gay people, just like how they didn't care about what the church stood for, when they used it as a means to an end.

Most abusers are men and would find it hard to find a woman who wanted to abuse a minor.
It will be possible to use same sex marriage like some do heterosexual where one marries another person as a means to an end - like getting citizenship in some country.
Same sex marriage will cater for abusers to marry (of every sexual persuasion) as well as your genuine good gay couple.

Just as priest is not equal paedophile, gay is not equal paedophile.

RobertKK

mango salsa wrote: »

I suggested earlier to RobertKK that the logical solution to his scaremongering would be to ban all men from adopting but this was overlooked.

There is a concern of men only adopting and fostering.

It is a strange situation how priests who are men are not allowed to be alone with minors, due to abuse/allegations concerns, but people seem to think men only (whether as a singleton or a couple) adoption/fostering is ok, as if it cannot be abused like the priesthood was used as a route to abuse minors.

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

gay is not equal paedophile.

This. Just this.
Everything else you have said is shameful scaremongering

david75

I'd doubt anyone joined the priesthood in order to enable themselves to abuse children. Years of loneliness and sexual frustration found vent on children no doubt but I really don't think anyone joined with it in mind.

RobertKK

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Currently, it's possible for single men to adopt, so this is an argument against changing the adoption laws, not against same-sex marriage. I think that if you are prepared to take this argument to it's logical conclusion, the safest option would be to either ban all adoption outright or to restrict it to single women and lesbian couples? Are you are suggesting that gay men can't help themselves around children?

No, I am not saying gay men are the problem, just as I am not saying priests were the problem.

The problem is it is a route for abuse, and if one is giving a child to a man , it is no different giving a child to a priest. 96% are perfectly good, during the abuse period about 4% were abusers.
The difference is a priest who is a man is not allowed to be alone with a child for child safety reasons/false allegations.
Yet in society we want lower child safety standards.

No problem with women adopting, I think it significantly reduces the risk to children given abusers are far far more likely to be men.

Nodin

RobertKK wrote: »

Gay is not equal paedophile, the law changes though will make it easier for abusers who are under the radar, maybe heterosexuals, to form same sex unions, adopt children, maybe marry, not because they are gay but it gives cover to the abuse, just like the priesthood and what it stood for gave cover for abuse for many decades.
.............

By stating it makes it easier for paedophiles to abuse you're selectively ignoring the fact its primarily married men who are abusers, thus effectively equating homosexuality with paedophilia. You also ignore the numerous cases where women have provided children to men for the purpose of abuse.

RobertKK

david75 wrote: »

I'd doubt anyone joined the priesthood in order to enable themselves to abuse children. Years of loneliness and sexual frustration found vent on children no doubt but I really don't think anyone joined with it in mind.

Yes they did, abusers are drawn to areas in society that gives them easier access to the people they want to abuse, as it makes it far easier, abuse in swimming coaching, abuse in the boy scouts, abuse by teachers.

Lets say one is an abuser in the past, think about the respect, the position in society a priest held, the 'you shouldn't question a priest' and hold them in reverence.
This led to two things: for the abuser it was a perfect cover, for the church and the image it wanted portrayed, it was so embarrassing and damaging they covered it up and believed they could cure the abusers with therapy and by moving them away from their victims. It was an abusers paradise.

david75

Hiding in plain sight is nothing new but my point was I doubt anyone with those kind of proclivities chose the priesthood as their vehicle to abuse. I'm not saying it hasn't happened but I wouldn't imagine it's the case in every single case.

Splitting hairs really, the result is still the same I guess.

Nodin

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes they did, abusers are drawn to areas in society that gives them easier access to the people they want to abuse, as it makes it far easier, abuse in swimming coaching, abuse in the boy scouts, abuse by teachers.

Lets say one is an abuser in the past, think about the respect, the position in society a priest held, the 'you shouldn't question a priest' and hold them in reverence.
This led to two things: for the abuser it was a perfect cover, for the church and the image it wanted portrayed, it was so embarrassing and damaging they covered it up and believed they could cure the abusers with therapy and by moving them away from their victims. It was an abusers paradise.

...this, however, is a thread entitled "Gay Marriage".

RobertKK

Nodin wrote: »

By stating it makes it easier for paedophiles to abuse you're selectively ignoring the fact its primarily married men who are abusers, thus effectively equating homosexuality with paedophilia. You also ignore the numerous cases where women have provided children to men for the purpose of abuse.

