The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[screenexile]

So for all the parents who think homosexuality is a natural normal trait can I ask one question.  When teaching your child about the facts of life, do you also include homosexual teaching

Yes! Why the fook wouldn't I?

As I keep saying it is very easy to type a collection of words together on any forum, so your kids I would say are older what teenagers, at age 10 or 11 whenever you were teaching them the facts of life you told them about homosexual relations and how that is a normal natural human trait, I would say I smell bullshit, but fair play for trying to look progressive.

So your argument is "I don't like gays and I couldn't picture myself teaching my kids that its ok to be gay, therefore, no one else can or could think differently"?

J70, you're better off not engaging with this topcupler or fearon either. They are abhorrent human beings and they are the ones who should be castigated not homosexuals. To say that children raised with 2 mothers or 2 fathers are more likely to be abused is an absolutely disgusting thing to say and something that should not be said without some evidence. What future is there for teenagers or young adults who come to the realisation that they are gay when they come up against bigotry of this kind, it is truly evil to show such disdain for your fellow human being.

And it is truly evil to allow two adult men to raise a young child, I never mentioned anything about sexual abuse just to be clear, I am talking about the absence of a mother and a normal family home, you can say what you want but a child needs a mother more than a father, and yes there are bad mothers but to allow two men to adopt a child is fundamentally wrong in my opinion, but hey use the homophobic card why don't you.

It would be great to see a study or some actual facts to show this is the case really!!

I don't think you are a homophobe just sheltered and ignorant and I feel sorry for you that you have such a warped view on this issue which we shouldn't even be discussing since it has zero to do with the samesex marriage referendum!

Also Family Guy and Modern Family are very different TV shows!!

[screenexile]

It is doubly wrong when the child has not yet reached the age of reason and therefore is not fit to consent to being placed in the midst of a gay relationship.

What aboutna child being placed without their consent as a Catholic??

[J70]

Or, in other words, to bring the question of parenting into the same-sex marriage debate is at least irrelevant or, more probably, obfuscatory and diversionary and an argument against same-sex marriage on the basis that marriage is intended to foster parenting is clearly baseless.

I think you had better read what I said again, but I am not sure as this was one of the least clear sentences you have ever posted on this board.

As you say yourself, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples would have no effect at all on the parenting rights of same-sex parents or on the rights of the children of same-sex parents.

What I said, in response to some posters who said that they would vote yes to advance the cause of children under the care of same sex couples, was that this was not a reason to vote yes as this was dealt with under the adoption legislation.

And, of course, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has no effect at all on the marriage rights, or any other rights, of heterosexual couples.

There is nothing of course about this. Marriage has meant a one thing, and that meaning is being changed which affects every married couple for all time to come. The present process has seen the trivialisation of marriage in the refusal of leaders to give marriage any importance other than a big day out and a chance to boost the wedding fair industry. This is not the only thing doing this of course, everything from divorce to Big Fat Gypsy weddings is doing this, but two wrongs do not make a right. The strange thing is that this Thatcherism, there is no such thing as society, is most enthusiastically promoted by people who probably would claim not to support Thatcher.

You say this as if marriage is an institution external to the people involved. Marriage is hardly trivial to those getting married (yeah, I know some people are gold diggers or whatsoever, but most people don't get married lightly or impulsively). Just because you think certain types of partnerships may be relatively unimportant or even illegitimate from your perspective doesn't devalue its importance to those entering those marriages. Perhaps it is you who is doing the trivializing, when you deny that those partnerships are worthy of marriage. As has been said repeatedly, the existence of same-sex marriage has (and will have) no effect on heterosexual marriages. If there are people out there who think their marriages will suddenly become less meaningful, then they're the ones with the issues. Perhaps they need to look at themselves and the state of their relationship and worry less about the ones down the road.

[J70]

Marriage is an institution supported by society in order to support men and women to get together and have their own children. Adoption is something that occurs when something has gone wrong. Marriage law should be designed to support the former and adoption law the latter and as you say, adoption law has been adjusted to allow the possibility of adoption to people who are not married, so there is no need to change marriage law to accommodate same sex couples who may have children.

Or, in other words, to bring the question of parenting into the same-sex marriage debate is at least irrelevant or, more probably, obfuscatory and diversionary and an argument against same-sex marriage on the basis that marriage is intended to foster parenting is clearly baseless. As you say yourself, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples would have no effect at all on the parenting rights of same-sex parents or on the rights of the children of same-sex parents. And, of course, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has no effect at all on the marriage rights, or any other rights, of heterosexual couples.

What, then, are the remaining arguments against same-sex marriage?

There are none. That does not mean people don't have the right to choose NO.

