98 thoughts on “Why Are You Against Gay Marriage?

    1. rotide

      it’s a bad flow chart of a great scene from The West Wing.

      Set your sights higher clampers

        1. rotide

          I posted it a few weeks back

          Cannot reccommend it enough. Don’t be overwhelmed by the amount of episodes (7×22 50 mins), it’s worth it.

  1. Stewart Curry

    “Do you eat bacon?”
    “No, I am a straight-edge mormon vegan?”
    “Well, my stupid flowchart has fallen apart as it’s not really a flowchart, more of a strawman fantasy”

    1. ReproBertie

      Do Mormon’s give a toss about the bible? Don’t they have their own fantasy book?

      1. Stewart Curry

        They believe in the bible and also extra bonus material not available in any store.

  2. Pale Blue Dot Cotton

    “Before joining a major religion you should read all the paperwork” ?
    I must have missed that pamphlet on the way into my christening.

  3. Stewart Curry

    The whole ‘Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality’ argument is flawed… “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17)
    The Jesus expansion is basically an add-on, it doesn’t change anything in the core rules.

    1. Weedless

      So Jesus is like an expansion pack to Judaism? I guess the more correct term these days would be Jesus is DLC?

      But I’m led to believe that you need Jesus to play Catholic, so maybe he’s more of a day-0 patch.

    2. ReproBertie

      Well that’s a matter of some debate becuase of Matthew 5:18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

      So if Jesus arrived to fulfill the law (as per M5:17) then in doing so he has done away with them and replaced them with a new commandment to “Love one another as I have loved you” as per John13:34.

    3. Corvo

      On the other hand
      “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘you must love your neighbour as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.” (Mark 12:30-31) which some would interpret as “forget all those other rules about bacon and mixing fabrics, believe in god and be nice to each other and you’ll be grand”

      1. Stewart Curry

        When there’s contradictions in the ruleset it’s down to the decision of the DM.

  4. Eulich McGee

    The bulk of No voters may use religion as an excuse however they will really vote no because they are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality. It’s easy to dismiss them all as idiots but really deep down many hetrosexual men and women have probably felt some kind of unease at the idea of Gay relationships at some point, the difference is most of us, especially the younger genereation, have realised that we are the ones with the problem and addressed our attitudes.

    Maybe what these people need is not a lecture on scripture but to be gently made to realise that the discomfort they feel when they think of Gay people is their issue and the solution is within their own phsychie.

    As for the real religous nut jobs, they believe in God for crying out loud. no amount of logic can counter that.

    If this comment appears twice, only in slightly different form, I blame the naught word filter that I didn’t know existed, reposted now with naughty word removed.


    1. TJ

      Your idea of the God you don’t believe in is the same babyish idea that some religious believe in. God is a disembodied, all-powerful Mind, without whom moral values or duties would not exist. As an atheist you might lead a good moral life, but if God does not exist there is nothing moral or good about it. Think about that: in such a universe we would be advanced, hairless apes with delusions of intellectual grandeur. And any heated debate on SSM would be nothing more than a room full of molecules in motion emanating monkey screeches from carbon machines made of meat. Now, what was that you were saying, in such an intellectual and philosophically sophisticated way, about ‘religious nut jobs’?

      1. St. John Smythe

        I love that you assume you just made the logical argument to end all arguments there, when actually all it boils down to is: I have decided to define what ‘god’ is; and if you don’t agree with my subjective point of view then you are just a big fat stupid no-it-all nothing, that whats you are, you stupid ape.

        1. TJ

          Calm down, you missed the point. Like you, I’m against subjective analysis on this deeply complex issue. What I pointed out, and I probably should have included the words ‘according to’, is how atheist scientists and atheist/theist philosopher-theologians define God.

          1. Clive Northwood

            Your morality argument is flawed, as d4n says. There is a notion that morality was invented with religion, but people thousands of years before Christianity and Judaism and whatever else figured out that it was a bad idea to kill each other and sleep with each others wives and so on, because it pisses people off, and they get angry, and kill you or your family or steal your stuff. Eventually, religion put that stuff in writing, calling it God’s word, but it’s just practical ideas that keep us from dying out.

            Eg. Pagan king who grows apples kills children of pagan king who grows oranges. Guy gets revenge, killing the other guy’s kids. No children left, no trade of apples for oranges. Evry1 dun ded.