I am not equating homosexuality with paedophilia. Two heterosexual men could use same sex marriage and adoption for the purpose of paedophilia.

In the case last week in the news, the woman threw the man out of the house and went to the gardai.
Do you the ins and outs of these relationships, were the women themselves subject to abuse and threats.
Fear can do something strange to people, like women who are abused but stay with the man who is abusing them.

david75

If the gays I know are anything to go by, the biggest fear we have when it comes to them adopting children is that a whole army of spoiled preened daddy's little darlings will be unleashed upon us. They'd be loved and spoiled utterly but educated and motivated to do well. I don't see that as a bad thing. Bringing abuse and paedophilia into it really is a non starter and clearly you've only heard bad things to make the gay/paedophile equation.

It just won't happen like that. At all.

RobertKK

Nodin wrote: »

...this, however, is a thread entitled "Gay Marriage".

So I shouldn't reply to a reply to one of my posts?

It is relevant given adoption laws are being changed due to the proposed referendum on same sex marriage and how it is fine for society to have lower child safety standards than the church where abuse was a big problem.

..and if there is marriage equality, then adoption laws have to be changed and we will be in the strange situation where in the church a man cannot be alone with a child, but in society there is somehow no problem, when evidence points to abusers using any means possible to get closer to minors.


I don't think single men should be allowed adopt or foster.

Nodin

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not equating homosexuality with paedophilia. Two heterosexual men could use same sex marriage and adoption for the purpose of paedophilia..

.....because the idea of marrying a woman with children for the same purpose is so out there......

RobertKK wrote: »

In the case last week in the news, the woman threw the man out of the house and went to the gardai.
Do you the ins and outs of these relationships, were the women themselves subject to abuse and threats.
Fear can do something strange to people, like women who are abused but stay with the man who is abusing them.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/oct/01/vanessa-george-sex-abuse

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/nov/26/lostprophets-singer-ian-watkins-admit-offences-attempted-rape-baby

Nodin

RobertKK wrote: »

So I shouldn't reply to a reply to one of my posts?

It is relevant given adoption laws are being changed due to the proposed referendum on same sex marriage and how it is fine for society to have lower child safety standards than the church where abuse was a big problem..

Gay adoption is coming in regardless of whether same sex marriage comes in. Single gay men can already adopt, single gay women can already adopt. No-one is lowering any standards.

RobertKK wrote: »

..and if there is marriage equality, then adoption laws have to be changed and we will be in the strange situation where in the church a man cannot be alone with a child, but in society there is somehow no problem, when evidence points to abusers using any means possible to get closer to minors.


I don't think single men should be allowed adopt or foster.

So 'confused rant that says the church is hard done by'. Lovely.

Adoption laws are being changed anyway. Adoptive parents are vetted.

Corkfeen

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not equating homosexuality with paedophilia. Two heterosexual men could use same sex marriage and adoption for the purpose of paedophilia.

In the case last week in the news, the woman threw the man out of the house and went to the gardai.
Do you the ins and outs of these relationships, were the women themselves subject to abuse and threats.
Fear can do something strange to people, like women who are abused but stay with the man who is abusing them.

But you've pretty much ignored all the flaws in your logic that numerous people have pointed out. A heterosexual marriage could be used just as easily as you described and has been. What needs to be done is to maintain a high level of safe guards in terms of adoption which frankly does not relate in the slightest to SSM however much you wish it to.

RobertKK

david75 wrote: »

If the gays I know are anything to go by, the biggest fear we have when it comes to them adopting children is that a whole army of spoiled preened daddy's little darlings will be unleashed upon us. They'd be loved and spoiled utterly but educated and motivated to do well. I don't see that as a bad thing. Bringing abuse and paedophilia into it really is a non starter and clearly you've only heard bad things to make the gay/paedophile equation.

It just won't happen like that. At all.

That is not the case, when I go to church I see how a man who has done nothing wrong, has to have an approved person by gardai and others with him and the altar server.
The priest never abused anyone but for child safety/false allegations purposes it is a constant reminder of what caused the abuse.

People would have made the same argument about the church. It just won't happen, but it did because society didn't want to believe it could ever happen.

To believe it won't happen, one has to put their trust in the abusers not to deceive.

david75

If we want to talk about protecting children, watch something like benefits street or take a walk around Tallaght or ballymun and see how kids are treated. I don't see how the abuse argument is even relevant to a discussion on gay marriage tbh.