Tony destroys a thread real quick. There have been some willing to engage in discussion. To present a different side. To answer questions and present beliefs. Often time these have been brushed aside because perhaps they present a challenge that many don't want to address (for eg. my post about homosexuality not being natural in animals - Eamonn pushed to get my response then didn't address anything I had to say). But instead people happily jump on the Fearon bandwagon and feed the troll.
Marriage was thrown away a long time ago. Christians have no right to the word/term. The vote will go through and there will be Marriage equality in Ireland. Mark my words it won't be enough. It will not stop until Churches are forced to "marry" gay couples.
Good luck to yous all

You've said this before and I still don't see how this is possible. Churches are not governments. Churches don't grant or guarantee rights. For example, if the Catholic Church can be coerced by law to marry gay people, then why haven't they been forced to admit women into the priesthood to date?

[J70]

Homosexuality is something I will never understand nor comprehend, I will say that people stating that kids raised by a homosexual couple have more chance to me abused is an absolute disgrace, and totally without foundation.

Everyone on the planet should have the right to make their own choices pertaining to who they love and decide to live their lives with, it must be hard enough being gay without being treated as a lesser human being.

I balk at marriage though, I do believe it should be between a man and a woman however if they are not allowed to marry they are again being treated as less than equal to the hetrosexual population.

As long as they are not married in a Christian Church I am happy enough and wish them all, all the best.

Fair post Stew.

[The Iceman]

Marriage is an institution supported by society in order to support men and women to get together and have their own children. Adoption is something that occurs when something has gone wrong. Marriage law should be designed to support the former and adoption law the latter and as you say, adoption law has been adjusted to allow the possibility of adoption to people who are not married, so there is no need to change marriage law to accommodate same sex couples who may have children.

Or, in other words, to bring the question of parenting into the same-sex marriage debate is at least irrelevant or, more probably, obfuscatory and diversionary and an argument against same-sex marriage on the basis that marriage is intended to foster parenting is clearly baseless. As you say yourself, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples would have no effect at all on the parenting rights of same-sex parents or on the rights of the children of same-sex parents. And, of course, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has no effect at all on the marriage rights, or any other rights, of heterosexual couples.

What, then, are the remaining arguments against same-sex marriage?

There are none. That does not mean people don't have the right to choose NO.

Tony destroys a thread real quick. There have been some willing to engage in discussion. To present a different side. To answer questions and present beliefs. Often time these have been brushed aside because perhaps they present a challenge that many don't want to address (for eg. my post about homosexuality not being natural in animals - Eamonn pushed to get my response then didn't address anything I had to say). But instead people happily jump on the Fearon bandwagon and feed the troll.
Marriage was thrown away a long time ago. Christians have no right to the word/term. The vote will go through and there will be Marriage equality in Ireland. Mark my words it won't be enough. It will not stop until Churches are forced to "marry" gay couples.
Good luck to yous all

You've said this before and I still don't see how this is possible. Churches are not governments. Churches don't grant or guarantee rights. For example, if the Catholic Church can be coerced by law to marry gay people, then why haven't they been forced to admit women into the priesthood to date?

there are no women banging on the door looking to be Priests. Priesthood is a vocation, a calling. I've never met a woman yet who feels called to be a priest.
In history the oppressed become the oppressors. Its happened time and time again.
All the equality movements we have witnessed in the past 100 years went a few steps too far. I'm not denying their rights to equality or saying it's a bad thing.
The Jews are now Nazi like in their outlook for example.
Women are unrecognizable  - point out the ladies of the last 20 years? Feminism isn't about equality its turned into laddettes....and lesbian militant-ism to a degree. Ever been to a pro-choice rally and been spit on by bare chested shaved headed lesbians? some day out for the family.
We overlook all this in favour of progress. The world turns a blind eye while Palestine is destroyed. While ISIS slaughters Christians for their faith....

[mylestheslasher]

When I was young and had no sense I used to think gays were some sort of unnatural odd balls. I of course have grown older and wiser and seen a bit of the world and I realised there were good people all around me that are gay. It makes me ashamed of my thoughts when I was younger but then I was coming from a perspective of ignorance in rural Ireland. I am thankful now that these people are more and more coming out openly and are able to admit what they are. Anyone who believes in an Irish republic, a republic being a country that cherishes all its people no matter what race, creed or sexuality, should be voting yes in this referendum. It will make absolutely no difference to anyone who is not gay, life will go on as usual.

I can debate with any person that can put forward a logical reason for voting no but I'm afraid I cannot stretch that offer to the idiot that is Tony Fearon. A guy who has shown himself to be sectarian and an apologist for child rapists and those that protect child rapists. Saying that his church will also lecture the people with the same corrupt morality that Tony has, even threatening to with draw civil signing in the church (an inconvenience that may drive more people away from church weddings, talk about biting off your nose to spite your face).

