Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Switzerland to hold referendum on same-sex marriage - BBC News" video.

Holding a referendum on granting equal rights that don't affect you is like holding a referendum on what other people get to eat for dinner, when 25% of the voters are hardcore roast beef fans. Why TF should other people get ANY say in this issue?
149
@StrangerThanFiction11 Oh get lost. The idea of one person getting away with a crime simply by feeling sorry is the most disgusting injustice ever. And worst still, Jesus didn't even get the CHOICE if he wanted to be sacrificed, so it was murder. You're repugnant.
29
@methhead3140 Or they're just decent human beings
20
@Detective Conan No it doesn't. It makes ZERO difference to non same sex couples.
11
JOE FABULOUS He came to MY thread, called me a sinner and threatened me, and you're calling ME a bigot? Also, I said nothing about his right to hold those beliefs, moronic though they may be. You need to pull your head out of your ass.
6
@Duncan23 True democracy is allowing three wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner. I don't CARE what the majority thinks about gay rights, or racial equality, or the situation in Palestine. Populism does not determine right or morality. Letting people express their opinion via referendum on an issue implies that their opinion matters. If it was a referendum on eating babies, would you capitulate if the majority decided it was acceptable?
6
JOE FABULOUS "who are you to tell grieving parents/ people their loved ones rot in the ground" Are you serious? You went with THAT example? Who are YOU to allow Christians to tell billions of people that their dead relatives are biurning in hell? Who are you to tell millions of people that their sexuality is evil? Who are you to make people dumber because "God did it" is the answer to every unknown. You are actually arguing for delusion over reality because it's comforting?!
5
@Duncan23 Someone once said "Democracy is the worst system of government except all the other ones." The trouble with democracy is that there is no IQ or comprehension test for participation. I wouldn't trust 10% of my neighbours to wipe their own asses much less decide my future, and I don't trust the intellectual capacity of 70% of the population. Yes, you WOULD have the right not to participate in the theoretical eating of babies, but what if it was YOUR baby on offer, and refusal was not an option? Example; feminism, all across the western world, laws are becoming harsher against males, to the extent that the old basis of innocent until proven guilty is no longer the case in many sexual assault cases. How do men choose NOT to participate in a gendered legal system that now places THEM at a disadvantage? Or in America, money has been defined as speech, so people with money get an undue voice, so how does democracy work in THAT situation? Democracy is NOT the ideal system - a benign dictatorship is.
4
@Duncan23 Oh. That's stupid.
3
@brentchisko924 Hear hear.
3
@sebastianguerre6868 "True tolerance is being tolerant of opinions that aren't the same as your own." But only insofar as they don't make the world a worse place. I can accept that you may have a disagreement with me on history. I will not tolerate if for example, your opinion was something that harmed people. A common complaint by christias is that people won't tolerate THEIR intolerance. Joe Fabulous in this very thread, exemplifies that silliness.
3
@xEroxSennin Because right is not determined by popular opinion. If you live in a hardcore Muslim country, that would mean that all women must wear burkahs. In a racist country, most races would have lesser rights. In a very religious country, alcohol might be banned or sex before marriage banned. Majority does not make right.
3
JOE FABULOUS Ohhh, now I get it. You're a moron. My apologies. You're dismissed sonny.
3
@gothicgolem2947 No, a representative democracy, just like most countries in the western world.
3
JOE FABULOUS About religion?
2
@lastdays806 "your lack of knowledge about the bible and Jesus is embarrassing " "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. " Timothy 2:24-26 Unsurprisingly, another Christian hypocrite.
2
@HaggisMuncher-69-420 "forcing the church to do something against their religion" Absolutely NOBODY is forcing the church to do anything against their religion. Churches cannot be forced to perform marriages - same sex or otherwise. Civil partnerships do NOT carry the same rights at all, particularly when it comes to inheritance, access rights in hospital, adoption, and tax codes.
2
@HaggisMuncher-69-420 "Well considering marriage is a religious thing, only Christians should get a vote." Marriage is not only a Christian thing. It ceased to be such when it could be performed in a secular ceremony by the state. It confers a host of legally recognised benefits, not least of which is a preferentuial tax rate. The earliest recorded example of marriage dates to Mesopotamia in 2350BC, demonstrating that Christians cannot lay exclusive claim to it.
2
@justsomeguy1141 I don't know the Swiss at all, but to quote George Carlin "A person is smart. People are dumb." I don't have any dog in this fight, but I NEVER want the unwashed masses, even moderately thoughtful ones, especially conservatives, making decisions that affect my life. I want people who aspire to MUCH higher values of decency and social altruism, backed by a high intellect, making the decisions, if any must be made at all. Personally, I'd abolish marriage and all its privileges right away, then this would not be a problem. If churches wish to have a ceremony and a bit of paper - good for them, but it would carry zero legal weight.
