Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

GCU Flexible Demeanour

sydthebeat wrote: »

a discussion about 'god' HAS absolutely no place in this debate, as there is no mention of god or religion in the article of the constitution we are being asked to amend.

Ya, but, unfortunately the Constitution has to be read as a whole.

Which, ironically, means that after the amendment goes through the Constitution that the Holy Trinity gave us will contain a right to gay marriage.

uck51js9zml2yt

Judging from galljga1 and Maximus Alexanders recent posts my opinion of the yes camp is confirmed.
You don't want democracy to work and God or the flying spaghetti monster help anyone who would dare voice an opposing opinion.
It's been made clear that my opinion is of no importance and I should leave it at the door of the polling station and vote as you tell me to.

There is no reasoning with that attitude and frankly I've more important things to be doing with the few hours I have between work and bed.

See you at the polling station. I may well be working at it based on my experience of previous referenda.

bopper

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

I may well be working at it based on my experience of previous referenda.

So?

Maximus Alexander

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Judging from galljga1 and Maximus Alexanders recent posts my opinion of the yes camp is confirmed.
You don't want democracy to work and God or the flying spaghetti monster help anyone who would dare voice an opposing opinion.
It's been made clear that my opinion is of no importance and I should leave it at the door of the polling station and vote as you tell me to.

There is no reasoning with that attitude and frankly I've more important things to be doing with the few hours I have between work and bed.

See you at the polling station. I may well be working at it based on my experience of previous referenda.

Are you saying that you're surprised that people in the 'yes camp' want you to vote yes?

Annasopra

golfball37 wrote: »

Marriage is a 5000 year old tradition that has sustained society.

You mean like when 12 year old girls could marry? And it was acceptable for men to rape their wives?

MrWalsh

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

You don't want democracy to work and God or the flying spaghetti monster help anyone who would dare voice an opposing opinion.

It's ironic how indignant you are about your perception that you are being told what to think when by voting No you are actually telling people how to live.

If I could just ask you to do one thing it would be to try and see how your actions will affect others so negatively, while theirs will have zero impact on you.

SireOfSeth

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

It's been made clear that my opinion is of no importance and I should leave it at the door of the polling station and vote as you tell me to.

Well I, for one, am interested in your reasoning. And it would have been nice if my question had been answered.

sydthebeat

Yeah it's disappointing that you don't answer direct questions put to you to explain your viewpoint.


It's almost as if you can't, or won't

BoatMad

sydthebeat wrote: »

Yeah it's disappointing that you don't answer direct questions put to you to explain your viewpoint.


It's almost as if you can't, or won't

most "NO" voters don't seem to be able to articulate a position in public , which is why I suspect its just good old homophobia at play in private

The " Yes " position can be generally summed up as " Equal rights argument x", the NO position is " Im all for equal rights, BUT…." and what follows is typically a series of misleading or irrelevant arguments in relation to the actual amendment being considered , i.e. debates about children etc.

K-9

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

I also believe the earth is flat. The sun revolves around the earth and there are sea monsters beyond the horizon.
That there is a difference between men and women and their is a distinction.

Never said it was a disease... You did and I never once mentioned gay parents or catching it.



A lot of you seem to be concerned with my lack of response... Some of us have jobs to attend to.

Since we live in a democracy I'm still allowed believe what I want and vote in accordance with that belief.
The yes campaign seem to have a problem with that concept.
You would prefer i Leave my belief with my wet umbrella at the door of the polling station and vote the way you tell me.

You know it's odd and somebody pointed it out earlier, what is it with the No side and shouting "I'm oppressed".

I think people have, for the most part, respected your religious beliefs and have said vote whatever way you want.

Others have a right not to have a state and laws that do what the bishops say and want. You are free to think what you want, you just don't have the right to expect everybody else to live by your religions tenets.

timetogo

BoatMad wrote: »

most "NO" voters don't seem to be able to articulate a position in public , which is why I suspect its just good old homophobia at play in private

It's handy when you have the bible to back you up. There are posters saying they'll vote no because it's a sin. As long as they're consistent and never work on a Sunday, have never eaten shellfish, don't allow their missus to talk in church etc. etc. etc. then I'll respect their beliefs.

