Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

SSM referendum canvassing

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Zzippy
    Registered Users Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    zarquon wrote: »
    On this very island, we have an example of a gay activist that knowingly targeted a christian business owner to force them to provide services in contravention of their religious beliefs and then persued litigation against them when they expressed their religous beliefs.

    Will you walk into a Galway Halal supplier and demand pork lest they discreminate against your beliefs.

    This campaign is persuing equality but really its persuing equality for some, but inequality for others, freedom of expression for one group and suppression for others. The sooner this is over the better!

    In the U.S, places like massachusetts are firing teachers for not teaching homosexuality to young school goers, priest and pastors are being sued for not performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Suppression of religious freedom is a big problem in places where gay marriage has been legalised such as the U.S and Canada and we can even see it in our own isles in the news today but yet there are some such as yourself that state it won't happen here! What makes the republic so special that religious freedom won't be impacted by the legislation when it is being impacted the world over.

    More whataboutery and examples from outside this jurisdiction with different laws. How do you "teach homosexuality"? :rolleyes:

    There are no laws in Ireland that would force churches to perform gay marriages. That religious freedom is safeguarded. A bakery is not a religious institution - it cannot (in NI under their laws) discriminate when it offers a service. Halal butchers do not offer a pork service. Same as bookshops don't offer a taxi service. Also, when you talk about people only wanting equality when it suits them, if we really had equality then churches would pay tax like the rest of us. How's that for religious freedom?


  • Options
    #33
    Sofa King
    Registered Users Posts: 968 ✭✭✭Sofa King


    zarquon wrote: »
    Agression, bullying, intimidation. Tearing town no posters! Some of the yes campaign has been a disgrace, if they lose they only have themselves to blame. The political stunt with the Gay cake controversy couldn't have come at a worse time for the yes campaign and could seriously impact the undecided voters. The last thing i want is my privacy invaded with door to door canvassers.

    I have a parade of the Yes Campaigners around where I live calling door to door.

    No door to door canvassing (by anyone) will change my mind.


  • Options
    #34
    zarquon
    Registered Users Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭zarquon


    Zzippy wrote: »
    How do you "teach homosexuality"? :rolleyes:

    The same way one teaches and promotes the standard heterosexual family unit in primary school. :rolleyes:

    There are some teacher groups that are calling for a no vote due to concerns about having to give credence to gay marriage as teaching preference for a heterosexual marriage and family unit could be seen as discrimination and met with disciplinary action.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/new-group-of-teachers-calls-for-no-in-marriage-referendum-1.2213001

    I'm sure the type of activists that target and attack Christian businesses for their beliefs such as the Ashers Bakery will have no problem extending their campaign to public entities such as schools in order to push an agenda. I'm all for freedom of expression but really, some of the yes campaign are bullying and intimidating no voters in order to suppress their opinions and democratic voting rights. I highly doubt the suppression will stop once the vote is over.


  • Options
    #35
    Zzippy
    Registered Users Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    zarquon wrote: »
    The same way one teaches and promotes the standard heterosexual family unit in primary school. :rolleyes:

    There are some teacher groups that are calling for a no vote due to concerns about having to give credence to gay marriage as teaching preference for a heterosexual marriage and family unit could be seen as discrimination and met with disciplinary action.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/new-group-of-teachers-calls-for-no-in-marriage-referendum-1.2213001

    I'm sure the type of activists that target and attack Christian businesses for their beliefs such as the Ashers Bakery will have no problem extending their campaign to public entities such as schools in order to push an agenda. I'm all for freedom of expression but really, some of the yes campaign are bullying and intimidating no voters in order to suppress their opinions and democratic voting rights. I highly doubt the suppression will stop once the vote is over.

    Imagine having to teach children that gay people exist, that they are human beings just like the rest of us with the same likes and dislikes (well, not all the same), the same problems and worries, the same hobbies, careers, families and lifestyles. Imagine teaching kids that everyone deserves love and respect regardless of their sexuality. The horror!