2
@mjribes Oh dear, you're one of those people: pedantic, narrow minded AND woke - a combination that is rare to see. Let me tick you off my collection book.
2
@simonjohnwright5129 Good example.
1
@sebastianguerre6868 Heterosexual marriage does not make the world a better place for tens of millions if divorce rates and rates of child abuse are anything to go by. The relative positivity of a law is not the guiding factor - fairness is. Governments are not designed to impose themselves on the populace - and probably should never have been involved in marriage in the first place. Governments should facillitate the smooth, prosperous running of society, and the protection of its citizens against harm and threats of all kinds. That's it. Deciding who is allowed to get a piece of paper saying they love each other is way outside that purvue.
1
@lingochuuchuu8138 They're not the only choices. The general population will be ignorant and biased no matter what measures you put in place, but you can make it FAR harder for politicians to be corrupted. I'd like to see cross-party panels of experts making the choices.
1
@lingochuuchuu8138 Yes, absolutely!
1
@sebastianguerre6868 You appear to be arguing with someone who is repeatedly expressing agreement.
1
@sebastianguerre6868 :-)
1
@Prince Talleyrand "There’s probably a reason that nearly every society throughout human history rejected LGBT" Because they're ignorant bigots who hate anything that isn't the way they do things? Or are you suggesting that because lots of people do something that gives it validity?
1
@justsomeguy1141 I really like the saying "The government should be afraid of the people," but I'm also painfully aware that a huge percentage of the population are bigoted, and dumber than pig shite, and I wouldn't trust them to decide the colour of a roll of toilet paper.
1
@teddyanarchist1162 That's a very reasonable question Teddy, but you know that the answer is not as straghtforwards as you imply. For centuries America was deeply racist. Should every single racist American have had a say in abolition? Democracy is NOT the appropriate mechanism for the formation of policy on every issue. I don't use drugs but strongly believe they should be legal. My mum thinks the complete opposite. Why on earth should she get to have any say whatsoever in what consenting adults get to do with their bodies? If she got drugs banned, I would vehemently argue for the enforcement of rigorous exercise by every person in Britain - exactly the same raison d'etre.
1
@Nero-ox5tw Well, it took courage for you to admit your challenges.
1
@mjribes "It's not an "equal rights" issue, it's an additional rights issue." How easily you dismiss equality for a significant portion of the population based, at BEST on a technicality. The mental gymnsatics you would have to go through to think that was fair are quite impressive. And is "marriage" in Switerland defined as being exclusively between one man and one woman? No polygamy for instance?
1
@FreeSoul76 Thank you.
1
@teddyanarchist1162 As I said Teddy, it's not a straight forward issue. "lso we enforce what people can and can’t do with their own body , for example it’s illegal to harm/murder yourself." Yes, a typical and disgraceful example of government overreach. As an anarchist, I would have thought that you more anyone would appreciate that.
1
@teddyanarchist1162 No I don't because it's not a formula - the world is not so easily quantified.
1
@mjribes Your argument is as nonsensical and disingenuous as saying that people with no legs have the same option to use an assault course as people who are able bodied.
1
@barrosamuec3883 Ah yes, "Why don't you respect my right to oppress people with my bigotry?" Always a favourite; usually of religious conservitards.
1
@alexevans4877 For the majority of human history, mankind didn't know about germs. Am I also "rejecting every single culture and people for thousands of years" because I wash my hands? Religion was a mixture of superstition, primitive minds trying to make sense of the world, and people trying to control others. We have enough of the latter, and no need for the former, so yes, I reject religion just as I reject animal sacrifice, belief in the thunder god, and making the evil eye sign to keep demons away. Nice try attempting to manufacture outrage from common sense.
1
@gothicgolem2947 If I stood outside a school selling drugs, how nice would you expect people to be when telling me to go away? I'd be lucky not to get lynched right? But this guy comes onto an unrelated thread and starts spouting his threats and BS - the equivalent of toxic brain sludge, and you suggest I should have talked nicer?
1
@gothicgolem2947 "no majority would vote to eat babies" A majority in Israel repeatedly voted for the man who targeted hospitals and murdered children in Palestine. Hitler got into power by winning a majority.
1
@gothicgolem2947 Another alternative is for compassionate human leaders simply to legalise it.
1
@Prince Talleyrand More children only means more economy once they are adult. Until then it means more poverty. But regardless, seeing your citizens simply in terms of their value to society is not a view that I subscribe to.
1
@therepublic7708 Yeah, you've learned the fairy tales well. Are you as good on Tolkein?
1