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

MrWalsh

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I just adore the fact that large parts of the no campaign have genuinely fallen back on a 20 year old Simpsons trope:

They had a No vote woman on TV3 this morning and she genuinely came across like she was away with the fairies. She gave some story about how upsetting it would be to be 18 and going to college and discovering that your parents werent your biological parents.

All I could think of was that if you had gotten to 18 and hadnt realised that 2 men or 2 women couldnt possibly be your biological parents then you had a bigger set of problems to worry about.

Its an adopted child of heterosexual parents who is going to be the one surprised to find out that they are not his or her biological parents? How does this conflate with same sex marriage??

Ash.J.Williams

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Does that mean we should leave conscience at the door of the polling station along with our wet umbrellas ( assuming it's raining)?

People should obey their conscience and NOT marry a gay if they their conscience says so, however those whose conscience says they SHOULD marry a gay.... should be free to do so.

uck51js9zml2yt

MrWalsh wrote: »

If your conscience is informed by religion and you are voting on a civil matter, then yes, I dont see what the connection between the two is?

Thankfully Ireland is not ruled by the Church anymore so hopefully not too many sufferers of god delusion will be voting based on what they are told to believe.

Let's just pass a law to ban NO being an option on the ballot paper and forbid anyone to hold a contrary view to those in favour.

BTW..you refer to the Church. If your referring to the Roman Catholic one.I'm not a member.

MrWalsh

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Let's just pass a law to ban NO being an option on the ballot paper and forbid anyone to hold a contrary view to those in favour.

BTW..you refer to the Church. If your referring to the Roman Catholic one.I'm not a member.

While I respect anyones right to hold an opposing view, if that view is nonsensical, homophobic, informed by religion, not a valid reason to vote no etc.... then I am entitled to call them out on it. Religious belief is not a reason to vote no on a civil matter. Civil law is not canon law.

I know, I wasnt referring to you when I referred to members of the Church. Although if your conscience is informed by religion then the same comments apply I guess.

traprunner

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Let's just pass a law to ban NO being an option on the ballot paper and forbid anyone to hold a contrary view to those in favour.

BTW..you refer to the Church. If your referring to the Roman Catholic one.I'm not a member.

Pedantic? How about we change it to 'religion' and assume that religion incorporates all religions especially the flying spaghetti monster one.....just for talks sake.

Sofiztikated

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Let's just pass a law to ban NO being an option on the ballot paper and forbid anyone to hold a contrary view to those in favour.

BTW..you refer to the Church. If your referring to the Roman Catholic one.I'm not a member.

Right, we get it, you're not Catholic. Whoopdedoo. Still has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

uck51js9zml2yt

MrWalsh wrote: »

While I respect anyones right to hold an opposing view, if that view is nonsensical, homophobic, informed by religion, not a valid reason to vote no etc.... then I am entitled to call them out on it. Religious belief is not a reason to vote no on a civil matter. Civil law is not canon law.

I know, I wasnt referring to you when I referred to members of the Church. Although if your conscience is informed by religion then the same comments apply I guess.

Ask my niece and her wife if I'm homophobic...i don't have any phobias regarding homosexuality. Do I think its wrong ..yes and I won't apologise for it
As for my opinion not being valid. Its a valid as yours . the only difference is we disagree.
Religious belief isn't something to be left at the doors of whatever church a person belongs to when they go home on Sunday morning. Though granted, for many that's the case.

The last time I looked I lived in a democracy which allowed me freedom of religion and a right to have an opposing opinion.

Maximus Alexander

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

The last time I looked I lived in a democracy which allowed me freedom of religion and a right to have an opposing opinion.

Indeed it does, and yet for some reason you're fine with denying freedoms to your fellow citizens.

uck51js9zml2yt

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Indeed it does, and yet for some reason you're fine with denying freedoms to your fellow citizens.

That's how democracy works...if its a yes vote you're denying me my right as well.

galljga1

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

That's how democracy works...if its a yes vote you're denying me my right as well.

Eh....no.

Maximus Alexander

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

That's how democracy works...if its a yes vote you're denying me my right as well.

Indeed it is how democracy works, but it doesn't excuse the fact that your decision to vote no in an effort to impose your religion on others is a cruel and nasty one.

I'll put it to you this way, I don't agree with your religious outlook. I think it's childish and naive. But I accept your right to it - and if the referendum were instead asking the people of Ireland whether or not we should allow people religious freedom, I would vote in your favour.

