The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[The Iceman]

I appreciate your tone and choice of words easytiger - thanks for keeping it classy

Although the referendum was not about Christian marriage i have to apply ,y Christian outlook to my vote. As i apply it to every vote. If you go back to the start of the thread i did concede that the YES camp would win and that Christians lost claim to marriage a long time ago - but it doesn't mean I would vote yes.

In a Christian world all life matters. From conception to natural death. In an atheist world that isnt always the case. I say always because I have met many atheists who are very much pro-life. Who detest abortion. Why? Because it doesn't feel right. They know in their hearts and in the pits of their stomach it just isn't right. Is that feeling wrong? Or only if it comes from a Christian? Is it wrong for an atheist to not feel right about the destruction of a clump of cells when that said atheist is just a clump of cells too? I don't know....

My decision to embrace my faith was a very logical one. Our lives are part of a story - therefore there must be a storyteller. I am created therefore there must be a creator. I am here for a reason therefore... and on and on I can go. You yourself said you believe in "something" I say God. Whether or not he exists is a philosophical question. One that can't be answered by science. Before the Atheist machine started forcing God out of the equation - God was at the heart of everything. Questions about sexuality, and marriage and family could not be answered without reference to our creation in God's image and without regard for His intentions: What does it mean to say God created us in His image as male and female? What is the purpose of human sexuality? What is marriage for?
But now all of these things are viewed through the lens of evolutionary biology, sociology and psychology. The outdated God  is out the window and science can now assist us with forming our own personal perspectives on what is normal and good.

There are two world views. Two very opposing world views. I know what side I stand on and why.

[LCohen]

Iceman. If someone states that "same sex acts" are wrong and gives a sensible argument (a sensible argument is not that I think they are wrong because I believe that they are wrong and my evidence is me and my belief that they are wrong) I will consider that argument. As a reasonable person I will look for consistency in the line of argument. Say for example someone argued that they objected to non-procreative I would look to see if they were consistent in their approach. This could be established by checking the person's track record in opposing marriage being allowed between people who were incapable or unwilling to procreate. Without that consistency the whiff of homophobia would linger and the argument would have Zero logical merit. Say for example someone argued that they objected gay marriage on the basis that their faith compelled them to then I would look to see if they were consistent in following the other things their religion compelled them to do (lists and lists have previously been supplied). Without that consistency the whiff of homophobia would linger and the argument would have Zero logical merit.

I would look for other logical steps in the line of argument. Any leap that allowing gay people to marry the person they loved would result in the weakening of someone else's marriage would need to be evidenced. There is no apparent connection between the two and so the purported connection would have to be set out and explained. Any leap that allowing gay people to marry the person they loved would result in an increase in the number of broken homes would need to be evidenced. There is no apparent connection between the two and so the purported connection would have to be set out and explained. Too many of these leaps and the whole line of argument would appear forced and strained and not logically founded.

You can want people to be treated less than equally based upon their sexuality but if the best argurment is that you are just not comfortable with them being treated the same as you then I'm not running away from calling that homophobic. Sorry

In any argument we are coming at this with two very different opinions and mindsets and dare I say outlooks on life? Your sensible and mine are probably two different things - but it doesn't mean only one of us makes any sense...

I live my life according to my belief in Jesus Christ, His passion, death and Resurrection. I live according to the Church's interpretation of His message and the guidelines they put in place under the direction of the Holy Spirit. I believe despite the rough waters, dodgy captains, mutiny and torn sails that the Holy Spirit is still the wind in the sails of the Church and guiding us.

I believe all sin is wrong. Homosexual acts are a sin and I am consistent with my opinions on sin. I never once said I was uncomfortable with anyone being treated the same as I was. My post was and is still quite clear. A phobia is a fear of something. Phobias cannot be rewritten to include discrimination....I have no fear of Gay people - i just don't agree with same sex acts. Like I don't agree with adultery or theft - like I already said. Oh consistency.....