If they're cherry picking that homesexuality is a sin and ignoring loads of other "sins" that society has moved on from, because they don't like gay people then I've no problem with them voting No. I don't agree with them and would have certain opinions of them but they can vote whatever way they want. Just be honest about it.

Loafing Oaf

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Now, a referendum removing all residual references to god would be interesting.

Or to replace the 1937 Constitution in its entirety...

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Or to replace the 1937 Constitution in its entirety...

Big undertaking, and I'm not sure we've the political consensus to undertake it. I'd be afraid that we'll leave in all the nonsense, and add more to it. So we'd still have the Holy Trinity, women not working outside the family home, the obligation on the Oireachtas to venerate rural life, but we'd add in a load of aspirational stuff to make us feel good.

Btrippn

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm getting out of this thread. (It's been a pleasure.)

Back from yer holliers? That was quick.

CramCycle

timetogo wrote: »

It's handy when you have the bible to back you up. There are posters saying they'll vote no because it's a sin. As long as they're consistent and never work on a Sunday, have never eaten shellfish, don't allow their missus to talk in church etc. etc. etc. then I'll respect their beliefs.

It's also not a sin.

State marriage and civil marriage are different. Getting married in a church does not mean you are married in the eyes of the state, and marrying in a registry office does not make you married in the eyes of the church.

They are two separate things, which is why many church weddings involve the bit after with the state bit, many often do it a few weeks before or after.

timetogo

CramCycle wrote: »

It's also not a sin.

It's a sin according to the bible. Not that I recognize that as any kind of authority on what I should or shouldn't do. (Well I do follow some of the commandments but the reason I don't murder people is because I'm a decent enough human and don't really need the bible to tell me it's wrong).

But it's a handy excuse for people who are Christian and don't like homosexuality.

I know a church wedding and a state marriage are different. I got married in a registry office, didn't need any input from the church at all.

CramCycle

timetogo wrote: »

It's a sin according to the bible.

I don't remember a reference to SSM in the bible. It might be against the RCs doctrines, in which case, its still not a sin to have a civil marriage between two people of the same sex, just a church one. Might be a sin to lay with another man, if you are a man, but like I said, it's been awhile and it wasn't the easiest book to read.

And this referendum changes none of that.

Well I do follow some of the commandments but the reason I don't murder people is because I'm a decent enough human and don't really need the bible to tell me it's wrong

Same here, odd that some people need a book to instruct them on such behaviour

timetogo

timetogo wrote: »

It's handy when you have the bible to back you up. There are posters saying they'll vote no because it's a sin.
...
If they're cherry picking that homosexuality is a sin and ignoring loads of other "sins" that society has moved on from

CramCycle wrote: »

I don't remember a reference to SSM in the bible.

I was talking about homosexuality being a sin in the bible as you should have realised from my quote above. I know I said "it" in the first sentence. Sorry about confusing you.

CramCycle

timetogo wrote: »

I was talking about homosexuality being a sin in the bible as you should have realised from my quote above. I know I said "it" in the first sentence. Sorry about confusing you.

I got your point, but mine was that homosexuality is practised, for the most part, openly in Ireland. Sin and other such things aside, voting No will not change this, voting No will not lower the number of homosexuals in Ireland.

Opposing or supporting this referendum should not be reconciled with objections against homosexuality on a religious basis as the sin is not to marry someone of the same sex, its the act of laying with another man. Yes or No will have no impact on this.

Let he who is without sin as they would say.

nice_guy80

Marriage was ALWAYS a civil contract between two people in western societies until the church tried to impose their control over people's virtues in the middle ages. there was no religious marriage ceremony for the first 1000 years of Christianity.

this referendum is basically extending that right of marriage to those of the same sex, thus taking control of the marriage contract away again from the authority of the church.

Loafing Oaf

CramCycle wrote: »

Might be a sin to lay with another man, if you are a man, but like I said, it's been awhile and it wasn't the easiest book to read.
r

As Frankie Boyle once observed, the Bible says a man who lies with another man should be stoned. It helps, that's all I'm saying.

jobbridge4life

timetogo wrote: »

I was talking about homosexuality being a sin in the bible as you should have realised from my quote above. I know I said "it" in the first sentence. Sorry about confusing you.