    Or maybe it is innate homophobia disguised as concern for children. Why is it always about the children? :rolleyes:

    No one can suppress your democratic rights... we're not in a dictatorship yet. So enough with the hyperbole.... and as for bullying and intimidation, see the lovely letter sent to Una Mullaly today. Really nice alright... :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #36
    zarquon
    Registered Users Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭zarquon


    Zzippy wrote: »
    Why is it always about the children? :rolleyes:

    Yes voter once again brushing the needs and rights of children under the carpet, quell surprise.
    Zzippy wrote: »

    No one can suppress your democratic rights...

    So why are some of the yes campaign trying their best to suppress the democratic rights of the yes campaign by tearing down posters as demonstrated by this video.


    It is absolutely outrageous behaviour to so blatently suppress democratic freedom and freedom of expression whilst crying from the rooftops that everyone should have equal freedom :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Unrealistic
    Registered Users Posts: 1,280 ✭✭✭Unrealistic


    zarquon wrote: »
    In the U.S, places like massachusetts are firing teachers for not teaching homosexuality to young school goers, federal judges are telling parents they have no say in what their children are to be taught in schoool, priest and pastors are being sued for not performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Suppression of religious freedom is a big problem in places where gay marriage has been legalised such as the U.S and Canada and we can even see it in our own isles in the news today but yet there are some such as yourself that state it won't happen here! What makes the republic so special that religious freedom won't be impacted by the legislation when it is being impacted the world over.
    I've seen these arguments/examples before and they sounded a bit extreme and unlikely so I tried to find out some more about them. For example you said teachers are being fired for not teaching homosexuality but when I try to find an example of this I draw a blank. Although interestingly it's not too hard to find examples of the opposite, of schools firing teachers for being gay or having kids outside marriage. It's also interesting that this is something Catholic schools (even when wholly funded by the state) are still legally entitled to do in Ireland despite your concerns about threats to religious freedom. Maybe you could point us to an actual example of a teacher being fired in Massachusetts (or anywhere) for "not teaching homosexuality"?

    How about pointing us to an actual example of a priest or pastor "being sued for not performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples"? When I looked for that I could only find an example of a Las Vegas style wedding chapel business being the subject of potential legal action but no suggestion that a regular church where people go to worship every Sunday would have to perform a religious wedding for same sex couples.

    On the question of parents having no say over what their children are being taught in school the only incidents I could find related to parents who wanted to remove their children from class any time a same sex family was discussed. The teaching seemed to be limited to the something along the lines of some children live with their Mom and Dad, some children live with their Mom or Dad only and some children live with two Moms or two Dads. As a parent with kids in primary school I would have no problem with my kids being taught something like that. It is reality that all of those types of families exist. For all I know some of the other kids in the school could indeed live with two Mums or two Dads. Stigmatising their situation rather than just recognising it as just another part of the landscape seems to me nothing short of wilful cruelty.


  • Options
    #38
    zarquon
    Registered Users Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭zarquon


    Unrealistic wrote: »

    How about pointing us to an actual example of a priest or pastor "being sued for not performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples"? When I looked for that I could only find an example of a Las Vegas style wedding chapel business being the subject of potential legal action but no suggestion that a regular church where people go to worship every Sunday would have to perform a religious wedding for same sex couples.

    REALLY??? First google link: http://www.charismanews.com/world/40685-millionaire-gay-couple-sues-to-force-church-wedding

    second google result: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-am-still-not-getting-what-i-want-gay-couple-suing-church-for-refusing-wed

    Third result: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html

    Fourth result......Oh forget it, you get the idea. Do it yourself, there are countless results. Oh wait, you conveniently cant do a basic web search as it wont support your position!

    Amazing you couldn't find any examples despite a basic Web search being littered with examples. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #39
    Zzippy
    Registered Users Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    zarquon wrote: »
    Yes voter once again brushing the needs and rights of children under the carpet, quell surprise.

    No voter once again misrepresenting what this referendum is about by quoting the needs and rights of children. It's about gay adults being given the right to a civil marriage under the consitution. See I can put words in your mouth too.

    zarquon wrote: »
    So why are some of the yes campaign trying their best to suppress the democratic rights of the yes campaign by tearing down posters as demonstrated by this video.


