The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[screenexile]

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/equality-quango-can-expect-our-full-opposition-31252183.html

This is what all catholic priests should be saying.

Yes Tony!!! The Catholic Church should oppose the Equality Commission at every turn... Especially in cases like this:

http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Cases%20and%20Settlements/2013/McKenna_v_B-Q_McCord.pdf?ext=.pdf

[topcuppla]

The gay rights activists on here deiseach won't be happy, if you vote no you need to submit a thesis to LCohen as to why you voted no, let him dissect it and then conclude you are homophobic.

If you feel that was a post worth making and leave you to the logic of that conclusion,

Being active on the rights of others is something to be proud of. I will take the phrase "gay rights activist" as a commendation. It certainly shows a lot more respect hor humanity that your contributions to the Peter Robinson thread.

The point that No voters need to submit a thesis is childish and embarrassing. I'm sorry that your increasingly strange defense of your position has got this far.

But I will leave you with a challenge. Simply post on this thread your non-homophobic argument for voting No in the recent referendum on marriage equality.

For the umpteenth time I was with the YES vote, however I fully support anyone who voted no for whatever reason and feel no reason whatsoever to brand them all as homophobic without a 2 page justification as to why they voted no so as to pander to your gay rights agenda.

[topcuppla]

I'm not dancing around anything. Tell me the motivation that someone had for voting No and I will tell you if I think it was homophobic

If you think that you are open to the possibility of someone presenting you with an argument for voting No that you don't think is homophobic, you are fooling yourself.

Ah go on try me.

Nah, it can't be right to encourage someone to lie to themselves.

The list of excuses for avoiding the presentation of a non-homophobic reason for voting no in the marriage equality referendum is growing.

It was a referendum, people had a democratic right to vote yes or no, you are happily trampling on the equality rights of anyone who voted NO by branding them all homophobic unless they provide a detailed explanation that you deem acceptable.  There were gay people on throughout the debate who said they were going to vote NO, are they homophobic, this moral high ground you have adopted and your smugness that you did the right thing for equality is quite frankly pathetic when on the other hand you show no respect or dignity to those who voted no, branding 40% of voter homophobic.

[macdanger2]

I'm a little confused topcuppla 

Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.

Ok, so you're against two men adopting a child. Fair enough as the referendum has nothing to do with adoption or parenting, right??

This referendum has nothing to do with same-sex parenting

A yes vote will completely open the door to it.

Although you seem to think it does.

So let's just get this straight, two men being parents is the equivalent of child abuse and a Yes vote will promote this child abuse. It would logically follow that you voted No, right??

For the umpteenth time I was with the YES vote, however I fully support anyone who voted no for whatever reason and feel no reason whatsoever to brand them all as homophobic without a 2 page justification as to why they voted no so as to pander to your gay rights agenda.

You didn't vote No?? So you voted for child abuse??

Hmmmm, something somewhere doesn't add up 

[topcuppla]

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.

[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

[macdanger2]

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.

You're a gas ticket toppy

;D

[J70]

The Vatican Secretary of State says the Irish gay marriage vote was a "defeat for humanity".

[Hardy]

Good man your eminence, but you can stick that crossways up your ecclesiastical drainpipe as you lads bleat on about being called homophobic while casually labelling the rest of us as anti-humanity.

[LCohen]

So those people would expect the constitution of the land to prevent them getting married to the person they loved and wanted to marry?

'Those people' believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. If that makes them homophobes then people who voted No in the Presidential age referendum are, uh, youthophobes because they don't believe in equal rights for those under the age of 35.

The thing is, if you really think that anyone who voted No is a homophobe, have the courage of your convictions to say as much rather than dancing around it.

I'm not dancing around anything. Tell me the motivation that someone had for voting No and I will tell you if I think it was homophobic

Some People believe marriage should be between a man and a woman because the Bible states quite clearly that homosexuality 'is an abomination in the eyes of God' Does that make them homophobes just because they do want want to go against their Gods words?


Since you cannot answer the question at hand I will answer it for you, you think that there is no excuse for anyone to vote no because if they do, in your eyes they are homophobes!!!!

See, that wasnt that hard!

I know of religions that claim that the bible is the word of god. A believer of that church might find themselves obligated to follow the word of bible lterally including all its insanities. I'm not aware of any religion that claims men should cherry pick the bible. Anyone that chooses to believe that it is wrong for 2 men to marry but acceptable for a shirt to be made from a cotton/polyester blend (or any number of other examples I could give) has made a choice and that choice has not been made due to a compulsion to follow the word of god.

[LCohen]

The gay rights activists on here deiseach won't be happy, if you vote no you need to submit a thesis to LCohen as to why you voted no, let him dissect it and then conclude you are homophobic.