RobertKK

Corkfeen wrote: »

But you've pretty much ignored all the flaws in your logic that numerous people have pointed out. A heterosexual marriage could be used just as easily as you described and has been. What needs to be done is to maintain a high level of safe guards in terms of adoption which frankly does not relate in the slightest to SSM however much you wish it to.

Is there anything to stop two heterosexual men from marrying eachother with abuse of minors in mind?
No records of abuse, how will the safe guards prevent them getting children.

There will be no child protection officer with the child at all times to make sure the two men are genuine.
It will be so easy for abusers to exploit.

Nodin

RobertKK wrote: »

Is there anything to stop two heterosexual men from marrying eachother with abuse of minors in mind?
No records of abuse, how will the safe guards prevent them getting children.

There will be no child protection officer with the child at all times to make sure the two men are genuine.
It will be so easy for abusers to exploit.

Same with a man and a woman. Not a peep out of you on that though.

Benny_Cake

RobertKK wrote: »

Is there anything to stop two heterosexual men from marrying eachother with abuse of minors in mind?
No records of abuse, how will the safe guards prevent them getting children.

There will be no child protection officer with the child at all times to make sure the two men are genuine.
It will be so easy for abusers to exploit.

Why on earth would they do that? Any single man, heterosexual or homosexual, can attempt to go through the adoption process on their own. Why would someone another guy, simply because they want to adopt a child - something they could seek to do on their own?

It simply makes no sense. This approach to child protection would see no father, biological or adoptive, being able to be alone with their child without a female being present. That's the ultimate conclusion of what you're suggesting!

RobertKK

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Why on earth would they do that? Any single man, heterosexual or homosexual, can attempt to go through the adoption process on their own. Why would someone another guy, simply because they want to adopt a child - something they could seek to do on their own?

It simply makes no sense. This approach to child protection would see no father, biological or adoptive, being able to be alone with their child without a female being present. That's the ultimate conclusion of what you're suggesting!

I did say I have a problem with single men also adopting and fostering.

The respectability of marriage, a stable home with two adults must account for more when it comes to adopting.

Links234

This whole line of debate is like saying that wheelchair access will allow people on motorbikes to ride into buildings and wreck up the place.

david75

Links234 wrote: »

This whole line of debate is like saying that wheelchair access will allow people on motorbikes to ride into buildings and wreck up the place.

Laughed out loud. . Brilliant.

SoulandForm

david75 wrote: »

If the gays I know are anything to go by, the biggest fear we have when it comes to them adopting children is that a whole army of spoiled preened daddy's little darlings will be unleashed upon us. They'd be loved and spoiled utterly but educated and motivated to do well. I don't see that as a bad thing. Bringing abuse and paedophilia into it really is a non starter and clearly you've only heard bad things to make the gay/paedophile equation.

It just won't happen like that. At all.

A huge contradiction right there.

SoulandForm

david75 wrote: »

If we want to talk about protecting children, watch something like benefits street or take a walk around Tallaght or ballymun and see how kids are treated. I don't see how the abuse argument is even relevant to a discussion on gay marriage tbh.

I have taken walks around both and havent seen kids mistreated. Nice bit of snobbery though.

david75

Re lived and spoiled, I think you know what context I meant.

Re Ballymun, no snobbery from me. I grew up there and we all had a pretty horrific time of it.

RobertKK

Nodin wrote: »

Same with a man and a woman. Not a peep out of you on that though.

I did earlier, maybe you missed it.

RobertKK wrote: »

Do you the ins and outs of these relationships, were the women themselves subject to abuse and threats.
Fear can do something strange to people, like women who are abused but stay with the man who is abusing them.

I am leaving this thread now, but the changes being made to adoption laws due to the SSM referendum will I believe lead to abusers using it for how it was not intended.
I will not choose to live with a fairytale view that it will not be abused, and that child safety protection measure are strong enough.
It was in a recent report that the church now has far stronger child safety protection than the state has, but the state which has a history of being implicit with abuse is somehow able to screen out abusers, when it does a bad job with children in state care.

I wish all well, whatever side of the argument.

david75

RobertKK wrote: »

I did earlier, maybe you missed it.




I am leaving this thread now, but the changes being made to adoption laws due to the SSM referendum will I believe lead to abusers using it for how it was not intended.
I will not choose to live with a fairytale view that it will not be abused, and that child safety protection measure are strong enough.
It was in a recent report that the church now has far stronger child safety protection than the state has, but the state which has a history of being implicit with abuse is somehow able to screen out abusers, when it does a bad job with children in state care.

