Irish equal marriage referendum

[Casually Red]

I. Just. No. The above statement contains dangerous quantities of stupid.




One last time. Once a couple is married the relationship is recognised by state as a marriage. This affords the couple certain legal rights vis a vie social supports, the children of one partner, and housing. Civil partnerships do not enjoy these rights. Therefore homosexual couples are denied the same rights as hetrosexual couples.

A church wedding is entirely separate from the legal definition of marriage. And no one is suggesting that churches will be compelled to facilitate wedding if this amendment is passed.

Bullshit . A church wedding in Ireland is recognised as fully legal , as a legal civil contract . You stated very clearly there has to be a civil ceremony as well as the church one . Thats nonsense . I quoted you, don't try and deny it . Or have the nerve to call me stupid after that clinker .

If a civil partnership doesn't include enough rights or security for homosexual couples then those rights should be strengthened and the issue of marriage left alone . Leaving heterosexual couples unaffected in their current status . And not flushing thousands of years of civilisation down the toilet ,thanks to an imported neo liberal fad from a country that hasn't met a civilisation yet that it hasn't tried to obliterate off the face of the earth .

 

[Casually Red]

Casually Red I asked you on another thread about whether you would confirm or deny your homophobia - you declined to reply (it was blatantly homophobic remarks in the Chuka disgrace thread that set the alarm bells ringing) - but thanks for confirming what we feared on this thread, anyway.

No , I fell asleep . I'm not homophobic . I don't hate anyone on the grounds of orientation or anything like that . It's a form of bullying, and I hate a bully worse than anything .

And thanks for confirming yet again what the legal arguments and challenges will be if this thing is passed .

The other poster simply insss nobody would dream of it . Which is plainly bollocks .

 

[8den]

Bullshit . A church wedding in Ireland is recognised as fully legal , as a legal civil contract . You stated very clearly there has to be a civil ceremony as well as the church one . Thats nonsense . I quoted you, don't try and deny it . Or have the nerve to call me stupid after that clinker .

If a civil partnership doesn't include enough rights or security for homosexual couples then those rights should be strengthened and the issue of marriage left alone . Leaving heterosexual couples unaffected in their current status . And not flushing thousands of years of civilisation down the toilet ,thanks to an imported neo liberal fad from a country that hasn't met a civilisation yet that it hasn't tried to obliterate off the face of the earth .

All we are doing is affording gay couples the same civil rights as hetrosexual couples. The religious wedding ceremony is completely separate from this. You can froth you want and throw any amount of straw men arguments into the mix but thats all this referendum is about. No one is going to put a metaphorical gun to priest's head and force them to marriage gay couples if this referendum is passed.

 

[shifting gears]

No , I fell asleep . I'm not homophobic . I don't hate anyone on the grounds of orientation or anything like that . It's a form of bullying, and I hate a bully worse than anything .

And thanks for confirming yet again what the legal arguments and challenges will be if this thing is passed .

The other poster simply insss nobody would dream of it . Which is plainly bollocks .

Do you want me to quote the remarks in question?

 

[Casually Red]

All we are doing is affording gay couples the same civil rights as hetrosexual couples. The religious wedding ceremony is completely separate from this. You can froth you want and throw any amount of straw men arguments into the mix but thats all this referendum is about. No one is going to put a metaphorical gun to priest's head and force them to marriage gay couples if this referendum is passed.

Again I'm going to ask you..where has the high court stated this ? You can't remotely state that with any certainty . And it's also apparent you've switched your entire argument around again . Now it's not about homophobia and bigotry after all, it's about houses . Because you've twigged if it stays on that course then I'm right about discrimination .

The legal rights you've outlined can easily be accommodated by strengthening legal rights within the civil partnership . It doesnt require the state to recognise marriage to acheive that .This does a lot more than that . It says that a homosexual union and a heterosexual one are the very same thing . That there's no difference . That completely undermines all sorts of beliefs , values and traditions and the status of a heterosexual union and those who believe it has a purpose . And not just among Catholics but almost all faiths .