    It is absolutely outrageous behaviour to so blatently suppress democratic freedom and freedom of expression whilst crying from the rooftops that everyone should have equal freedom :rolleyes:

    Yes posters have been torn down too, along University Road in Galway last week for one example. I agree with you, it is absolutely outrageous behaviour. Not quite as bad as writing to someone and suggesting that their cancer was maybe God's will because they supported gay marriage though. See I can do whataboutery the same as you can.


    Seriously, if you're going to bring up children, maybe you could be so good as to state specifically what needs and rights of children will be impacted on by 2 adults of the same sex being allowed to marry?


  • Options
    #40
    zarquon
    Registered Users Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭zarquon


    Zzippy wrote: »
    No voter once again misrepresenting what this referendum is about by quoting the needs and rights of children. It's about gay adults being given the right to a civil marriage under the consitution. See I can put words in your mouth too.




    Yes posters have been torn down too, along University Road in Galway last week for one example. I agree with you, it is absolutely outrageous behaviour. Not quite as bad as writing to someone and suggesting that their cancer was maybe God's will because they supported gay marriage though. See I can do whataboutery the same as you can.


    Seriously, if you're going to bring up children, maybe you could be so good as to state specifically what needs and rights of children will be impacted on by 2 adults of the same sex being allowed to marry?

    Just had a read of that letter. It doesn't strike me as the least bit genuine. It is written like trolling of the highest order. It is disgusting of course but i really doubt it was penned by a genuine person but rather diversionary and tactical.


  • Options
    #41
    Zzippy
    Registered Users Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    zarquon wrote: »
    Just had a read of that letter. It doesn't strike me as the least bit genuine. It is written like trolling of the highest order. It is disgusting of course but i really doubt it was penned by a genuine person but rather diversionary and tactical.

    OK, whatever. We could go back and forth all day swapping accusations like that. Getting back to the actual issue - can you actually articulate exactly what rights of children will be affected if the referendum is passed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Unrealistic
    Registered Users Posts: 1,280 ✭✭✭Unrealistic


    zarquon wrote: »
    REALLY??? First google link: http://www.charismanews.com/world/40685-millionaire-gay-couple-sues-to-force-church-wedding

    second google result: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-am-still-not-getting-what-i-want-gay-couple-suing-church-for-refusing-wed

    Third result: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html

    Fourth result......Oh forget it, you get the idea. Do it yourself, there are countless results. Oh wait, you conveniently cant do a basic web search as it wont support your position!

    Amazing you couldn't find any examples despite a basic Web search being littered with examples. :rolleyes:
    As you specifically said you were referring to the US and more specifically Massachusetts I searched for a cases in Massachusetts and came up blank. Then I searched for cases in the wider US and came across the one you have listed third above. That is the very case I was referring to where it is a commercial 'wedding chapel' that has been told it will be in breach of the law if they discriminate in providing business services to members of the public. It's about as far removed from a parish church as you can get. So no pastors or priests being sued there. No one being sued at all actually.

    Your first two links are for a single case where two publicity seeking gay activists announced loudly that they were going to sue the Church of England for refusing to marry them despite the fact that English law specifically protects the churches in England from having to perform same sex marriages. No mention anywhere that I can find that actual legal proceedings were ever taken even though more than two years have passed since their publicity stunt. So no priests or pastors being sued there either. We have always had allowances for religious discrimination such that Catholics were not entitled to demand to be married in a Synagogue and atheists could not demand to be married in a Mosque etc. Suggesting that this will change so that gays can suddenly demand to be married in churches seems like nothing but wilful scaremongering.

    And no links to an actual example of a teacher being fired for "not teaching homosexuality" even though you assure us this is happening in Massachusetts?

    There have been many accusations levelled against the 'no side' that they have been manufacturing red herrings completely unconnected to the referendum we're actually having in Ireland in order to try to muddy the waters. Unfortunately for your cause by spreading these inaccurate scare stories rather than arguing your case on its merits you are reinforcing that impression.


  • Options
    #43
    ben.schlomo
    Registered Users Posts: 12,151 ✭✭✭✭ben.schlomo


    Is it the gays that are putting the 'pill' into the water? Or maybe they shot JFK? Either way i think i'll give them the benefit of the doubt in this case.;)


  • Options
    #44
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    zarquon wrote: »
    Yes voter once again brushing the needs and rights of children under the carpet, quell surprise.