I wish all well, whatever side of the argument.

So would you vote against the referendum based on that assumption?

spank_inferno

Terrific arguments Robert.

The reform alliance couldn't have put it better.

Some A1 tripe right there.

Zubeneschamali

RobertKK wrote: »

There is a concern of men only adopting and fostering.

But they are allowed to do that right now, so your problem has nothing to with gay marriage.

And before the gay marriage referendum, gay couples will be allowed to adopt, too.

So none of your reasons for preventing gay marriage will apply.

BlutendeRabe

I think the debate so far really shows how poorly this country tolerates the idea of free speech.

On the pro-amendment side, we've various PC idiots such Una Mullally, who doesn't believe that the anti-amendment side has a right to express their views publicly because they're all a bunch of homophobes and it's allegedly leading to an increase in violence. Also I absolutely hate the way the term "homophobia" has been bandied about by that lot in response to arguments from the anti-ammendement side.
On the other side, we've RTE's disgraceful payment to the nutjob Iona Institute because of Rory O'Neill's comments, which I think were fair.

Free Speech cuts both ways, and is probably the single most important principle in western democracy. I don't think they're should be any sort of censorship in this debate either because a minority consider it homophobic, libellous or an affront to their traditional views. Let each side state their case, no matter how idiotic and let society make their decision. Its crap like this that makes me want to move to the US, where the right to voice unpopular speech is protected by their constitutional tradition.

For the record, I'm in favour of gay marriage and will be voting for it.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

BlutendeRabe wrote: »

Also I absolutely hate the way the term "homophobia" has been bandied about by that lot in response to arguments from the anti-ammendement side.

You mean in response to homophobic comments? I've never heard a rational argument against SSM and 'irrational aversion' is in the very definition of homophobia. We talk about 'casual racism' and 'casual sexism', guess what, there's 'casual homophobia' too (though I don't find anything 'casual' about it)

BlutendeRabe

Lachlan Alive Glycerin wrote: »

You mean in response to homophobic comments? I've never heard a rational argument against SSM and 'irrational aversion' is in the very definition of homophobia. We talk about 'casual racism' and 'casual sexism', guess what, there's 'casual homophobia' too (though I don't find anything 'casual' about it)

So essentially anyone who opposes this amendment is nothing more than a homophobic individual?

cooperguy

Lachlan Alive Glycerin wrote: »

You mean in response to homophobic comments? I've never heard a rational argument against SSM and 'irrational aversion' is in the very definition of homophobia. We talk about 'casual racism' and 'casual sexism', guess what, there's 'casual homophobia' too (though I don't find anything 'casual' about it)

I do see your point Lachlan Alive Glycerin but I agree with BlutendeRabe. People are raising what are to them, genuine concerns about the amendment. In my opinion the best way to deal with the concerns is not to shout homophobe and just shut down the debate, as has been happening quite a bit, but to try and address the concerns and give the alternate view point.

I have come across a number of people who would not consider themselves homophobic and genuinely dont have an issue with gay people in society. However they do have reservations about the proposed amendment. The best approach here isnt to shout them down and accuse them of being homophobic but to try and engage them in a conversation.

Silentcorner

Lachlan Alive Glycerin wrote: »

You mean in response to homophobic comments? I've never heard a rational argument against SSM and 'irrational aversion' is in the very definition of homophobia. We talk about 'casual racism' and 'casual sexism', guess what, there's 'casual homophobia' too (though I don't find anything 'casual' about it)

Not supporting SSM is not homophobic to those who seek to protect the institute of marriage, you must remember that these organisations would ban swingers from getting married if they could find a way to or promiscuous individuals, or even people whose first marriage ended...doesn't make them right by the way but their belief system is entrenched in Catholic theology. Homosexual people are (completely understandably) focusing on the theology that relates to them and are reacting by using an emotive term, far more emotive for instance than accusing someone of being old fashioned as I often was when I expressed my anti divorce opinion way back when.

There is danger in this, as society is adjusting to the reality of the existence of homosexuals and their rights (and how they have been treated heretofore) the last tool a minority should use in seeking equality is using a sweeping generalisation to describe those who do not understand the life experiences of the homosexual in this country, you will not change the outlook of those entrenched in that Catholic theology, but you will change the outlook of the moderates who can win you a referendum.