People, do the right thing and get out and vote yes.

[Sidney]

Marriage is an institution supported by society in order to support men and women to get together and have their own children. Adoption is something that occurs when something has gone wrong. Marriage law should be designed to support the former and adoption law the latter and as you say, adoption law has been adjusted to allow the possibility of adoption to people who are not married, so there is no need to change marriage law to accommodate same sex couples who may have children.

Or, in other words, to bring the question of parenting into the same-sex marriage debate is at least irrelevant or, more probably, obfuscatory and diversionary and an argument against same-sex marriage on the basis that marriage is intended to foster parenting is clearly baseless. As you say yourself, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples would have no effect at all on the parenting rights of same-sex parents or on the rights of the children of same-sex parents. And, of course, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has no effect at all on the marriage rights, or any other rights, of heterosexual couples.

What, then, are the remaining arguments against same-sex marriage?

There are none. That does not mean people don't have the right to choose NO.

Tony destroys a thread real quick. There have been some willing to engage in discussion. To present a different side. To answer questions and present beliefs. Often time these have been brushed aside because perhaps they present a challenge that many don't want to address (for eg. my post about homosexuality not being natural in animals - Eamonn pushed to get my response then didn't address anything I had to say). But instead people happily jump on the Fearon bandwagon and feed the troll.
Marriage was thrown away a long time ago. Christians have no right to the word/term. The vote will go through and there will be Marriage equality in Ireland. Mark my words it won't be enough. It will not stop until Churches are forced to "marry" gay couples.
Good luck to yous all

You've said this before and I still don't see how this is possible. Churches are not governments. Churches don't grant or guarantee rights. For example, if the Catholic Church can be coerced by law to marry gay people, then why haven't they been forced to admit women into the priesthood to date?

there are no women banging on the door looking to be Priests. Priesthood is a vocation, a calling. I've never met a woman yet who feels called to be a priest.
In history the oppressed become the oppressors. Its happened time and time again.
All the equality movements we have witnessed in the past 100 years went a few steps too far. I'm not denying their rights to equality or saying it's a bad thing.
The Jews are now Nazi like in their outlook for example.
Women are unrecognizable  - point out the ladies of the last 20 years? Feminism isn't about equality its turned into laddettes....and lesbian militant-ism to a degree. Ever been to a pro-choice rally and been spit on by bare chested shaved headed lesbians? some day out for the family.
We overlook all this in favour of progress. The world turns a blind eye while Palestine is destroyed. While ISIS slaughters Christians for their faith....

It's all coming out over the last few pages.

What exactly Thatcherism, Nazi references, Israel's slaughter in Palestine and ISIS have to do with legalising same sex marriage, I haven't a clue.

I find the sentence I bolded to be almost comical, so nonsensical is it. I've always found men who have a problem with Feminism to have serious issues with themselves.

[outinfront]

I was brought up a Catholic and sadly it is exactly people like Fearon that make me want to turn away from the Catholic Church.

[The Iceman]

Marriage is an institution supported by society in order to support men and women to get together and have their own children. Adoption is something that occurs when something has gone wrong. Marriage law should be designed to support the former and adoption law the latter and as you say, adoption law has been adjusted to allow the possibility of adoption to people who are not married, so there is no need to change marriage law to accommodate same sex couples who may have children.

Or, in other words, to bring the question of parenting into the same-sex marriage debate is at least irrelevant or, more probably, obfuscatory and diversionary and an argument against same-sex marriage on the basis that marriage is intended to foster parenting is clearly baseless. As you say yourself, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples would have no effect at all on the parenting rights of same-sex parents or on the rights of the children of same-sex parents. And, of course, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has no effect at all on the marriage rights, or any other rights, of heterosexual couples.

What, then, are the remaining arguments against same-sex marriage?

There are none. That does not mean people don't have the right to choose NO.

Tony destroys a thread real quick. There have been some willing to engage in discussion. To present a different side. To answer questions and present beliefs. Often time these have been brushed aside because perhaps they present a challenge that many don't want to address (for eg. my post about homosexuality not being natural in animals - Eamonn pushed to get my response then didn't address anything I had to say). But instead people happily jump on the Fearon bandwagon and feed the troll.
Marriage was thrown away a long time ago. Christians have no right to the word/term. The vote will go through and there will be Marriage equality in Ireland. Mark my words it won't be enough. It will not stop until Churches are forced to "marry" gay couples.
Good luck to yous all

You've said this before and I still don't see how this is possible. Churches are not governments. Churches don't grant or guarantee rights. For example, if the Catholic Church can be coerced by law to marry gay people, then why haven't they been forced to admit women into the priesthood to date?