Marriage has been diluted in Ireland. Look to religious people all over the world and see their reaction. They are in shock at the direction Ireland is headed. Then look at the secular reaction to the referendum in Ireland.....   I'm happy to side with the Christians of the world. It is who I am - and I have every right to take that stance for another while at least.... then we will see who real equality people are and how many stand up against the persecution of Christians...

You are perfectly entitle to your faith in jesus/god. That is not being disputed. If the police lifted you tomorrow for some crime and their evidence was that they believed you to be guilty and the judge was a similar way of "thinking" you might re-evaluate your opinion on belief without supporting evidence. Belief without supporting evidence is like your own reference to "gut feeling". Your brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.

Your definition of phobia is no longer fit for purpose. And I know that you are open to the evolving use of words. Just look at your own inventive use of "persecution"

[LCohen]

You are the one making things up. What is this lowest common demominator? Please explain?

If you do not appreciate that generalising a specialised institution reduces the focus on the group on whom it was specialised, then there is no point in me explaining further.

I clearly believe that the benefits outweigh the damage. For a start I can see what the damage is.

Cannot perhaps? You weren't very disposed to look at what the damage was, but rather put forward with the simplistic and untruthful contention that there was no damage and proceed regardless.

Sorry are hetrosexual peolpe losing focus??

OK spell out the damage. Gay marriage exists elsewhere. Who has been damaged and to what extent?

[Oraisteach]

Iceman, you seem like a decent chap, and your post opens up a Pandora's Box of philosophical questions.  I do think the point you make about abortion is a red herring in a discussion of same-sex marriage, but that aside, I do have a question for you.  You profess that God is the creator, the storyteller, as you put it.  If God created all things, all people, then he created homosexuals, didn't he?  And since homosexuals are born that way and don't simply elect a lifestyle, then one of two options remains. Either God created homosexuals, and therefore homosexuality is sanctioned by God, or else he screwed up in the creation process.  Is it likely that an omnipotent God screwed up?  Do you accept that God created homosexuals?

[LCohen]

In Christian or traditional marriage the goods of marriage are for the procreation of children, the good of the spouses and the raising of the family.
In the more inclusive marriage suggested we have to remove procreation of children and the notion that the marriage is ordered to the formation of family. What is left is a sentimental interpretation of 'good of the spouses' which is proposed as love.

Firstly, you can replace the 'procreation' of children with the 'raising' of children. That's then inclusive of heterosexual couples who can't have children naturally, and same sex couples who raise children that aren't biologically the children of one or both of them.

Secondly, you don't have to have children to be a family. A married couple is a family unit in itself.

I can't replace anything with anything lad - thats how it is. A heterosexual couple with children or without children can still be fruitful, faithful and total. In the Church a homosexual couple can never be for the good of eachother unless they live chaste lives....
My job as a husband and father is to get my Wife and kids to heaven. A gay man can't do that if he is committing sin with his "husband"....

What about a lesbian couple? Any problem with them engaging in acts of physical love? Does the Bible have a problem with it?

[LCohen]

Iceman, you seem like a decent chap, and your post opens up a Pandora's Box of philosophical questions.  I do think the point you make about abortion is a red herring in a discussion of same-sex marriage, but that aside, I do have a question for you.  You profess that God is the creator, the storyteller, as you put it.  If God created all things, all people, then he created homosexuals, didn't he?  And since homosexuals are born that way and don't simply elect a lifestyle, then one of two options remains. Either God created homosexuals, and therefore homosexuality is sanctioned by God, or else he screwed up in the creation process.  Is it likely that an omnipotent God screwed up?  Do you accept that God created homosexuals?

Sure that is just the start of it. If the "I exist therefore I was created, therefore there was a creator, therefore "he" must be still hanging about, therefore we better impress him and even worship him and he is bound to reward that with some sort of everlasting utopia" is going to be assess it will fall down way before the question posed by the necessity that homosexuals are in that version of things the creation of god in his infinite wisdom.