I think homosexuals should move the argument away from SSM for now, and use the limelight (as it were) to show the damage actual homophobia does, homosexual people have been treated appallingly by society (but humans often treat each other appallingly), if that message can be delivered consistently by a united community who do not engage in insulting anybody (which being accused of being homophobic is to a lot of people rightly or wrongly) then I have not doubt the referendum will be passed, and quiet rightly so.

Look at what minorities have done in the past, present people who the majority of people can relate to, currently we are being presented with a man who dresses up as a woman, I can see the individual for what he is but others won't be that kind, and it is votes that will count at the end of the day.

Nodin

cooperguy wrote: »

.........
I have come across a number of people who would not consider themselves homophobic and genuinely dont have an issue with gay people in society. However they do have reservations about the proposed amendment. The best approach here isnt to shout them down and accuse them of being homophobic but to try and engage them in a conversation.

Reservations such as.....

Zubeneschamali

cooperguy wrote: »

I have come across a number of people who would not consider themselves homophobic and genuinely dont have an issue with gay people in society. However they do have reservations about the proposed amendment.

Yes, we all have come across such people, and none of them consider themselves homophobic. Yet when I have such people to explain exactly what these resevartions are about, they typically refuse, saying they can vote they way they want without explaining anything, or else their objections come down to a personal discomfort with gay people marrying and raising children.

I think the reason a lot of people refuse to explain is because their reasons also come down to the same personal discomfort with gay people marrying and raising children.

And they realize that it's homophobic, so they don't want to spell it out and try to defend it.

Godge

Lachlan Alive Glycerin wrote: »

You mean in response to homophobic comments? I've never heard a rational argument against SSM and 'irrational aversion' is in the very definition of homophobia. We talk about 'casual racism' and 'casual sexism', guess what, there's 'casual homophobia' too (though I don't find anything 'casual' about it)

For a deeply religious person, it is a rational argument against SSM to state that their religion forbids it and they must vote against it. That rational argument is valid in a world that allows Muslims to refuse women the right to drive in certain countries and to require them to wear the habib.

Tolerance works both ways. The persuasive argument is that those religious beliefs shouldn't be allowed to define a society and how it treats its own people. But the persuasive argument does allow room for other rational views.

P.S. I will be voting for SSM but I defend the right of others to vote against.

oscarBravo

Godge wrote: »

For a deeply religious person, it is a rational argument against SSM to state that their religion forbids it and they must vote against it.

Some religions forbid the consumption of pork. That's not a rational argument for banning those who don't subscribe to those religions from consuming pork.

If your religion forbids you from marrying someone of the same sex, then don't marry someone of the same sex, but claiming that your personal faith gives you the right to prevent someone else from doing something that your religion prevents you from doing... that doesn't meet the standard for a rational argument in my book.

For Reals

The big fear is Gays will raise Gay kids/turn kids Gay. Nonsense I know, but I feel this is the core behind the scenes issue that nobody will admit too, because it is so ridiculous.
If you don't have an issue with same sex couples, but don't want them marrying or raising kids, why? If you do have issue, why?
And please don't cite religion, personally I don't feel belief or faith constitutes reasoned thought and it should have no place in guiding a democratic society. It's embarrassing frankly. If you're religious may your God go with you. That's your thing.
For me the fact that the Catholic Church has such strong 'ethics' in regard to the institution of marriage, lest 'them gays' lead the children astray, or worse, would be laughable if not so saddening.

For Reals

[QUOTE=RobertKK;886676[/QUOTE]49]I did earlier, maybe you missed it.
I am leaving this thread now, [/QUOTE]
*Hands over ears* 'LALALALALALA'

[QUOTE=RobertKK;886676[/QUOTE]It was in a recent report that the church now has far stronger child safety protection than the state has, but the state which has a history of being implicit with abuse is somehow able to screen out abusers, when it does a bad job with children in state care.

I wish all well, whatever side of the argument.[/QUOTE]

Implicit with abuse, yes allowing the Church self police.
And on the link below we get the, 'sure we're no bad than anyone else' nonsense, like we should say, 'Fair enough'.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/bishop-comiskey-breaks-his-silence-on-ferns-scandal-church-was-no-worse-for-abuse-than-anywhere-else-29969817.html

Godge

oscarBravo wrote: »

Some religions forbid the consumption of pork. That's not a rational argument for banning those who don't subscribe to those religions from consuming pork.

The sale of pork is banned in Iran.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If your religion forbids you from marrying someone of the same sex, then don't marry someone of the same sex, but claiming that your personal faith gives you the right to prevent someone else from doing something that your religion prevents you from doing... that doesn't meet the standard for a rational argument in my book.