    So why are some of the yes campaign trying their best to suppress the democratic rights of the yes campaign by tearing down posters as demonstrated by this video.


    It is absolutely outrageous behaviour to so blatently suppress democratic freedom and freedom of expression whilst crying from the rooftops that everyone should have equal freedom :rolleyes:

    Jaysus that video is hilarious


  • Options
    #45
    Redhairedguy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,711 ✭✭✭Redhairedguy


    Speaking of children. I wonder how our children, and their children will look back at this time, where people willingly and vocally opposed extending the same rights to marriage to other people who happened to be in love with someone with the same genitals?

    Possibly the same way I look back at the fact that homosexuality was only de-criminalised in Ireland in 1993. With utter disgust and repulsion.

    I cannot hear any single aspect of the 'No' vote, without sniffing the latent religious undercurrent seeping in, or that wonderful schoolyard 'I don't like gays, because being gay is wrong, and I don't want to be seen as gay'. I stand on this issue in the same way that I stand on any issue like this. Does it directly affect you? No? Okie dokie, then why do you even care what other people do?


  • Options
    #46
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Redhairedguy wrote: »
    Possibly the same way I look back at the fact that homosexuality was only de-criminalised in Ireland in 1993.

    This is one of the problems with the "debate" - homosexuality was never a criminal offence in Ireland, the actual offense what was revoked was buggery.


  • Options
    #47
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    antoobrien wrote: »
    This is one of the problems with the "debate" - homosexuality was never a criminal offence in Ireland, the actual offense what was revoked was buggery.

    Actually other aspects of homosexual behaviour were criminalised using other parts of the law, down to holding hands.

    Moreover when you criminalise an act that is part of the nature of person you criminalise the person and the nature. Its jesuitical nonsense to suggest otherwise and that is leaving aside the brutal and cruel social ostracisation against gay people during the time.


  • Options
    #48
    ben.schlomo
    Registered Users Posts: 12,151 ✭✭✭✭ben.schlomo


    antoobrien wrote: »
    This is one of the problems with the "debate" - homosexuality was never a criminal offence in Ireland, the actual offense what was revoked was buggery.

    So they were free to go about their business then? Interesting that many people who felt persecuted during those years felt that way then, given your enlightening revelation.


  • Options
    #49
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    ben.schlomo wrote: »
    So they were free to go about their business then? Interesting that many people who felt persecuted during those years felt that way then, given your enlightening revelation.

    Didn't stop Wilde.


  • Options
    #50
    Irishgoatman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭Irishgoatman


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Jaysus that video is hilarious

    I hadn't bothered watching the video because the picture looked so unreal, but thanks to your comment I have now watched it. Thank you.

    Best laugh by far that I have had for days. Far better than any recent comedy show on T.V.

    There was me thinking that, because of the earlier comments, it was a serious issue.:D


  • Options
    #51
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,521 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Didn't stop Wilde.

    It sort of did really. He went to prison for charges of gross indecency and died penniless and broken.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Arghus wrote: »
    It sort of did really. He went to prison for charges of gross indecency and died penniless and broken.

    No, he was apparently sent to prison for using rent boys.


  • Options
    #53
    Irishgoatman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭Irishgoatman


    antoobrien wrote: »
    No, he was apparently sent to prison for using rent boys.


    Although this is going slightly off topic I don't see that the link actually proves your point.

    Paragraph 7 states that homosexual behaviour was illegal and Paragraph 8 states that Oscar Wilde had no defence against charges of homosexual behaviour.

    Just as a point of interest, I remember reading long ago that one of the reasons for lesbianism not being made illegal was that Queen Victoria did not believe that ladies would engage in such behaviour:eek:.


  • Options
    #54
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,521 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    antoobrien wrote: »
    No, he was apparently sent to prison for using rent boys.

    Yeah. Exactly.


  • Options
    #55
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Irishgoatman wrote: »
    Although this is going slightly off topic I don't see that the link actually proves your point.