      2. d4n

        Actually, you might find lots of atheists don’t have that conception of God, but, when you’re dealing with someone else you have to deal with their conception.
        You’re also wrong about morality, it’s a nonsense whether or not God exists. You’re also wrong about being good, it’s a subjective judgement, not an external fact.
        We are hairless apes. But all life is advanced to the same degree, that’s how evolution from a single ancestor works.
        And statements contain the same informational content regardless of the existence of God.
        As for the real religious nut-jobs, not to get too “intellectual and philosophically sophisticated” on you, Eulich’s quite right, no amount of logic can convince them, Kant’s ‘Discovery and Explanation of the Dialectical Illusion in all Transcendental Proofs of the Existence of a Necessary Being’ should’ve done it centuries ago, but it didn’t.
        Although I imagine most people just haven’t read it, or else haven’t understood it, since they keep making the arguments that rely on transcendental deductions. Like yours above.

  5. Zuppy International

    So it seems both sides in this so-called ‘debate’ are as disingenuous as each other.

    Don’t vote: it only encourages liars.

    1. newsjustin

      Remember when the leader of the Yes side promised he’d debate the issue with anyone…and then wouldn’t?

  6. donkey_kong

    i find the yes peoples tend to over play the religion aspect on this vote.
    People may be religious but most make up their own mind.

    Some people just want to vote no because they don’t want the change. Is it that hard to fathom?
    equally some people do want this change or anent bothered.

    sometime we have paralysis by analysis.
    mostly it’s the simple answer

    this chart is s***. smugness supreme.

    1. Spaghetti Hoop

      The chart is indeed sh1t – as Odis said, an attempt at humour.
      Making the assumption that society has dummed itself down, that an individual isn’t capable of having an opinion of their own.
      Like the celebs trying to win over voters and believing that ‘hey, if you love me on the telly, do as I do and vote as I do”.

        1. Spaghetti Hoop

          Thanks. I am making so many dumb mistakes this morning.
          Think I’ll go back to ted.

    2. Jane

      *Some people just want to vote no because they don’t want the change. Is it that hard to fathom?*

      That’s actually a difficult one. Lots of people don’t want change, fine, can accept that. Lots of people don’t want change that won’t affect them in the slightest but will prevent other people experiencing a change they do want? Struggle a bit more with that, to be honest.

  7. TJ

    The chart is a stupid person’s idea of what a clever anti-Christian chart would look like. Remember: before commenting on a major religion, study it in great detail and avoid theologically illiterate soundbites or quotes from the shallow soap-series West Wing. The Bible must not be read out of context. Many of the civil laws in the Old Testament were lifted in the Second Covenant (New Testament). As for what Jesus said: check out Matthew 5:17, where Jesus upholds the moral laws, which can never be repealed, but not the civil laws, which can and were lifted.

    1. Miami Dolphin's Barn

      At least some of the West Wing was believable. Unlike your buke. Burning bushes, Zombies & miracles you wouldn’t see in Vegas. Or am I not considering the context?

      1. TJ

        The NBC (public relations office for the White H0use) television drama program West Wing was used to disseminate liberal propaganda. An article in Time magazine claimed the show had become “a national civics lesson” giving us the liberal view on a wide range of domestic and foreign policy issues.”

        1. Odis

          I only watched it a couple of times. And I would have to agree. I think it was propaganda, aimed at showing the American political system in a favourable light.

        2. Miami Dolphin's Barn

          I think you’ve missed my point. What I’m saying is at least whatever happened in the west wing fell within the natural laws of the universe. It was conceivable.

          1. TJ

            I know what you meant and I’m aware that it’s difficult for an atheist to grasp supernatural events. Do you know that most atheist scientists, although the deny it, intuitively believe in the supernatural?: The Big Bang, a supernatural event 13.7billion years ago. Also, on atheism, freedom of the will would be a supernatural event. It would mean that every time someone made a conscious choice they would be violating the laws of Naturalism, as every creature’s actions would be predetermined. Once you take God out of the picture, logic, mathematical equations, morality, love, beauty, even science goes out the window

          2. Miami Dolphin's Barn

            “I’m aware that it’s difficult for an atheist to grasp supernatural events”

            I’m aware that’s difficult for believers to accept the universe as it is and admit they know no more than the next person about the origins of our cosmos.