If its the same thing then any faith , not just catholic, turning a homosexual couple away and refusing to afford them the very same services as they do to their friends , neighbours and families, their parents, will be discriminating against them by definition . That's glaringly obvious . It would be vey blatant discriminination on the grounds of sexual orientation and nothing else .

 

[Casually Red]

Do you want me to quote the remarks in question?

Go ahead if you want . I'm not stopping you .

 

[8den]

Again I'm going to ask you..where has the high court stated this ? You can't remotely state that with any certainty . And it's also apparent you've switched your entire argument around again . Now it's not about homophobia and bigotry after all, it's about houses . Because you've twigged if it stays on that course then I'm right about discrimination .

The legal rights you've outlined can easily be accommodated by strengthening legal rights within the civil partnership .

We're not doing that we're (hopefully) giving the same rights to homosexual couples.

It doesnt require the state to recognise marriage to acheive that .This does a lot more than that . It says that a homosexual union and a heterosexual one are the very same thing . That there's no difference . That completely undermines all sorts of beliefs , values and traditions and the status of a heterosexual union and those who believe it has a purpose . And not just among Catholics but almost all faiths .

What are the differences between a homosexual union and heterosexual one?

If its the same thing then any faith , not just catholic, turning a homosexual couple away and refusing to afford them the very same services as they do to their friends , neighbours and families, their parents, will be discriminating against them by definition . That's glaringly obvious . It would be vey blatant discriminination on the grounds of sexual orientation and nothing else .

By that rational CR you would argue that it would be acceptable for a catholic couple to march into a mosque and demand the Iman marriage them or with a rabbi in a Synagogue?

Your argument is becoming more and more unhinged.

 

[bi0boy]

And not flushing thousands of years of civilisation down the toilet ,thanks to an imported neo liberal fad from a country that hasn't met a civilisation yet that it hasn't tried to obliterate off the face of the earth .

You mean Christianity is a neoliberal fad imported to Britain and Ireland from the Roman empire?

 

[Casually Red]

Naw, marriage was around well before Christianity , or the roman empire .

 

[8den]

Naw, marriage was around well before Christianity , or the roman empire .

So was same sex marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

 

[redsquirrel]

What the fuck is wrong with you?

That he's a homophobic, sexist, racist nasty little shit who'll cheer on any appalling regime so long as it claims to be "anti-imperialist"

 

[shifting gears]

Go ahead if you want . I'm not stopping you .

Took a screenshot as I'm on my phone and the multiple quoting is too much grief:



Hope that's visible. And care to try and justify it?

 

[purenarcotic]

Having gay marriage isn't going to cause the ground to crumble underneath you, the world won't stop turning and really, very little is going to change. I just don't get what the issue is.

 

[Casually Red]

We're not doing that we're (hopefully) giving the same rights to homosexual couples.



What are the differences between a homosexual union and heterosexual one?





By that rational CR you would argue that it would be acceptable for a catholic couple to march into a mosque and demand the Iman marriage them or with a rabbi in a Synagogue?

Your argument is becoming more and more unhinged.

There is no " we" in this instance . Your speaking solely for yourself on an issue you've already shown yourself to be quite confused about .

A homosexual union is between 2 people of the same sex , and a heterosexual union is between couples of different gender . As procreation was sanctified and all the rest on this union it's the reason why it's such a big deal and has been for a very long time within civilised societies , civilisations, societies, families, cans, tribes nations and faiths have this at their cornerstone .

Your comparison is just moronic . Über moronic . A catholic couple , or vice versa, could legitimately be turned away on the grounds of simply not being of that denomination , which is in no manner discriminatory or bigoted . They would face no discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation . But to turn away a couple from your own congregation and refuse to afford them the same services as anyone else in your congregation solely on the grounds of their sexual orientation would most certainly be discrimination based solely upon their sexual orientation .

Which is actually illegal , unlike a mosque refusing to marry Jews , Hindus and Catholics . Which isn't illegal . Once people have legal rights then they can't be applied selectively .

You keep stating simply that "nobody would bring such a case ". Yet a few here have asked outright "why not". And its a perfectly valid question if one takes your position . If i agreed with gay marriage id have absolutely no answer to it other than to agree its discrimination . And if it's discrimination then it's wrong and should be challenged .