    Paragraph 7 states that homosexual behaviour was illegal and Paragraph 8 states that Oscar Wilde had no defence against charges of homosexual behaviour.

    How could he have a defense, several rent boys testified against him and he lost the libel action surrounding his behavour (confirming him a sodomite)/

    It begs the question: if one is celibate (gay or not), how does one get caught in "homosexual behaviour".

    Yes I'm aware that celibacy is not natural for any sexual persuasion.


  • Options
    #56
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Arghus wrote: »
    Yeah. Exactly.

    Your point being what, that it was jailed for being gay?

    No he was jailed for having (gay) sex with male prostitutes.

    If he was celibate (a quaint idea to modern society), he would not have been in a position to be caught being homosexual.

    See the difference?

    The again, at the time unmarried people at the time were supposed to be celibate (not sure if he was divorced at this stage) and those that were married were supposed to be faithful to their spouse, so it's not a large jump in logic (if one is willing to suspend outrage and actually think) to say that men (and women) should not have been engaging in homosexual acts.

    Am I saying it was right or that I agree with it - no, just pointing out the myth that being gay was illegal - buggery was and is to this point the only the only "homosexual behaviour" I was able to find made legal (between consenting adults) in 1993 that I can find reference to.


  • Options
    #57
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Your point being what, that it was jailed for being gay?

    No he was jailed for having (gay) sex with male prostitutes.

    If he was celibate (a quaint idea to modern society), he would not have been in a position to be caught being homosexual.

    See the difference?

    The again, at the time unmarried people at the time were supposed to be celibate (not sure if he was divorced at this stage) and those that were married were supposed to be faithful to their spouse, so it's not a large jump in logic (if one is willing to suspend outrage and actually think) to say that men (and women) should not have been engaging in homosexual acts.

    Am I saying it was right or that I agree with it - no, just pointing out the myth that being gay was illegal - buggery was and is to this point the only the only "homosexual behaviour" I was able to find made legal (between consenting adults) in 1993 that I can find reference to.

    As you have already been told other homosexual behaviour was criminalised via different laws including holding hands. Repeating your mistake doesn't make it anymore true it simply compounds your error.


  • Options
    #58
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,957 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    As you have already been told other homosexual behaviour was criminalised via different laws including holding hands.

    Can you link to any sources for this? Give any examples of people being convicted of holding hands?


  • Options
    #59
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,521 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Your point being what, that it was jailed for being gay?

    No he was jailed for having (gay) sex with male prostitutes.

    If he was celibate (a quaint idea to modern society), he would not have been in a position to be caught being homosexual.

    See the difference?

    The again, at the time unmarried people at the time were supposed to be celibate (not sure if he was divorced at this stage) and those that were married were supposed to be faithful to their spouse, so it's not a large jump in logic (if one is willing to suspend outrage and actually think) to say that men (and women) should not have been engaging in homosexual acts.

    Am I saying it was right or that I agree with it - no, just pointing out the myth that being gay was illegal - buggery was and is to this point the only the only "homosexual behaviour" I was able to find made legal (between consenting adults) in 1993 that I can find reference to.

    I apologise in advance for going off topic here, but anyway....

    No I'm not saying that he was prosecuted for simply being gay.

    Your inital assertion- "It never stopped Wilde". Now, first of all, that's a vague enough statement to make.

    Never stopped what exactly? Stopped him being gay- No of course not. Stopped him from being prosecuted for things that at the time were deemed illegal, but are legal today- No , apparently not that either

    So what are you saying?

    I think what you were suggesting there was Wilde never suffered in any meaningful sense from the law, as it stood at the time. If that's what in fact you actually mean, then I disagree and think you are wrong.

    Feel free to correct me if I misunderstand you. But I think I've made the mistake of arguing over the semantics of a vague statement, so you can move the goalposts for argument any way you see fit.


  • Options
    #60
    Bobeagleburger
    Registered Users Posts: 45,482 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    Leaflets from the No side in the door this evening. It's all about Children.

    When's the referendum on Children ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,157 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    rarnes1 wrote: »
    Leaflets from the No side in the door this evening. It's all about Children.

    When's the referendum on Children ?

    A couple of years ago, they wanted you to vote No on that too


Advertisement