The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[J70]

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.

Bolded bit sounds like homophobia to me. Which is not, in itself, a condemnation. Most of us were probably turned off at some point by the sight of two men kissing, but then homosexual men probably don't find opposite sex kissing too attractive either. The issue is getting over it (it doesn't hurt or harm anyone), accepting it as something that is perfectly ok and normal, and not using it as an illegitimate reason to deny rights to them.

That aside, how does allowing gay marriage "weaken" marriage? How is my or your marriage weaker because of the advance of homosexual marriage over the past five years? We've heard this point again and again with nothing to back it up?

[armaghniac]

That aside, how does allowing gay marriage "weaken" marriage? How is my or your marriage weaker because of the advance of homosexual marriage over the past five years? We've heard this point again and again with nothing to back it up?

Didn't we have this discussion last week? How did that one end?
It isn't rocket science. Marriage was confined to heterosexuals and designed for their needs. Now it is supposed to cater to two groups and this can only mean that marriage will cater to the lowest common denominator between those two groups, which reduces its focus on heterosexuals. This is a dilution whatever way you look at it, you can only defend it by saying that the benefits of including gays in society outweighs the dilution effect.

[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.

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.

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

[J70]

That aside, how does allowing gay marriage "weaken" marriage? How is my or your marriage weaker because of the advance of homosexual marriage over the past five years? We've heard this point again and again with nothing to back it up?

Didn't we have this discussion last week? How did that one end?
It isn't rocket science. Marriage was confined to heterosexuals and designed for their needs. Now it is supposed to cater to two groups and this can only mean that marriage will cater to the lowest common denominator between those two groups, which reduces its focus on heterosexuals. This is a dilution whatever way you look at it, you can only defend it by saying that the benefits of including gays in society outweighs the dilution effect.

What does that even mean?

What is this lowest common denominator?

What is being diluted?

Seriously, tell me how my marriage to my wife, or yours, or The Iceman's, or anyone else's, will be affected by gay people getting married?

[LCohen]

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.

Are you going keep running with line of argument nothwithstanding the evidence on the matter points in the opposite direction??

[LCohen]

That aside, how does allowing gay marriage "weaken" marriage? How is my or your marriage weaker because of the advance of homosexual marriage over the past five years? We've heard this point again and again with nothing to back it up?

Didn't we have this discussion last week? How did that one end?
It isn't rocket science. Marriage was confined to heterosexuals and designed for their needs. Now it is supposed to cater to two groups and this can only mean that marriage will cater to the lowest common denominator between those two groups, which reduces its focus on heterosexuals. This is a dilution whatever way you look at it, you can only defend it by saying that the benefits of including gays in society outweighs the dilution effect.

No its not rocket science. It made up tripe.
hetrosexuals could get married. Hetrosexuals can still get married. Their marriages are unaffected.
There is no "lowest common denominator". You just made that bit up.
There is no reduced focus (by whom??). You made that bit up
There is no dilution. You made that bit up

[armaghniac]

No its not rocket science. It made up tripe.
hetrosexuals could get married. Hetrosexuals can still get married. Their marriages are unaffected.
There is no "lowest common denominator". You just made that bit up.
There is no reduced focus (by whom??). You made that bit up
There is no dilution. You made that bit up

Stop posting blatant untruths.
Combining two different things means that you cannot fully meet the needs of either, you have to address the lowest common denominator, as I said.

Instead of the flat earth approach of claiming that you can change something without actually changing it why don't you simply and honestly state that you believe the benefits outweigh the damage, that's a perfectly sustainable argument and an honourable one.

[The Iceman]

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...

[LCohen]

No its not rocket science. It made up tripe.
hetrosexuals could get married. Hetrosexuals can still get married. Their marriages are unaffected.
There is no "lowest common denominator". You just made that bit up.
There is no reduced focus (by whom??). You made that bit up
There is no dilution. You made that bit up

Stop posting blatant untruths.
Combining two different things means that you cannot fully meet the needs of either, you have to address the lowest common denominator, as I said.

Instead of the flat earth approach of claiming that you can change something without actually changing it why don't you simply and honestly state that you believe the benefits outweigh the damage, that's a perfectly sustainable argument and an honourable one.

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

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

[armaghniac]

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.

[Rossfan]

Looking like a 200 pager 

[J70]

Humour us, please!

[armaghniac]

Humour us, please!

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Do you mean that it is clear that generalising a specialised institution reduces the focus on the group on whom it was specialised, and that we are discussing the extent of the damage that causes?

[Maguire01]

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.

Are you defining homophobia as merely being about fear? Because it's about much more than that.

[J70]

Humour us, please!

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Do you mean that it is clear that generalising a specialised institution reduces the focus on the group on whom it was specialised, and that we are discussing the extent of the damage that causes?

What damage is, or could even theoretically be caused to heterosexual marriage by allowing gays to marry?

And please be specific,  even if it is speculative.

Dilution, lowest common denominator,  generalizing.... they're meaningless waffle on their own.

Honestly!