The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[Maguire01]

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.

At one time people would have described inter-racial marriage as a social experiment and feared for the children of such a union.

[Maguire01]

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...

Again, check out just about any definition of homophobia. You're caught up on the 'fear' element. It has a much broader meaning.

[armaghniac]

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.

As I said do you accept that removing a specialisation towards something, in whatever situation, can only result in a reduction in the fit of the measure to that situation? if you don't accept this then either you are entirely illogical or not telling the truth, either way there is no point in proceeding.

Honestly!

A word misused in this debate.

[The Iceman]

In Christian or traditional marriage the goods of marriage are for the procreation of children, the good of the spouses and the raising of the family.
In the more inclusive marriage suggested we have to remove procreation of children and the notion that the marriage is ordered to the formation of family. What is left is a sentimental interpretation of 'good of the spouses' which is proposed as love.

[Maguire01]

In Christian or traditional marriage the goods of marriage are for the procreation of children, the good of the spouses and the raising of the family.
In the more inclusive marriage suggested we have to remove procreation of children and the notion that the marriage is ordered to the formation of family. What is left is a sentimental interpretation of 'good of the spouses' which is proposed as love.

Firstly, you can replace the 'procreation' of children with the 'raising' of children. That's then inclusive of heterosexual couples who can't have children naturally, and same sex couples who raise children that aren't biologically the children of one or both of them.

Secondly, you don't have to have children to be a family. A married couple is a family unit in itself.

[The Iceman]

In Christian or traditional marriage the goods of marriage are for the procreation of children, the good of the spouses and the raising of the family.
In the more inclusive marriage suggested we have to remove procreation of children and the notion that the marriage is ordered to the formation of family. What is left is a sentimental interpretation of 'good of the spouses' which is proposed as love.

Firstly, you can replace the 'procreation' of children with the 'raising' of children. That's then inclusive of heterosexual couples who can't have children naturally, and same sex couples who raise children that aren't biologically the children of one or both of them.

Secondly, you don't have to have children to be a family. A married couple is a family unit in itself.

I can't replace anything with anything lad - thats how it is. A heterosexual couple with children or without children can still be fruitful, faithful and total. In the Church a homosexual couple can never be for the good of eachother unless they live chaste lives....
My job as a husband and father is to get my Wife and kids to heaven. A gay man can't do that if he is committing sin with his "husband"....

[J70]

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.

As I said do you accept that removing a specialisation towards something, in whatever situation, can only result in a reduction in the fit of the measure to that situation? if you don't accept this then either you are entirely illogical or not telling the truth, either way there is no point in proceeding.

Honestly!

A word misused in this debate.

Listen, I am perfectly willing to engage in an honest discussion.  You are the one dancing around words.

And no, I don't accept your generalization argument.  This is not a zero sum game.  Gays gaining gay marriage does not equal a loss on the part of married heterosexual or the institution of heterosexual marriage.  At least none that I can see. And if it's so bleeding obvious and logical what I'm missing,  then please spell it out and spare us nonsense.

[Maguire01]

In Christian or traditional marriage the goods of marriage are for the procreation of children, the good of the spouses and the raising of the family.
In the more inclusive marriage suggested we have to remove procreation of children and the notion that the marriage is ordered to the formation of family. What is left is a sentimental interpretation of 'good of the spouses' which is proposed as love.

Firstly, you can replace the 'procreation' of children with the 'raising' of children. That's then inclusive of heterosexual couples who can't have children naturally, and same sex couples who raise children that aren't biologically the children of one or both of them.

Secondly, you don't have to have children to be a family. A married couple is a family unit in itself.

I can't replace anything with anything lad - thats how it is. A heterosexual couple with children or without children can still be fruitful, faithful and total. In the Church a homosexual couple can never be for the good of eachother unless they live chaste lives....
My job as a husband and father is to get my Wife and kids to heaven. A gay man can't do that if he is committing sin with his "husband"....

I'm not sure why you try to engage in discussions, "lad", if you're unwilling to consider logic. You have no ability to think for yourself, just to agree and repeat the position of the Church.
If that makes you happy, then that's fine. But you should probably just worry about your own 'job', as you put it, and not about how other people want to live their lives.

[The Iceman]

In Christian or traditional marriage the goods of marriage are for the procreation of children, the good of the spouses and the raising of the family.
In the more inclusive marriage suggested we have to remove procreation of children and the notion that the marriage is ordered to the formation of family. What is left is a sentimental interpretation of 'good of the spouses' which is proposed as love.

Firstly, you can replace the 'procreation' of children with the 'raising' of children. That's then inclusive of heterosexual couples who can't have children naturally, and same sex couples who raise children that aren't biologically the children of one or both of them.

Secondly, you don't have to have children to be a family. A married couple is a family unit in itself.

I can't replace anything with anything lad - thats how it is. A heterosexual couple with children or without children can still be fruitful, faithful and total. In the Church a homosexual couple can never be for the good of eachother unless they live chaste lives....
My job as a husband and father is to get my Wife and kids to heaven. A gay man can't do that if he is committing sin with his "husband"....