Not to be pedantic (but I am going to be), homosexuality is not forbidden or labelled sin in the Bible.

CramCycle

Interesting mirror of the beginning of this thread on the late late at the minute

bopper

Just finished watching the debate there, the no side really need to pick their spokespeople better.

CramCycle

bopper wrote: »

Just finished watching the debate there, the no side really need to pick their spokespeople better.

I thought they were the best I have heard so far for the no side

bopper

CramCycle wrote: »

I thought they were the best I have heard so far for the no side

Well I'll admit I haven't watched or listened to many debates on the issue. I thought the Petra woman came across as being very nice but I already forget what her points were. I understand why they would use Keith in appearances and stuff, but he is a terrible debater from what I saw tonight. He basically contradicted the entire argument that's being made by the No side up to this point by so adamantly stating that the referendum has nothing to do with children.

I think it was more the audience members representing the no side that came across badly. The guy in the pink shirt in particular seemed like an absolute nutjob, as well as being incredibly rude.

Unless you were being sarcastic?

timetogo

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Not to be pedantic (but I am going to be), homosexuality is not forbidden or labelled sin in the Bible.

Pedantic isn't the right word. Wrong is the word you were looking for.
https://carm.org/bible-homosexuality

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18%3A22&version=KJV
OK the word sin isn't used. Abomination is. That's better.

This is idiotic anyway. I was giving out about people using the bible as justification for being homophobic. A point which had sailed over some people's heads.

househero

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Not to be pedantic (but I am going to be), homosexuality is not forbidden or labelled sin in the Bible.

God never mentioned it in the 10 commandments. I don't believe the men were not human enough not to let their own opinion sneak in to their gospels. Their own sins were even recorded in there... Thomas. Human weakness is not divine. And neither is intolerance.


But in the bible, it says a special place is reserved in hell for homosexuals AND alcoholics. So that's most of Ireland in the flames.

jobbridge4life

househero wrote: »

But in the bible, it says a special place is reserved in hell for homosexuals AND alcoholics. So that's most of Ireland in the flames.

It doesn't and one need not trust me on the matter, just consult your bible. You'll find not one passage concerning homosexuality.

timetogo

jobbridge4life wrote: »

It doesn't and one need not trust me on the matter, just consult your bible. You'll find not one passage concerning homosexuality.

Exactly. Apart for the few I linked to

househero

jobbridge4life wrote: »

It doesn't and one need not trust me on the matter, just consult your bible. You'll find not one passage concerning homosexuality.

Which version of the bible are you reading?

Corinthians 6:9-11New International Version (NIV)

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


Basically it says if your gay (not lesbian) or an alcoholic. You won't go to heaven
But if you live your life as a gay alcoholic and then repent. Its cool. You can go to heaven.


I don't believe in this. I don't believe you just repent for willing sins. I don't drink either. Evil stuff. The bible refers to wine... Jesus turned water in to wine, but the Hebrew word for grape juice and wine is the same. Alcahol and the bibles teachings are contradictory. Your body is a temple, do not poison it.


The church won't let them get married in a church. That's their motive. But I do think gay people have a right to do as they see fit... Surprised?

roosh

Unfortunately I haven't got the time to read through all of the arguments, so I will post in terms of asking questions, to try get a synopsis of the different positions.

It seems that one of the main arguments being put forward by the No campaign centres on the idea of the family - the assumed (but not supported) definition of which is a married man and woman and their children - and how this referendum could undermine that idea of the family.

I don't see how it would though, but maybe somebody can explain it to me. If the Yes vote carries, then how will such a concept of family, actually, be undermined? Such families will enjoy the same protection under the constitution. That is, anyone who chooses to create such a family will still be protected under the constitution. All that will happen is that same sex couples will be brought under that umbrella of family.

Luckily, this is a theoretical umbrella which doesn't mean that there is limited space, it doesn't mean that if we allow same sex couples in, then traditional couples will be forced out. Because it is a theoretical umbrella, we can just make the umbrella bigger.

bopper

roosh wrote: »

Unfortunately I haven't got the time to read through all of the arguments, so I will post in terms of asking questions, to try get a synopsis of the different positions.