    2. St. John Smythe

      Jesus didn’t write the New Testament did, four other lads did, many many years after the words were supposedly said, That is why there is so many contradictions in it, and why none of the quotes can really be taken as, am, ‘bible’. Think the four lads were called, John, Paul, George, and something else.

  8. Grace

    Newsjustin do you mean the leader of Yes Equality? Because I don’t think that there is just one person in that role…if you mean Enda Kenny, he is not the leader of the yes side, just the leader of one of the many parties supporting a yes vote. He did not debate this issue because it is a human rights issue and not a political one. There have been plenty of other debates between yes and no side – check them out maybe?

    1. newsjustin

      Enda Kenny is the man leading the Government that is recommending this constitutional amendment to the people. He should have the confidence to debate with people who don’t agree with this.

      1. phil

        More to the point justin, Breda O’Brien should have the confidence to debate Panti..

  9. jet

    I fear that BS may be turning a yes voter into an apathetic voter ( i.e. will not vote at all, as so bored and irritated by the yes campaign). BS marries the most boring of institutions …zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  10. Scaredtogopublic

    Well, that’s me convinced.

    YES voters are just better people, you see, and know more about the religion of people who go to mass than people who actually go to mass.

    I’m fairly sure this thing is going to pass, but I’m going to cast my NO vote with relish – not because I’ve any problem with gay marriage, but because we’ve now reached peak sanctimony.

    A NO result would be worth it just for the hysteria. Imagine the screeching.

    1. ReproBertie

      So you’re voting No to be a d!ck? You’ve decided that the Yes camp are being a bit condescending so to put them back in thier box you’ll vote to maintain inequality in society?

      1. Scaredtogopublic

        Pretty much, yeah. And it’s my vote, I can do what I want with it.

        And what I want to do with it is give the relentless pious preachers on the yes side a kick in the goolies.

        If it passes, it passes. If it fails, it fails. Doesn’t matter to me – I’m straight. I dislike the YES campaign far more than I care about “equality”, whatever in the hell that is.

          1. Scaredtogopublic

            Call me a tool if you want – my vote cancels out yours, mate.

            And as soon as I said “peak sanctimony” I get some lad coming on here telling me I’m voting “against equality”. Ha! These people are actually worse, than the church, you know.

          2. Caroline

            Nothing you could say could annoy him more than the next two weeks are going to.

          3. Odis

            Definition of a “massive f***face – someone who doesn’t share the same point of view as Don Pigeoni.

        1. ReproBertie

          Good for you. It’s nice to see someone comfortable with being a selfish bottomhoIe. I often wondered it selfish bottomhoIes like yourself were self aware enough to know they were d!cks and now I know so I’ve learned something. Don’t worry about the people the referendum actually impacts on. As long as you have your fun it’s all good.

          1. Scaredtogopublic

            Pish, mate.

            I was voting yes until a few months ago, and then Una Mullally wrote that thing in the Times calling for a “watchdog” for the NO nutters.

            I’ve no truck with that lot at all, but at least they don’t want the government telling me what I can say. The Yes shower, on the other hand, might be the most overbearing, relentless, humourless bunch of bores since the Spanish inquisition.

          2. rotide

            You know the way you claim that the only people who are going to vote no are homophobes?

            There you go now, not all of them are homoophobes.

          3. ReproBertie

            Hey rotide, I never said anything about homophobia or what sort of people make up the No side. Of course we now know that selfish asshoIes make up part of it. Maybe they’re all selfish asshoIes. Until some homophobes come out and say they are voting No because they’re homophobic we’ll just have to assume they are votng No becuase they are selfish bottomhoIes.

          4. ReproBertie

            Scaredtogopublic you must have missed all that bruhaha from the No side fighting to remove the word homophobe from the debate if you think they don’t want the government telling you what you can say.

          5. Scaredtogopublic

            Never in a million years would you consider, of course, that someone who votes the other way might be a normal person like yourself.

            They must either be a homophobe, or selfish, or have some other character defect that makes them disagree with you.

            That, that right there, is why I’m voting no. Because skrew you and your attitudes, mate. A defeat might do you good.