If you feel that was a post worth making and leave you to the logic of that conclusion,

Being active on the rights of others is something to be proud of. I will take the phrase "gay rights activist" as a commendation. It certainly shows a lot more respect hor humanity that your contributions to the Peter Robinson thread.

The point that No voters need to submit a thesis is childish and embarrassing. I'm sorry that your increasingly strange defense of your position has got this far.

But I will leave you with a challenge. Simply post on this thread your non-homophobic argument for voting No in the recent referendum on marriage equality.

For the umpteenth time I was with the YES vote, however I fully support anyone who voted no for whatever reason and feel no reason whatsoever to brand them all as homophobic without a 2 page justification as to why they voted no so as to pander to your gay rights agenda.

Others have already drawn attention to your bona fides as a Yes voter. No need for further comment from me on that one.

Surely you have a gay rights agenda - you believe in equality don't you?

Anyway - still no example of a non-homophobic reason for voting no.

[LCohen]

I'm not dancing around anything. Tell me the motivation that someone had for voting No and I will tell you if I think it was homophobic

If you think that you are open to the possibility of someone presenting you with an argument for voting No that you don't think is homophobic, you are fooling yourself.

Ah go on try me.

Nah, it can't be right to encourage someone to lie to themselves.

The list of excuses for avoiding the presentation of a non-homophobic reason for voting no in the marriage equality referendum is growing.

It was a referendum, people had a democratic right to vote yes or no, you are happily trampling on the equality rights of anyone who voted NO by branding them all homophobic unless they provide a detailed explanation that you deem acceptable.  There were gay people on throughout the debate who said they were going to vote NO, are they homophobic, this moral high ground you have adopted and your smugness that you did the right thing for equality is quite frankly pathetic when on the other hand you show no respect or dignity to those who voted no, branding 40% of voter homophobic.

You are imaginging things if you believe I or anyone else has said that people did not have the right to vote No. They don't have to explain thier vote to the public. But this is the discussion forum and there isn't any point in posting your view but not standing by it. The question that has been posed is for a no voter or anyone else to post a non-homophobic reason for voting no. It is completing telling that nobody before or after the vote was able to meet the challenge.

I have had a go and the best that I can come up with is that they misunderstood the question/lost concentration/got confused between the 2 referenda and ticked the wrong box.

[LCohen]

Anybody hear the Reverend Ian Brown (Free Presbyterian) on the Nolan show this morning. Cracking stuff. Brown should be given his own show. Sorry I don't have a link to post. The programme is an hour and and a half long and he gets the 20 mins after the hour mark.

[The Iceman]

The gay rights activists on here deiseach won't be happy, if you vote no you need to submit a thesis to LCohen as to why you voted no, let him dissect it and then conclude you are homophobic.

If you feel that was a post worth making and leave you to the logic of that conclusion,

Being active on the rights of others is something to be proud of. I will take the phrase "gay rights activist" as a commendation. It certainly shows a lot more respect hor humanity that your contributions to the Peter Robinson thread.

The point that No voters need to submit a thesis is childish and embarrassing. I'm sorry that your increasingly strange defense of your position has got this far.

But I will leave you with a challenge. Simply post on this thread your non-homophobic argument for voting No in the recent referendum on marriage equality.

For the umpteenth time I was with the YES vote, however I fully support anyone who voted no for whatever reason and feel no reason whatsoever to brand them all as homophobic without a 2 page justification as to why they voted no so as to pander to your gay rights agenda.

Others have already drawn attention to your bona fides as a Yes voter. No need for further comment from me on that one.

Surely you have a gay rights agenda - you believe in equality don't you?

Anyway - still no example of a non-homophobic reason for voting no.

How are any of the reasons given homophobic? Are why do you label them as such?
Also since when in a discussion do you get to define the terms of response/reason? Seems somewhat childish.... you can only hit me back with an open handed slap at 40% power.....

I believe same sex acts are wrong. Just like adultery and theft is wrong. Homosexual unions do not express full human complementarity and because they are inherently non-procreative, should not be given the status of marriage. The weakening of marriage and the destruction of the family are the root cause of everything wrong with the world today. Weakening marriage further and creating more broken homes just because they exist already doesn't help the problem- it furthers it.  These beliefs are founded on my faith - there is no fear of gay people involved. I'm not afraid I'll be forced to hold hands with a man and walk around for a while to see if I like it (Jerry Seinfeld joke)....  They are also a gut feeling.... it doesn't sit well with me to see two men kissing as it doesn't sit with most women I know to see two women kissing. It isn't right.  These are my thoughts on it all - if I had the ability to vote no that would be my vote. No fear, no homophobia, just opinion.

[topcuppla]

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.