It seems that one of the main arguments being put forward by the No campaign centres on the idea of the family - the assumed (but not supported) definition of which is a married man and woman and their children - and how this referendum could undermine that idea of the family.

I don't see how it would though, but maybe somebody can explain it to me. If the Yes vote carries, then how will such a concept of family, actually, be undermined? Such families will enjoy the same protection under the constitution. That is, anyone who chooses to create such a family will still be protected under the constitution. All that will happen is that same sex couples will be brought under that umbrella of family.

Luckily, this is a theoretical umbrella which doesn't mean that there is limited space, it doesn't mean that if we allow same sex couples in, then traditional couples will be forced out. Because it is a theoretical umbrella, we can just make the umbrella bigger.

They basically think that a yes vote sends the message that a family consisting of a same sex couple, is the same as a family consisting of an opposite sex couple (with or without children). In their eyes that's a terrible thing. At least I think that's what their main argument is, it seems to change a lot. I'd watch the debate from the Late Late last night if you get a chance.

Ozymandius2011

The no side want to have it every way.

Petra Conroy says she is a single mother (thereby making it a legitimate matter of public discussion in my opinion). Yet the no camp says a "child deserves its mother and father".

eagle eye

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The no side want to have it every way.

Petra Conroy says she is a single mother (thereby making it a legitimate matter of public discussion in my opinion). Yet the no camp says a "child deserves its mother and father".

I'm actually against two gay men adopting children. I believe every child needs a mother and those I've known who grew up without one have really stuggled with relationships.

I have to vote no in this referendum even though I'm in favour of gay marriage.

Ave Sodalis

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm actually against two gay men adopting children. I believe every child needs a mother and those I've known who grew up without one have really stuggled with relationships.

I have to vote no in this referendum even though I'm in favour of gay marriage.

The referendum will not change this. It is only about marriage. It is not about adoption. What do you think voting No will achieve?

sydthebeat

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm actually against two gay men adopting children. I believe every child needs a mother and those I've known who grew up without one have really stuggled with relationships.

I have to vote no in this referendum even though I'm in favour of gay marriage.

you realise gay men can adopt regardless of a 'no' vote?

would two male parents be worst than no parent?

eagle eye

sup_dude wrote: »

The referendum will not change this. It is only about marriage. It is not about adoption. What do you think voting No will achieve?

From my reading of things it does change things. A single person can look to adopt children but it's very difficult for them to succeed. If this vote goes through they can look to adopt as a couple.

sydthebeat wrote: »

you realise gay men can adopt regardless of a 'no' vote?

would two male parents be worst than no parent?

As above and I just don't want to give them equal opportunity to adopt with hetrosexual couples. I've no problem with two women adopting a child but I don't have the option in this referendum to distinguish between males and females.

MrWalsh

eagle eye wrote: »

From my reading of things it does change things. A single person can look to adopt children but it's very difficult for them to succeed. If this vote goes through they can look to adopt as a couple.

As above and I just don't want to give them equal opportunity to adopt with hetrosexual couples. I've no problem with two women adopting a child but I don't have the option in this referendum to distinguish between males and females.

Youre a bit behind the times. Adoption as a gay couple has already gone through as part of the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015. This deals with adoption. The referendum on marriage equality wont do anything to change that. Your no vote will only stop people from marrying.

eagle eye

MrWalsh wrote: »

Youre a bit behind the times. Adoption as a gay couple has already gone through as part of the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015. This deals with adoption. The referendum on marriage equality wont do anything to change that. Your no vote will only stop people from marrying.

Thanks for that. I wan't aware of it and I'll have to do some more reading up on this referendum and make my decision again.

I'm very surpised that something like that could happen without a referendum.

traprunner

eagle eye wrote: »

Thanks for that. I wan't aware of it and I'll have to do some more reading up on this referendum and make my decision again.

I'm very surpised that something like that could happen without a referendum.

Only a change to the constitution requires a referendum.

SireOfSeth

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm actually against two gay men adopting children. I believe every child needs a mother and those I've known who grew up without one have really stuggled with relationships.

I have to vote no in this referendum even though I'm in favour of gay marriage.