there are no women banging on the door looking to be Priests. Priesthood is a vocation, a calling. I've never met a woman yet who feels called to be a priest.
In history the oppressed become the oppressors. Its happened time and time again.
All the equality movements we have witnessed in the past 100 years went a few steps too far. I'm not denying their rights to equality or saying it's a bad thing.
The Jews are now Nazi like in their outlook for example.
Women are unrecognizable  - point out the ladies of the last 20 years? Feminism isn't about equality its turned into laddettes....and lesbian militant-ism to a degree. Ever been to a pro-choice rally and been spit on by bare chested shaved headed lesbians? some day out for the family.
We overlook all this in favour of progress. The world turns a blind eye while Palestine is destroyed. While ISIS slaughters Christians for their faith....

It's all coming out over the last few pages.

What exactly Thatcherism, Nazi references, Israel's slaughter in Palestine and ISIS have to do with legalising same sex marriage, I haven't a clue.

I find the sentence I bolded to be almost comical, so nonsensical is it. I've always found men who have a problem with Feminism to have serious issues with themselves.

Have you talked to women about feminism? Any women I've spoken to about it over the last 10 years will say it has gone beyond what it set out to achieve.
My reference to the Nazi's etc was to highlight my statement that the Oppressed become the Oppressors.
Jews were oppressed - now they are the oppressors.
LGBT's were oppressed now they will become the oppressors and not settle for anything less than "Church weddings"

[Sidney]

When I was young and had no sense I used to think gays were some sort of unnatural odd balls. I of course have grown older and wiser and seen a bit of the world and I realised there were good people all around me that are gay. It makes me ashamed of my thoughts when I was younger but then I was coming from a perspective of ignorance in rural Ireland. I am thankful now that these people are more and more coming out openly and are able to admit what they are. Anyone who believes in an Irish republic, a republic being a country that cherishes all its people no matter what race, creed or sexuality, should be voting yes in this referendum. It will make absolutely no difference to anyone who is not gay, life will go on as usual.

It's clearly just a poor choice of word in an otherwise good post, but the concept that somebody should have to "admit" that they are gay is fairly abhorrent.

[Sidney]

LGBT's were oppressed now they will become the oppressors and not settle for anything less than "Church weddings"

What nonsense.

[outinfront]

And Christians were persecuted and oppressed and have done a great job of oppressing ever since! Therefore you must be right 

[armaghniac]

It's ugly all right. I'll try to clarify. You say "adoption law has been adjusted to allow the possibility of adoption to people who are not married, so there is no need to change marriage law to accommodate same sex couples who may have children." I say that makes the point that introducing same-sex marriage will make no difference at all to same-sex parenting. Therefore, to base your objection to same-sex marriage on the premise that the institution of marriage is all about parenting is illogical, since the status of parenting remains unaffected by the proposed change. (Sorry, it's still ugly English, but I hope it makes sense.)

I think you've made the point for me, children of the same sex couple are adopted, they are not wholly of the relationship itself, so the two things are not the same.

Sorry, but if that's meant as a rebuttal of my statement that you quote, it doesn't even address it.  I say that the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has no effect at all on the marriage rights, or any other rights, of heterosexual couples. This is self evident. There is no mechanism by which it can affect such rights. I will be no less married after the passing of the referendum than I am now.

On this extremely limited definition, then your "rights" are not changed. However, the definition of marriage has changed and all that goes with that.

The Thatcherism comment is a non-sequitur, except to say that it seems obvious to me that an initiative to include in official society a category of people hitherto excluded is an affirmation, not a denial of community and society.

This is part of the problem, people think oh these people were excluded so if they ask for anything then that must be good, without thinking it through and justifying the extension of marriage on sound grounds, see mylestheslasher's post above.

We seem to be left with just one argument against same-sex marriage - that extending marriage rights to people to whom they were hitherto denied trivialises marriage. If so, how is that proposition different to arguing that freeing slaves trivialises freedom or that extending the franchise to women trivialises democracy or that extending Irish citizenship to qualifying immigrants trivialises citizenship?

Woman, as individuals, have an equal capacity to exercise the franchise as men. Slaves clearly have an equal ability to be free as everyone else. Marriages are a collective, and the combination of a man and a woman has a different capacity in general in relation to children that same sex couples entirely and completely lack. This difference is not academic, nor unimportant, and has been recognised as important in societies since the dawn of time.

[The Iceman]

LGBT's were oppressed now they will become the oppressors and not settle for anything less than "Church weddings"

What nonsense.

A quick google search will show up multiple cases ongoing where couples are suing Churches for not allowing them to marry there - and in some cases winning! Forcing Churches to perform ceremonies or face penalty is oppression in my book....

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings/

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/