I don't need to like how you live your life in order to allow you to do it.

Greyian

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

That's how democracy works...if its a yes vote you're denying me my right as well.

By forcing you to marry a gay? By denying you the right to a heterosexual marriage?

How exactly are your rights being impinged upon in the event of the referendum being passed?

You have the right to feel however you want, but you don't have the right to force those feelings on other people.

With no same-sex marriage, heterosexual people tell homosexual people who can marry/limit their choices.

With homosexual marriage, homosexual people don't force heterosexual people to change or alter their lives in any way.

MrWalsh

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

The last time I looked I lived in a democracy which allowed me freedom of religion and a right to have an opposing opinion.

But you want to impose your opposing opinion on other people.

Think being gay is wrong? Homophobic.
Dont want gay marriage? Dont marry someone of the same sex.

But dont deny other people the right to marry who they choose. No one is denying you any rights, you are the one denying people rights.

seamus

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

That's how democracy works...if its a yes vote you're denying me my right as well.

What right?

You're aware that a a successful yes vote won't require you to change your mind on anything or affect how you go about your life?

Bannasidhe

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

That's how democracy works...if its a yes vote you're denying me my right as well.

You do not have the right to have your religious beliefs form the basis of civil legislation. You have the right to practice your religion without interference from the State.

If we were having a referendum to amend the Constitution to remove that freedom to practice then your rights would be in danger (and ironically the majority of yes voters would be on 'your side').

You are being asked if you think the Civil State should treat all citizens equally. You think it should not - you think that it should privilege certain religious beliefs. Would you happy if the religious beliefs it wanted to place above equality for all citizens were not your religious beliefs? Would you be happy if Sharia Law was used to influence civil legislation?

MrWalsh

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Religious belief isn't something to be left at the doors of whatever church a person belongs to when they go home on Sunday morning.

No it isnt and I celebrate your right to religious freedom even though I think religion is dangerous and evil.

How I feel about religion means that I will not practice it but I wont stop you from practicing it.

How you feel about homosexual marriage means that you will not practice it and you want to stop other people from practicing it.

Do you see the difference?

Ash.J.Williams

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Ask my niece and her wife if I'm homophobic...i don't have any phobias regarding homosexuality. Do I think its wrong ..yes and I won't apologise for it
As for my opinion not being valid. Its a valid as yours . the only difference is we disagree.
Religious belief isn't something to be left at the doors of whatever church a person belongs to when they go home on Sunday morning. Though granted, for many that's the case.

The last time I looked I lived in a democracy which allowed me freedom of religion and a right to have an opposing opinion.

you actually told your own niece her life is wrong?

uck51js9zml2yt

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

you actually told your own niece her life is wrong?

She knows what I think and respects my views as I do hers.

As for a yes vote not effecting my life.

It will mean a homosexual couple will have a right to be married by a registered person. If they say no, they are breaking the law. There is no allowance for conscience.
My kids will also be thought it in school. I don't want that to happen but will have no choice if I keep them in a public school.

Maximus Alexander

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

My kids will also be thought it in school.

Be taught what?

Ash.J.Williams

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

She knows what I think and respects my views as I do hers.

As for a yes vote not effecting my life.

It will mean a homosexual couple will have a right to be married by a registered person. If they say no, they are breaking the law. There is no allowance for conscience.
My kids will also be thought it in school. I don't want that to happen but will have no choice if I keep them in a public school.

I hate to break this to you , but i doubt very much you're niece respects your view, I'm not saying she HATES it but deep down she's probably slightly hurt by it.

galljga1

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

She knows what I think and respects my views as I do hers.

As for a yes vote not effecting my life.

It will mean a homosexual couple will have a right to be married by a registered person. If they say no, they are breaking the law. There is no allowance for conscience.
My kids will also be thought it in school. I don't want that to happen but will have no choice if I keep them in a public school.

Would that not be called discrimination in a civil matter?
I believe the various churches are allowed discriminate on religious grounds.

Ash.J.Williams

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Be taught what?

that' homosexuality exists

Greyian

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

that' homosexuality exists

The horror!

Ash.J.Williams

Greyian wrote: »

The horror!

and taught that support is available if needed!

Winston Tart Rain

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

She knows what I think and respects my views as I do hers.