I'm not sure why you try to engage in discussions, "lad", if you're unwilling to consider logic. You have no ability to think for yourself, just to agree and repeat the position of the Church.
If that makes you happy, then that's fine. But you should probably just worry about your own 'job', as you put it, and not about how other people want to live their lives.

my apologies if the term "lad" is offensive - do you prefer pal, buddy, gaylord? (Dane Cook joke - watch the video its very good)....

I have logically made the decision to follow the church. I'm sorry again that isn't good enough for you...
I can discuss surely like everyone else? Especially given the fact that how everyone lives their life impacts my family and they world they live in..... very Christian of you Maguire... oh wait....

[Maguire01]

In Christian or traditional marriage the goods of marriage are for the procreation of children, the good of the spouses and the raising of the family.
In the more inclusive marriage suggested we have to remove procreation of children and the notion that the marriage is ordered to the formation of family. What is left is a sentimental interpretation of 'good of the spouses' which is proposed as love.

Firstly, you can replace the 'procreation' of children with the 'raising' of children. That's then inclusive of heterosexual couples who can't have children naturally, and same sex couples who raise children that aren't biologically the children of one or both of them.

Secondly, you don't have to have children to be a family. A married couple is a family unit in itself.

I can't replace anything with anything lad - thats how it is. A heterosexual couple with children or without children can still be fruitful, faithful and total. In the Church a homosexual couple can never be for the good of eachother unless they live chaste lives....
My job as a husband and father is to get my Wife and kids to heaven. A gay man can't do that if he is committing sin with his "husband"....

I'm not sure why you try to engage in discussions, "lad", if you're unwilling to consider logic. You have no ability to think for yourself, just to agree and repeat the position of the Church.
If that makes you happy, then that's fine. But you should probably just worry about your own 'job', as you put it, and not about how other people want to live their lives.

my apologies if the term "lad" is offensive - do you prefer pal, buddy, gaylord? (Dane Cook joke - watch the video its very good)....

I have logically made the decision to follow the church. I'm sorry again that isn't good enough for you...
I can discuss surely like everyone else? Especially given the fact that how everyone lives their life impacts my family and they world they live in..... very Christian of you Maguire... oh wait....

You can discuss like everyone else if you want. But if you don't listen to logic or evidence where it doesn't fit what the Church tells you, then what's the point? Saying "that's how it is" about something, just because the Church says so... it doesn't really get us anywhere.

[The Iceman]

In Christian or traditional marriage the goods of marriage are for the procreation of children, the good of the spouses and the raising of the family.
In the more inclusive marriage suggested we have to remove procreation of children and the notion that the marriage is ordered to the formation of family. What is left is a sentimental interpretation of 'good of the spouses' which is proposed as love.

Firstly, you can replace the 'procreation' of children with the 'raising' of children. That's then inclusive of heterosexual couples who can't have children naturally, and same sex couples who raise children that aren't biologically the children of one or both of them.

Secondly, you don't have to have children to be a family. A married couple is a family unit in itself.

I can't replace anything with anything lad - thats how it is. A heterosexual couple with children or without children can still be fruitful, faithful and total. In the Church a homosexual couple can never be for the good of eachother unless they live chaste lives....
My job as a husband and father is to get my Wife and kids to heaven. A gay man can't do that if he is committing sin with his "husband"....

I'm not sure why you try to engage in discussions, "lad", if you're unwilling to consider logic. You have no ability to think for yourself, just to agree and repeat the position of the Church.
If that makes you happy, then that's fine. But you should probably just worry about your own 'job', as you put it, and not about how other people want to live their lives.

my apologies if the term "lad" is offensive - do you prefer pal, buddy, gaylord? (Dane Cook joke - watch the video its very good)....

I have logically made the decision to follow the church. I'm sorry again that isn't good enough for you...
I can discuss surely like everyone else? Especially given the fact that how everyone lives their life impacts my family and they world they live in..... very Christian of you Maguire... oh wait....

You can discuss like everyone else if you want. But if you don't listen to logic or evidence where it doesn't fit what the Church tells you, then what's the point? Saying "that's how it is" about something, just because the Church says so... it doesn't really get us anywhere.

As you point the finger at my opinions don't you take the same stance from your own perspective?
We disagree Maguire. Our outlooks on life are different. Dismissing mine because I don't respond to your 'logic" is the same as me dismissing yours because you dont know Jesus..
Maybe we need a byline on the gaaboard - MAguire's gaaboard  - only non believers should enter... ?

[Maguire01]

In Christian or traditional marriage the goods of marriage are for the procreation of children, the good of the spouses and the raising of the family.
In the more inclusive marriage suggested we have to remove procreation of children and the notion that the marriage is ordered to the formation of family. What is left is a sentimental interpretation of 'good of the spouses' which is proposed as love.

Firstly, you can replace the 'procreation' of children with the 'raising' of children. That's then inclusive of heterosexual couples who can't have children naturally, and same sex couples who raise children that aren't biologically the children of one or both of them.

Secondly, you don't have to have children to be a family. A married couple is a family unit in itself.