I mean who created the creator? what was the creator doing before "he" created the universe? what was he doing with the period before the bits of his creation that were in his image came along? were the earlier evolutionary steps him just practicing? is it just the humans that get the everlasting rewards? What about cows in 2015 or the predecessors of homo sapiens sapiens in the previous geologicals periods? And that is just the start.

[The Iceman]

Iceman, you seem like a decent chap, and your post opens up a Pandora's Box of philosophical questions.  I do think the point you make about abortion is a red herring in a discussion of same-sex marriage, but that aside, I do have a question for you.  You profess that God is the creator, the storyteller, as you put it.  If God created all things, all people, then he created homosexuals, didn't he?  And since homosexuals are born that way and don't simply elect a lifestyle, then one of two options remains. Either God created homosexuals, and therefore homosexuality is sanctioned by God, or else he screwed up in the creation process.  Is it likely that an omnipotent God screwed up?  Do you accept that God created homosexuals?

Creation is no accident. Just as a building points to the evidence of the builder so too do we, all of us, everyone and everything, the cosmos, the created, point to the Creator.  God created all of us in His image. Those are strong statements of truth that I stand by. But your question presumes that people are born homosexual. I don't know if they are. And if they are why is it a screw up? Do you or I understand God's plan? Can we understand the position of 1 person in all of this? The world teaches us that people who have same sex attractions have two choices:
1. Suppress who you are. Be miserable and live your life in denial according to the will of others.
2. Respond to your instincts, follow your desires and act on them - be who you want to be.
But God has a 3rd option:
3. Follow me, receive my love, know me and follow my will for your life.

I think most of the long timers on the board are decent chaps. We enjoy intelligent conversation, a bit of slagging and banter, our gaelic sports and traditions and our country. It's why we stick around. Very few of us are here to cause hurt or harm to any other board members. Some of us shouldn't post when we're drunk or late at night but for the most part we're a decent bunch. I don't try to ride a high horse into conversations. I try to communicate the other side to some of the arguments put forth here. I know that makes me an easy target for some but I don't have all the answers. I seek them with a sincere heart. I genuinely seek to grow closer to God everyday and be the man He calls me to be, for my wife, ,my kids and the world around me. I'm sorry if my posts frustrate you or anyone else. I will note that because of this board, the challenges I have been presented by other posters, the questions I have been asked that I had to seek deeper answers to, have increased my faith and made me a better Christian. A lot of the posters I have clashed with here in the past are quite cordial with me now..... Maguire will come around eventually, maybe even Gallsman too

[Oraisteach]

The reason I ask whether it was a screw up is that if God created homosexuals then it wasn't a screw up and therefore as God's creations they ought to be accorded equal treatment to God's other human creations.  That's all.

[The Iceman]

The reason I ask whether it was a screw up is that if God created homosexuals then it wasn't a screw up and therefore as God's creations they ought to be accorded equal treatment to God's other human creations.  That's all.

But you go down a dangerous path with that presumption. Did God indeed then create killers, rapists..... the list goes on....?
The beautiful truth of the Catholic Church is there is always an AND

He loves us AND there is no limit to His love and mercy. He loves ALL of us AND there is no limit to His love and mercy. He hates sin AND there is no limit to His love and mercy. He created people who developed same sex attractions AND there is no limit to His love and mercy.
Some people are called to be married, some to religious life and just as important as both is the call to be single. Chaste and single.

[armaghniac]

The reason I ask whether it was a screw up is that if God created homosexuals then it wasn't a screw up and therefore as God's creations they ought to be accorded equal treatment to God's other human creations.  That's all.

God created psychopaths, kleptomaniacs, paedophiles, nymphomaniacs, smokers, pyromaniacs and a variety of other people who can only be treated in the context of the effect of their behaviour on society.

[Hardy]

Your brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.

I like this.

[Oraisteach]

And now, Armaghniac, you've opened the Pandora's Box to which I referred.  If God created all of these things, then that asks some serious questions about the very existence of God.