It's very very obvious that anyone who believes in " full marriage equality" would be perfectly entitled to if they felt they were being discriminated against . You are not putting up even the slightest argument as to how a religious body could defend themselves from an accusation of discrimination by a member of their congregation . Because there isn't one once you accept these unions are the same .

Which is the main reason I don't .

 

[Casually Red]

Took a screenshot as I'm on my phone and the multiple quoting is too much grief:

View attachment 71692

Hope that's visible. And care to try and justify it?

I believe I did later in the thread, before I nodded off . Why not post that up too ?

 

[killer b]

Having gay marriage isn't going to cause the ground to crumble underneath you, the world won't stop turning and really, very little is going to change. I just don't get what the issue is.

CR hates the gays, that's all.

 

[Casually Red]

So was same sex marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

No it bloody wasn't . There were various recognitions of homosexual relationships , but not as the equivalent between man and wife . Except for emperor Nero, who " married " and raped a young kid . He also "married "his horse . He was the emperor, barking mad, coud do as he liked and kill you horribly if he wanted . Or even " marry " you to death if he felt like it .

 

[Casually Red]

That he's a homophobic, sexist, racist nasty little shit who'll cheer on any appalling regime so long as it claims to be "anti-imperialist"

You forgot fascist! Flips sake man .

 

[8den]

No it bloody wasn't . There were various recognitions of homosexual relationships , but not as the equivalent between man and wife . Except for emperor Nero, who " married " and raped a young kid . He also "married "his horse . He was the emperor, barking mad, coud do as he liked and kill you horribly if he wanted . Or even " marry " you to death if he felt like it .

Not true if you bothered to read the link.

Again I'll ask this question

Casually Red What are the differences between a homosexual union and heterosexual one?

 

[Casually Red]

Not true if you bothered to read the link.

Again I'll ask this question

I bothered to read it . And your question has been answered fully , Numerous times by now .

 

[gosub]

The Catholic Church put back in its box, and a wedding to go to (the bridesmaids at our wedding). A Yes vote would do nicely.
"

 

[frogwoman]

so what if churches are legally challenged? the church is a massively powerful organisation. not a single fuck was given etc.

 

[DotCommunist]

you know how with some mutually beneficial state and church organisations things simply are not done?

look at how gay marraige was locked completely out of the anglo-catholic church and the CofE.

 

[gosub]

so what if churches are legally challenged? the church is a massively powerful organisation. not a single fuck was given etc.

I can see a fuck being given, and understandably. hasn't happened in the UK, did in Denmark, but not here.

 

[8den]

I bothered to read it . And your question has been answered fully , Numerous times by now .

so you just read and ignored it. You think Nero was the only same sex marriage in pre Christian times.

And no you haven't explained how you think homosexual unions are different from hetrosexual ones.

 

[gosub]

so you just read and ignored it. You think Nero was the only same sex marriage in pre Christian times.

And no you haven't explained how you think homosexual unions are different from hetrosexual ones.

A sanctified relationship between a man and woman is the only fit and proper one to bring up kids. Think different, and you've a lot of ironing to do.

 

[redsquirrel]

You forgot fascist! Flips sake man .

No I don't think you're a fascist just a turd

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I can see a fuck being given, and understandably. hasn't happened in the UK, did in Denmark, but not here.

There's no state church in Ireland and absolutely zero prospect of any church being forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to. They even still have a legal right to discriminate against gays in employment in the schools they control, which is to say almost all of them, the pricks. No doubt people like CR would regard fixing that as a terrible assault on their consciences too.

 

[Casually Red]

No I don't think you're a fascist just a turd

A facist turd surely ?

 

[gosub]

There's no state church in Ireland and absolutely zero prospect of any church being forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to. They even still have a legal right to discriminate against gays in employment in the schools they control, which is to say almost all of them, the pricks. No doubt people like CR would regard fixing that as a terrible assault on their consciences too.

A No vote makes it harder to unpick the relationship between the church and state, particularly with a view to education. Another reason to vote Yes