As for a yes vote not effecting my life.

It will mean a homosexual couple will have a right to be married by a registered person. If they say no, they are breaking the law. There is no allowance for conscience.

1 - Does this example actually affect your life?
2 - Is this true? Consider divorcees asking priests to marry them...

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

My kids will also be thought it in school. I don't want that to happen but will have no choice if I keep them in a public school.

3 - What would your kids be taught? That homosexuality is a 'real thing' and that they are real people and so deserve to be treated as such?

traprunner

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

She knows what I think and respects my views as I do hers.

As for a yes vote not effecting my life.

It will mean a homosexual couple will have a right to be married by a registered person. If they say no, they are breaking the law. There is no allowance for conscience.
My kids will also be thought it in school. I don't want that to happen but will have no choice if I keep them in a public school.

So at the moment they get thought "when a man loves a woman....".
This will change to "when one person loves another....".

I don't see any problem with this. It's a part of life. It's natural and truthful. It could be worse. They could be thought lies like creationism.

Taught it in school? I have to admit ignorance on this one. Can someone - tatranska I guess if possible but likely not considering he dodged and ignored the entirety of my last post - jog my memory and remind me where "marriage" currently figures in the public school curriculum? Under what module? And what exactly is taught there? And what proposals are current as to how those lines in the curriculum are likely to change if a "yes" vote were to come to pass?

I know my memories of school are sketchy - but I have no recollection at all of the topic of marriage coming up at any point in any subject.

SireOfSeth

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

For to consider homosexuals as not being treated as equal under current legislation one needs to believe that people are born homosexual.
I don't believe this.
As a practicing christia I beleive God is tge ultimate authority on the mater. I believe Gods view of homosexuality that it is sin and not the way God intended.
I also believe its a lie which people believe and then give themselves over to.

Just to clarify, are you saying that you decided to become heterosexual?

SireOfSeth

gk5000 wrote: »

No, the proposed ammendment would cause a conflict within this framework.
It's crazy to create unneeded problems.

The drafters and legislators should get this right before sending it to the people, and it should be sent back with a NO vote until its right.

I am not a bad person to want this fully clarified before the ammendment.

Are you saying that if the drafters/legislators sort it out first, you'd then be happy to vote YES?

Alf Veedersane

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

For to consider homosexuals as not being treated as equal under current legislation one needs to believe that people are born homosexual.
I don't believe this.
As a practicing christia I beleive God is tge ultimate authority on the mater. I believe Gods view of homosexuality that it is sin and not the way God intended.

I'm not going to criticise your views, per se. Their yours and you're obviously entitled to them.

But I just want to question something. If people can't be born homosexual because God didn't intend them to, then where does that leave God's role in children being born with severe handicaps, or similar?

Gneuinely just curious on what the take on that is - if one can suggest people cannot be born a certain way because it wasn't as God intended?

Or is it just filed under 'God moves in mysterious ways'?

MrWalsh

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Just to clarify, are you saying that you decided to become heterosexual?

It actually makes me sad that there would be people in a modern society with such an ignorant view of the world.

Alf Veedersane

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Just to clarify, are you saying that you decided to become heterosexual?

As I read it, tatranska is saying that they were born as God intended and did not choose to amend that.

MrWalsh

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

As I read it, tatranska is saying that they were born as God intended and did not choose to amend that.

Surely it means:
born as God intended and chose to amend that - ie, they became homosexual through choice?

He/she says that no one is born homosexual.

SireOfSeth

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

As I read it, tatranska is saying that they were born as God intended and did not choose to amend that.

I believe that is tatranska's point too. However, I was wondering if tatranska chose to be heterosexual. Surely not? I know I didn't, and I don't know of anyone who did, tatranska would be the first that I know of. And how did tatranska evaluate the decision not to be homosexual?

sydthebeat

why is 'god' even coming into this debate on civil marriage?

sad really that people think the can force their religious views onto others

Alf Veedersane

MrWalsh wrote: »

Surely it means:
born as God intended and chose to amend that - ie, they became homosexual through choice?

He/she says that no one is born homosexual.

I meant in tatranska's case.

MrWalsh

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I meant in tatranska's case.