Then you should vote YES.

eagle eye wrote: »

From my reading of things it does change things. A single person can look to adopt children but it's very difficult for them to succeed. If this vote goes through they can look to adopt as a couple.

You need to read more then. You're getting constitution and legislation muddled.

eagle eye wrote: »

As above and I just don't want to give them equal opportunity to adopt with hetrosexual couples. I've no problem with two women adopting a child but I don't have the option in this referendum to distinguish between males and females.

So you're just a bigot towards gay men. What are you so afraid of?

CramCycle

eagle eye wrote: »

I believe every child needs a mother and those I've known who grew up without one have really stuggled with relationships.

I have met people with two parents who struggle with relationships, I have met people with one parent who struggle with relationships.

Some maybe related to their parents, others may not be.

I have met single fathers with exceptional examples of teenagers with maturity, and I have met single mothers whose children are not as mature as is necessary to deal with the real world.

You know what this tells me, that anecdotes cannot or at least should not inform policy or decision making. If a parent tries there best then that is alot more than many supposed "parents" try nowadays, this referendum has no bearing on that though, but don't let that cloud your decision.

Ave Sodalis

eagle eye wrote: »

Thanks for that. I wan't aware of it and I'll have to do some more reading up on this referendum and make my decision again.

I'm very surpised that something like that could happen without a referendum.

A referendum is only needed in this case to change the Constitution. In terms of adoption, a Bill doesn't need a referendum and it didn't just deal with adoption. The Children and Family Relationship Bill which is already signed, is quite extensive in its topics.

MrWalsh

eagle eye wrote: »

Thanks for that. I wan't aware of it and I'll have to do some more reading up on this referendum and make my decision again.

I'm very surpised that something like that could happen without a referendum.

Adoption isnt mentioned in the Constitution so no constitutional change was needed to legislate for it.

Of course we shouldnt even need to vote on same sex marriage - it should just "be" but because our constitution cant be changed without putting it to a referendum - we have to vote.

I must admit I find your position completely illogical though. Quite insulting to single fathers also - or is it just 2 men you have a problem with? Or just gay men?

VinLieger

eagle eye wrote: »

Thanks for that. I wan't aware of it and I'll have to do some more reading up on this referendum and make my decision again.

I'm very surpised that something like that could happen without a referendum.

We only need referndum's for changes to the constitution, we can't just have them for every divisive issue or piece of legislation people want

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm actually against two gay men adopting children. I believe every child needs a mother and those I've known who grew up without one have really stuggled with relationships.

That is anecdotal - and quite likely reverse causative too. Perhaps if and when someone starts a thread on the topic of ideal parenting configurations we can unpack why you think a mother is necessary or required. I have seen no evidence or arguments that it is so - but discussion of it has nothing to do with this thread or this referendum - and as you yourself noted it would benefit you to read more on it as to how little this referendum will affect adoption or the already signed bill related to adoption.

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

That is anecdotal - and quite likely reverse causative too. Perhaps if and when someone starts a thread on the topic of ideal parenting configurations we can unpack why you think a mother is necessary or required. I have seen no evidence or arguments that it is so - but discussion of it has nothing to do with this thread or this referendum - and as you yourself noted it would benefit you to read more on it as to how little this referendum will affect adoption or the already signed bill related to adoption.

I'm a yes voting single male parent and i can see clearly the need for a mother for a girl at least.

Riskymove

Deleted User wrote: »

That is anecdotal - and quite likely reverse causative too.

Indeed, I know people with a mother and father who have been treated very baldy by them resulting in serious issues

what should we put in the Constitution for that?

I'm a yes voting single male parent and i can see clearly the need for a mother for a girl at least.

Well for me, there is the ideal and a need.

would you rather the child stays unadopted in a third world orphanage rather than being adopted by a gay couple for example?

Which best meets her need?

Ash.J.Williams

Riskymove wrote: »

Indeed, I know people with a mother and father who have been treated very baldy by them resulting in serious issues

what should we put in the Constitution for that?



Well for me, there is the ideal and a need.

would you rather the child stays unadopted in a third world orphanage rather than being adopted by a gay couple for example?

Which best meets her need?

I'd rather the child was taken from whatever turmoil they were in into a loving home, where their needs were provided for. Gay or straight.