The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[armaghniac]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

Does civil partnership allow the surviving partner to get a spouse's pension ?

Why should it? Why should the person not have their own pension and not be subsidised by other people?

[T Fearon]

Has to be the most complex poll ever undertaken on this Board.Im in the "I don't have a vote,but I know somebody who has and if I was in their shoes I might vote yes or no" camp.

You'll not be surprised to learn I'm in the No camp.For moral and religious reasons I object to these practices being equated to the status of normal male female relationships as defined by scripture.

[The Iceman]

Iceman, you're confusing me.  On the one hand, you say you don't agree with a 'Yes' vote, but now you say you'd have no problem with same-sex couples marrying outside the church.  Why oppose a 'Yes' vote then?

Also, I don't see how the Catholic Church can be forced to conduct a service contrary to its principles.

I wouldn't vote yes. I also don't mind people getting married.
Where I live it is legal to smoke weed. In the vote to legalize it my household voted no. But I don't mind people smoking - I just don't want it to be legal.

If gay marriage is legalized then why stop at Civil ceremonies. Surely if the state recognizes it should the Church not be forced to eventually? surely a Christian man can marry his fellow Christian man and have that marriage blessed by the Church?

Looking back over history the oppressed become the oppressor. They are never satisfied with equality - they want retribution - they want those they perceive to be oppressing them to be the oppressed.

[ONeill]

Has to be the most complex poll ever undertaken on this Board.Im in the "I don't have a vote,but I know somebody who has and if I was in their shoes I might vote yes or no" camp.

You'll not be surprised to learn I'm in the No camp.For moral and religious reasons I object to these practices being equated to the status of normal male female relationships as defined by scripture.

Fcuk me. That's more laughable than depressing.

Not alone is it mad to devote your life to adoring a "lord" or a "god" or "almighty" but to demand he is straight too.......

In 100 years you lads will be coupled with the earth is flatters or black as slave believers....

[Franko]

Has to be the most complex poll ever undertaken on this Board.Im in the "I don't have a vote,but I know somebody who has and if I was in their shoes I might vote yes or no" camp.

You'll not be surprised to learn I'm in the No camp.For moral and religious reasons I object to these practices being equated to the status of normal male female relationships as defined by scripture.

Ah come on... There's nothing complex about it. There's two categories, with a Yes, No or Maybe in each. The results are actually turning out to be quite interesting.

[J70]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

Does civil partnership allow the surviving partner to get a spouse's pension ?

Why should it? Why should the person not have their own pension and not be subsidised by other people?

Does the surviving spouse of a heterosexual marriage get the pension?

[J70]

Iceman, I don't know what you mean by "gave up the right to."  Are you suggesting that at one time Christians, in some way, owned marriage?  Then what about married Jews, Muslims or atheists?  We're they not married?  Of course the church has every right to say who it will or will not marry, but marriage isn't simply a religious union, it's a civil one too, so shouldn't two people in love be allowed to marry and to enjoy the legal protections of the marriage contract?

I think it's funny how you start off with I don't know what you mean and then continue to argue with yourself over what you think I mean

Most of the Christian debate on Gay Marriage is centered around a re-defining of marriage. My response is that we gave up any rights we had to the term Marriage a long time ago within the confines of the Church. Marriage within the Church isn't really anything exclusively sacred anymore. For a nice envelope any man or woman can be married. So I have no problem with people getting "married".

Does the Church though have the right to say who it will or will not marry? Do you think that right will remain safe over the coming years? I personally don't.

The Nolan debate was enjoyable as always to watch. He invites people on for a reason.

On what grounds can a church be made to marry someone it does not want to?

If the only marriages that were recognized by a state were religious ones, you might have a point.

It may not happen in Ireland but in some states in America I'd say fairly soon Churches (on the grounds of equal rights) will be forced to conduct same sex ceremonies or face the consequences.
Many of the Protestant Churches are already breaking off into yet more ones that support Gay Marriage. The church of england already support it so look for the Church of Ireland to jump on that wagon too. I'd say it won't be long before it is being forced.

But churches are essentially private clubs. How can they be forced?

[J70]

Iceman, you're confusing me.  On the one hand, you say you don't agree with a 'Yes' vote, but now you say you'd have no problem with same-sex couples marrying outside the church.  Why oppose a 'Yes' vote then?

Also, I don't see how the Catholic Church can be forced to conduct a service contrary to its principles.