Oh I get you now.

henryporter

I think tatranska's arguments on this thread thus far are typical of the backward and repressive views that the likes of Iona and Mothers and Fathers Matter are peddling - I'm a straight man and I'm offended by these attitudes, that homosexuality is perverse and unnatural, that it is almost picked up like a disease (therefore any gay people rearing children, or any child being educated about such matters will suddenly turn gay), that a child needs a mother and a father (again obviously to stop them becoming gay), and so on - all ignorant, unsubstantiated ravings of a group of people who believe in supernatural creators, angels, hell fire and other crazy stuff.

MrWalsh

henryporter wrote: »

I think tatranska's arguments on this thread thus far are typical of the backward and repressive views that the likes of Iona and Mothers and Fathers Matter are peddling - I'm a straight man and I'm offended by these attitudes, that homosexuality is perverse and unnatural, that it is almost picked up like a disease (therefore any gay people rearing children, or any child being educated about such matters will suddenly turn gay), that a child needs a mother and a father (again obviously to stop them becoming gay), and so on - all ignorant, unsubstantiated ravings of a group of people who believe in supernatural creators, angels, hell fire and other crazy stuff.

Well I am happy for people to hold such views. Im just not happy to have them imposed on me.

uck51js9zml2yt

henryporter wrote: »

I think tatranska's arguments on this thread thus far are typical of the backward and repressive views that the likes of Iona and Mothers and Fathers Matter are peddling - I'm a straight man and I'm offended by these attitudes, that homosexuality is perverse and unnatural, that it is almost picked up like a disease (therefore any gay people rearing children, or any child being educated about such matters will suddenly turn gay), that a child needs a mother and a father (again obviously to stop them becoming gay), and so on - all ignorant, unsubstantiated ravings of a group of people who believe in supernatural creators, angels, hell fire and other crazy stuff.

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.

sydthebeat

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

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.

but do you not accept that a yes vote will affect you IN NO WAY POSSIBLE whatsoever


and that by voting no you are foisting you own religious beliefs onto others in a CIVIL matter?

Maximus Alexander

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

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.

Yes. Can you do that please?

SireOfSeth

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.

I believe that the point henryporter was making, was that you seem to be making your decisions based on an ancient book. Fair enough, if those beliefs only impact yourself, however, you are forcing your beliefs on others.

bopper

I think this thread is going off the rails a bit. If someone is basing their vote in this referendum on the Bible, then arguing with them is as useful as banging your head against a brick wall. There is no point reasoning with crazy.

The thread should be kept as a place to voice logical concerns and reasons for voting either way. A debate on the Bible will just go around in circles and never lead anywhere.

MrWalsh

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Fair enough, if those beliefs only impact yourself, however, you are forcing your beliefs on others.

Can you answer this please tatranska?

How is it ok to force others to live according to your beliefs?

galljga1

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.

That would be fine, thanks but I do hope we get good weather, kids off and all that.

BoatMad

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.

i would draw your attention to this quote

“Of course, the aim of a constitutional democracy is to safeguard the rights of the minority and avoid the tyranny of the majority. ”
― Cornel West

a proper functioning society is perhaps measured by what it does for its minorities not what it does to confirm its own views.

Ash.J.Williams

henryporter wrote: »

I think tatranska's arguments on this thread thus far are typical of the backward and repressive views that the likes of Iona and Mothers and Fathers Matter are peddling - I'm a straight man and I'm offended by these attitudes, that homosexuality is perverse and unnatural, that it is almost picked up like a disease (therefore any gay people rearing children, or any child being educated about such matters will suddenly turn gay), that a child needs a mother and a father (again obviously to stop them becoming gay), and so on - all ignorant, unsubstantiated ravings of a group of people who believe in supernatural creators, angels, hell fire and other crazy stuff.

funny you mention that....his/hers views in "teaching gay in school" is the same view held by the burke family associated with one of those mothers and fathers groups....

GCU Flexible Demeanour

sydthebeat wrote: »

why is 'god' even coming into this debate on civil marriage?

In fairness, the Constitution claims that the Holy Trinity is the only valid source of human authority, so it's actually hard to say "that has no place in our discussion".

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

sydthebeat

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, the Constitution claims that the Holy Trinity is the only valid source of human authority, so it's actually hard to say "that has no place in our discussion".

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

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.

so ill ask tatranska again:

do you not accept that a yes vote will affect you IN NO WAY POSSIBLE whatsoever


and that by voting no you are foisting you own religious beliefs onto others in a CIVIL matter?