Christian women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia.
Christian women must wear the veil in many Muslim countries.

You may believe that an argument based on religion is not rational, but most rational arguments rely on factual information.

Given the continued existence not only in Muslim countries but around the world (including Ireland - read the Education Act) of laws based on different religious beliefs, it is irrational to ignore their existence and rational to accept that arguments based on religious beliefs may have legitimate underpinnings. Whether or not that applies in the current case is a matter for debate but dismissing arguments solely because they are based on religious belief ignores reality.

For Reals wrote: »

The big fear is Gays will raise Gay kids/turn kids Gay. Nonsense I know, but I feel this is the core behind the scenes issue that nobody will admit too, because it is so ridiculous.
If you don't have an issue with same sex couples, but don't want them marrying or raising kids, why? If you do have issue, why?
And please don't cite religion, personally I don't feel belief or faith constitutes reasoned thought and it should have no place in guiding a democratic society. It's embarrassing frankly. If you're religious may your God go with you. That's your thing.
For me the fact that the Catholic Church has such strong 'ethics' in regard to the institution of marriage, lest 'them gays' lead the children astray, or worse, would be laughable if not so saddening.

Nobody except you has mentioned the raising kids argument. I believe that two men raising a child is better than one man raising a child (all other things being equal) and the state supports and approves of the single man raising a child, so I have no issue from that point of view.

Neither do I personally object to SSM from a religious point of view and I have repeatedly said that I will be voting in favour of the referendum.

At the same time, I would defend vigourously, the right of people in the ballot box to vote on the basis of conscience or principle. That can mean not voting for a corrupt candidate of a party that you support policies of. It can also mean voting against or for something because your conscience informed by your religion requires you to do so.

oscarBravo

Godge wrote: »

The sale of pork is banned in Iran.
Christian women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia.
Christian women must wear the veil in many Muslim countries.

Yeah, those aren't exactly what I'd describe as rational laws.

You may believe that an argument based on religion is not rational, but most rational arguments rely on factual information.

Well, yes.

Given the continued existence not only in Muslim countries but around the world (including Ireland - read the Education Act) of laws based on different religious beliefs, it is irrational to ignore their existence and rational to accept that arguments based on religious beliefs may have legitimate underpinnings.

The existence of laws based on religious beliefs is not an argument for laws based on religious beliefs. If the arguments based on religious beliefs have legitimate underpinnings, let's hear the underpinnings and discuss them on their merits.

Whether or not that applies in the current case is a matter for debate but dismissing arguments solely because they are based on religious belief ignores reality.

I prefer to think of it as challenging reality. Sure, laws are sometimes based on religious beliefs - but should they be? More to the point, should they be in a secular democracy?

At the same time, I would defend vigourously, the right of people in the ballot box to vote on the basis of conscience or principle.

Sure - as we're continually reminded, people can vote any way they want, for good reasons or bad (or none). But if people are going to campaign for a particular vote, I expect their reasons to stand up to scrutiny.

Zubeneschamali

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the arguments based on religious beliefs have legitimate underpinnings, let's hear the underpinnings and discuss them on their merits.

It's one of the annoying things about the likes of Iona - they insist that they are not campaigning based just on their religious beliefs (even though they obviously are), but are concerned about children's welfare or societies institutions or family farms or whatever it is this time.

For Reals

Godge wrote: »

...
Nobody except you has mentioned the raising kids argument. I believe that two men raising a child is better than one man raising a child (all other things being equal) and the state supports and approves of the single man raising a child, so I have no issue from that point of view.

That's why I raised the raising kids argument. A lot of ignorant people equate same sex couples as deviant behaviour and believe that as comparable to other kinds of deviant behaviour. Hence, Gays raising kids or being treated equally being so abhorrent to them.

Godge wrote: »

Neither do I personally object to SSM from a religious point of view and I have repeatedly said that I will be voting in favour of the referendum.

At the same time, I would defend vigourously, the right of people in the ballot box to vote on the basis of conscience or principle. That can mean not voting for a corrupt candidate of a party that you support policies of. It can also mean voting against or for something because your conscience informed by your religion requires you to do so.

Of course people will vote as they feel based on their ideals be they fictional or not, but using such beliefs to deny equal rights is wrong. You may vote for party 'A', where I might support party 'B', so I'm going to campaign to take away your right to vote, which is essentially what its about. Not giving adults the option of marrying or adopting based on the fact that we don't share the same views.