I wouldn't vote yes. I also don't mind people getting married.
Where I live it is legal to smoke weed. In the vote to legalize it my household voted no. But I don't mind people smoking - I just don't want it to be legal.

If gay marriage is legalized then why stop at Civil ceremonies. Surely if the state recognizes it should the Church not be forced to eventually? surely a Christian man can marry his fellow Christian man and have that marriage blessed by the Church?

Looking back over history the oppressed become the oppressor. They are never satisfied with equality - they want retribution - they want those they perceive to be oppressing them to be the oppressed.

"The oppressed become the oppressor"??

Seriously?  That's an argument you want to use to justify not granting equality?

[armaghniac]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

Does civil partnership allow the surviving partner to get a spouse's pension ?

Why should it? Why should the person not have their own pension and not be subsidised by other people?

Does the surviving spouse of a heterosexual marriage get the pension?

Whataboutery, the whole thing is based on getting what themmuns have, not justified for its own sake.
If you agree then put forward a postive justification for people paying more for pensions and tax reliefs for same sex couples.

[Mike Sheehy]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

Does civil partnership allow the surviving partner to get a spouse's pension ?

Why should it? Why should the person not have their own pension and not be subsidised by other people?

Does the surviving spouse of a heterosexual marriage get the pension?

Whataboutery, the whole thing is based on getting what themmuns have, not justified for its own sake.
If you agree then put forward a postive justification for people paying more for pensions and tax reliefs for same sex couples.

Yes, that is the whole point.

Themmums are ussems , ussems are themmums. There shouldn't really be a distinction under law.

[The Iceman]

Iceman, you're confusing me.  On the one hand, you say you don't agree with a 'Yes' vote, but now you say you'd have no problem with same-sex couples marrying outside the church.  Why oppose a 'Yes' vote then?

Also, I don't see how the Catholic Church can be forced to conduct a service contrary to its principles.

I wouldn't vote yes. I also don't mind people getting married.
Where I live it is legal to smoke weed. In the vote to legalize it my household voted no. But I don't mind people smoking - I just don't want it to be legal.

If gay marriage is legalized then why stop at Civil ceremonies. Surely if the state recognizes it should the Church not be forced to eventually? surely a Christian man can marry his fellow Christian man and have that marriage blessed by the Church?

Looking back over history the oppressed become the oppressor. They are never satisfied with equality - they want retribution - they want those they perceive to be oppressing them to be the oppressed.

"The oppressed become the oppressor"??

Seriously?  That's an argument you want to use to justify not granting equality?

No, I never once said it was an argument against equality - I was using it to defend my point that Church's will one day be forced. that equality is not good enough - retribution will be the ultimate goal.

[armaghniac]

The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.

[T Fearon]

Shane in 100 years time I will be enjoying heavenly bliss,you will be in hell suffering eternal misery,everyday will be like that glorious day in 2002 for me,with the same pain it caused for you

[Lar Naparka]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

You will be voting no because you are a homophobe. you are the ultimate hypocrite. A self righteous twat.

Hold on horse, that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw one.
Al the intolerant bigots aren't to be found on the No side in this debate.
For the record, I don''t agree with Rossfan but he is entitled to his opinion as I am to mine or you are to yours- no more and no less. 

[J70]

Iceman, you're confusing me.  On the one hand, you say you don't agree with a 'Yes' vote, but now you say you'd have no problem with same-sex couples marrying outside the church.  Why oppose a 'Yes' vote then?

Also, I don't see how the Catholic Church can be forced to conduct a service contrary to its principles.

I wouldn't vote yes. I also don't mind people getting married.
Where I live it is legal to smoke weed. In the vote to legalize it my household voted no. But I don't mind people smoking - I just don't want it to be legal.

If gay marriage is legalized then why stop at Civil ceremonies. Surely if the state recognizes it should the Church not be forced to eventually? surely a Christian man can marry his fellow Christian man and have that marriage blessed by the Church?

Looking back over history the oppressed become the oppressor. They are never satisfied with equality - they want retribution - they want those they perceive to be oppressing them to be the oppressed.

"The oppressed become the oppressor"??

Seriously?  That's an argument you want to use to justify not granting equality?

No, I never once said it was an argument against equality - I was using it to defend my point that Church's will one day be forced. that equality is not good enough - retribution will be the ultimate goal.

Based on what?

If retribution is always the ultimate goal of victims, the Catholic Church probably has bigger worries than gay people.