          6. ReproBertie

            Normal people like myself can give valid reasons for the way we vote. The No side have been unable to do so. Your reason is that you want to deny people rights because the people campaigning for those rights annoy you. The rest of the No camp’s published reasons are irrelevant to the referendum in question. Why should I treat people who can’t come up with a single relevant reason to vote against something as anything other than kneejerkly negative idiots?

            The look on their idiot faces will make this victory all the sweeter.

          7. Caroline

            He’s right you know. Some No voters are just ordinary guys and gals, choking on their bile as they vote, not in accordance with their beliefs, but in a quixotic effort to punish one group of citizens for the actions of another. Just going about their daily lives, finding any small way, no matter how miserable, of rubbing their act of sabotage in the face of the enemy, feigning spitefulness, hoping to inflict the same wounds that their ego has received. Perfectly normal behaviour, absolutely typical of the ordinary man or woman. Sure haven’t we all done it.

          8. Odis

            Definition of a “Selfish bottomhole” – anyone who votes No

            You should take time to read what you write ReproBertie. No wonder people want to vote No, when faced with your patronising attitude.

          9. ReproBertie

            Nice cherry picking Odis. ScaredtogoPublic is voting No because they’re being a selfish bottybooboohoIe (come on BS, grow up on the censoring) on this issue. I didn’t say that all people who are voting No are voting No for the same reason. I said this was the only genuine reason anyone voting No has managed to give for voting No and maybe the other people voting No are voting No for the same reason.

            While it would be nice to think I could influence so many people I don’t think my attitude has anything to do with why David Quinn, John Waters, Keith Mills, Kathy Sinnott or Ronan Mullen are voting No.

          10. Odis

            “I don’t think my attitude has anything to do with why David Quinn, John Waters, Keith Mills, Kathy Sinnott or Ronan Mullen are voting No.
            Spot on ReproBertie. But I think if you look deep enough into Scaredtogopublic’s comments, you will find out that he doesn’t make that claim.
            He says he’s sick of being told how to think properly by patronizing ****s.

          11. ReproBertie

            You said “No wonder people want to vote No, when faced with your patronising attitude.”

            I said it’s unlikely my attitude is having an influence on that many people and you respond by saying ScaredtogoPublic never said that I am convincing Ronan Mullen to vote No.

            Just what are you talking about?

        2. Robert

          There’s relentless pious preachers on both sides mate.

          You are just a miserable tosser.

  11. munkifisht

    Wow. What a pointless waste of time. To me for reading it, to the guy for making it, to BS for hosting it. Woeful stuff. Think about all the minutes wasted on this one chart. It could amount to hours, even days, perhaps months, who knows. What I do know is I may be anti-religious and believe it’s a made up fantasy that people use to justify being a total p****, but people’s homophobia has nothing to do with the bible. The bible may support and justify it, but people are homophobic because they are p****s, this is what Atheist p****s are so unhappy with life.

  12. TJ

    It’s quite incredible that not only during his time on Earth, Jesus was the biggest trouble maker in the world, and even now 2,000 years later he’s still causing mayhem amongst non-believers on social media and social circles worldwide. Most people even say ‘Jesus’ as a gesture if they see or hear something that startles them (you never hear anyone saying, “sweet Buddha, did you have to do that?” or “For Harri Krishna’s sake, will you put that thing down!”)

    1. Peadar

      And today is a Thursday, named after Thor. Doesn’t mean that we’re in any danger of being cracked over the head with Mjolnir any time soon.

  13. just having a viist

    The printers at Collins Dictionary are rubbing their inky hands in glee at all the new Dictionaries they will have to reprint due to all the new redefined words.

    Tolerant :- able to tolerate the beliefs, actions, opinions, etc, of others.
    New Meaning ( A person(s) who is intolerant of someone who happens to believe in traditional marriage and does not agree with same sex marriage or disagrees with any person from the LGBT community )

    Intolerant :-lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one’s own.
    New Meaning ( A person(s) who dares to have any christian faith like their parents,grandparents, great grand parents etc…. who also had these beliefs before them and might try to live in accordance with those beliefs)

    Bigot :-a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race.
    New Meaning (A person who does not agree with every single word spoken by someone who supports or is from the LGBT community.

    Equality :- the state of being equal.
    New Meaning ( A word that cant be used by someone who is defined to be intolerant (New meaning version) as they are not equal.)

Comments are closed.