[J70]

Iceman, you seem like a decent chap, and your post opens up a Pandora's Box of philosophical questions.  I do think the point you make about abortion is a red herring in a discussion of same-sex marriage, but that aside, I do have a question for you.  You profess that God is the creator, the storyteller, as you put it.  If God created all things, all people, then he created homosexuals, didn't he?  And since homosexuals are born that way and don't simply elect a lifestyle, then one of two options remains. Either God created homosexuals, and therefore homosexuality is sanctioned by God, or else he screwed up in the creation process.  Is it likely that an omnipotent God screwed up?  Do you accept that God created homosexuals?

Creation is no accident. Just as a building points to the evidence of the builder so too do we, all of us, everyone and everything, the cosmos, the created, point to the Creator.  God created all of us in His image. Those are strong statements of truth that I stand by. But your question presumes that people are born homosexual. I don't know if they are. And if they are why is it a screw up? Do you or I understand God's plan? Can we understand the position of 1 person in all of this? The world teaches us that people who have same sex attractions have two choices:
1. Suppress who you are. Be miserable and live your life in denial according to the will of others.
2. Respond to your instincts, follow your desires and act on them - be who you want to be.
But God has a 3rd option:
3. Follow me, receive my love, know me and follow my will for your life.

I think most of the long timers on the board are decent chaps. We enjoy intelligent conversation, a bit of slagging and banter, our gaelic sports and traditions and our country. It's why we stick around. Very few of us are here to cause hurt or harm to any other board members. Some of us shouldn't post when we're drunk or late at night but for the most part we're a decent bunch. I don't try to ride a high horse into conversations. I try to communicate the other side to some of the arguments put forth here. I know that makes me an easy target for some but I don't have all the answers. I seek them with a sincere heart. I genuinely seek to grow closer to God everyday and be the man He calls me to be, for my wife, ,my kids and the world around me. I'm sorry if my posts frustrate you or anyone else. I will note that because of this board, the challenges I have been presented by other posters, the questions I have been asked that I had to seek deeper answers to, have increased my faith and made me a better Christian. A lot of the posters I have clashed with here in the past are quite cordial with me now..... Maguire will come around eventually, maybe even Gallsman too

This place would get pretty damn boring without differing points of view to discuss.

[muppet]

Well done mcdanger2 great detective work though all out of context, two men adopting a child should never be promoted, I do believe in financial stability for anyone two men together, two women together, two men together where one has had surgery to look like a woman, so the man thinks he is with a woman and doesn't feel so bad that he is engaging in homosexual activity or whatever etc etc which is why I was with the YES camp. A yes vote was probably never in doubt give two gays getting married was the biggest inequality issue the world at present was facing.  I do however believe a child needs a mother and that two men should NEVER be allowed to adopt a child, allowing them to do so is tantamount to child abuse for the poor kid threw into such a social experiment.

HOMOPHOBIA

:  irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

So by your rational the rights of gay men in a social experiment trump the protection of young children, I know where I place my loyalties and the gays and their supporters can be offended as much as they want to go out of their way to be.  As a society we need to protect those who can't protect themselves.

This is as stupid as me now saying: so by your rationale the rights of nazis trumps that of transexual fish.

There is no 'social experiment'. The issue of the 'protection of young children' is not relevant here either. Notice how it is now 'young' children. The word 'children' isn't enough anymore, now that the 'will someone think of the children' schtick has been completely overplayed, so you think by exaggerating the already ludicrously exaggerated point, that somehow it proves something. What it proves is the lack of substance to your argument.

Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.

[topcuppla]

There is no 'social experiment'. The issue of the 'protection of young children' is not relevant here either. Notice how it is now 'young' children. The word 'children' isn't enough anymore, now that the 'will someone think of the children' schtick has been completely overplayed, so you think by exaggerating the already ludicrously exaggerated point, that somehow it proves something. What it proves is the lack of substance to your argument.

Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.

Unbelievable from a muppet who constantly plays the homophobic card, Jesus Wept!!