I can't replace anything with anything lad - thats how it is. A heterosexual couple with children or without children can still be fruitful, faithful and total. In the Church a homosexual couple can never be for the good of eachother unless they live chaste lives....
My job as a husband and father is to get my Wife and kids to heaven. A gay man can't do that if he is committing sin with his "husband"....

I'm not sure why you try to engage in discussions, "lad", if you're unwilling to consider logic. You have no ability to think for yourself, just to agree and repeat the position of the Church.
If that makes you happy, then that's fine. But you should probably just worry about your own 'job', as you put it, and not about how other people want to live their lives.

my apologies if the term "lad" is offensive - do you prefer pal, buddy, gaylord? (Dane Cook joke - watch the video its very good)....

I have logically made the decision to follow the church. I'm sorry again that isn't good enough for you...
I can discuss surely like everyone else? Especially given the fact that how everyone lives their life impacts my family and they world they live in..... very Christian of you Maguire... oh wait....

You can discuss like everyone else if you want. But if you don't listen to logic or evidence where it doesn't fit what the Church tells you, then what's the point? Saying "that's how it is" about something, just because the Church says so... it doesn't really get us anywhere.

As you point the finger at my opinions don't you take the same stance from your own perspective?
We disagree Maguire. Our outlooks on life are different. Dismissing mine because I don't respond to your 'logic" is the same as me dismissing yours because you dont know Jesus..
Maybe we need a byline on the gaaboard - MAguire's gaaboard  - only non believers should enter... ?

No, in that i'm open to changing my opinion if there is a convincing argument or evidence.

And it's not about responding to my logic. I don't own logic. It's about dismissing logic altogether.

[armaghniac]

Listen, I am perfectly willing to engage in an honest discussion.  You are the one dancing around words.

Some restatement of words is need here as people refuse to accept basic logic.

And no, I don't accept your generalization argument.  This is not a zero sum game.  Gays gaining gay marriage does not equal a loss on the part of married heterosexual or the institution of heterosexual marriage.  At least none that I can see. And if it's so bleeding obvious and logical what I'm missing,  then please spell it out and spare us nonsense.

If you don't accept the general truth of my argument, then there is no point in my continuing as you do not accept logic.

[J70]

Listen, I am perfectly willing to engage in an honest discussion.  You are the one dancing around words.

Some restatement of words is need here as people refuse to accept basic logic.

And no, I don't accept your generalization argument.  This is not a zero sum game.  Gays gaining gay marriage does not equal a loss on the part of married heterosexual or the institution of heterosexual marriage.  At least none that I can see. And if it's so bleeding obvious and logical what I'm missing,  then please spell it out and spare us nonsense.

If you don't accept the general truth of my argument, then there is no point in my continuing as you do not accept logic.

There is no argument.

It's just vague waffle. And a waste of time unless you are going to present something at least somewhat specific about how heterosexual marriage may (I'm not even saying "is" or "will") suffer.

[easytiger95]

Iceman

In Christian or traditional marriage the goods of marriage are for the procreation of children, the good of the spouses and the raising of the family.
In the more inclusive marriage suggested we have to remove procreation of children and the notion that the marriage is ordered to the formation of family. What is left is a sentimental interpretation of 'good of the spouses' which is proposed as love.

The referendum was not about Christian or traditional marriage - it was about civil marriage, which was already a very different institution to the above - the clue was in the divorce referendum.

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.

I'm sorry, but saying you have a gut feeling about homosexual acts and they just aren't right is a textbook example of homophobia as it is defined in any dictionary - here is Dictionary.com

unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

The reason I say I'm sorry is that I know you are a man of faith, and I do think that bad actions can be occasioned by good intentions, but the  No campaign's determination to fight this battle, which was one of civil constitutional law, which in the main is based on logical reasoning, has led to massive contortions in their arguments, which leads to statements like the above. Probably far better to go with "it's against my faith" and leave it at that. We could all then point out the non-religious aspecty of civil marriage but at least you wouldn't twist yourself into positions, which, I feel, are almost directly contrary to the teachings of Christ.

I have logically made the decision to follow the church. I'm sorry again that isn't good enough for you...

No it's not, because faith is the direct opposite of logic and, as above, conflating the two leaves you the loser. I believe there is something other than ourselves (or at least I want to believe that) but to bring that into this argument would have had no relevance - so instead I thought abut the type of Republic and country we want to live in now, for us to be happy and content in this world rather than the next. My definition of happy and content would differ sharply from yours, but as this is a democracy, the cause I subscribed to was vindicated. It does not logically follow that you, as a Christian, are being persecuted - and that is something that Christians here should not fling about, in a time when Christians are being horribly murdered for their faith in some places in the world. Your right to practice your faith is protected by our constitution - as is the right of homosexuals to express their sexual identity without fear of recrimination or reprisal.

My job as a husband and father is to get my Wife and kids to heaven. A gay man can't do that if he is committing sin with his "husband"....

A view I find very strange, but of course you are entitled to hold it. I don't think a gay man is committing a sin by having sex, or by being married. And as for wives and children going to heaven, I hope that by living in the now, trying my best to be fair and empathetic to others (though failing almost daily of course!) i will give my son the tools he needs to live a happy and fulfilled life, with a positive impact on those around him.