Poll
Question:
How will you vote in the referendum
Option 1: I have a vote and will vote "Yes"
votes: 58
Option 2: I have a vote and will vote "No"
votes: 23
Option 3: I have a vote but haven't decided how to vote
votes: 7
Option 4: I don't have a vote but would vote "Yes" if I did
votes: 107
Option 5: I don't have a vote but would vote "No" if I did
votes: 26
Option 6: I don't have a vote and haven't decided how I would vote if I did
votes: 9
Just to kick it off:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-kzB6cPuQI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-kzB6cPuQI)
Quote from: Hardy on February 06, 2015, 09:38:02 AM
Just to kick it off:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-kzB6cPuQI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-kzB6cPuQI)
When Aenghus Mac Grianna was on the front page of the RTE Guide with his beau I think this referendum became a certainty. Unimaginable even 10 years ago. This is a massive social change.
I suspect it's being driven by under 50s especially women (who may be into celebrity news), who may know someone in the family or the wider circle who is gay and who is not a devil and that Iona etc can huff and "puff" but they are not going to be able to stop it.
http://www.rte.ie/ten/news/2014/0510/616457-anne-doyle-to-give-aengus-macgrianna-away/
"Newscaster Aengus Mac Grianna has revealed that his former colleague Anne Doyle will be giving him away during his upcoming UK wedding.
Speaking to host Ryan Tubridy on last night's The Late Late Show (May 9), 49-year-old Mac Grianna said: "The lovely Anne Doyle [is giving him away]. A true legend, but she is absolutely fabulous and I am delighted."
When asked about going to the UK to marry, he added: "Civil Partnership has been a huge step forwards but it's not marriage. It's a lesser form of marriage. Now I am free to marry, but I can only marry a women so being gay, clearly that's not going to work. So I am not free here to marry the person I love, the person I want to marry and commit to and spend the rest of my life with."
RTE are just following their people.
I always assumed I'd vote yes before I heard any debate. What's putting me off is the obnoxiousness of the yes side, and by that I mean the general public in social media.
If anyone with any doubts brings up, for example, that by allowing gay marriage it's the first step to allowing polygamy, they are scoffed at.
I'll still probably vote yes but maybe I need to listen to different debates.
Quote from: Hardy on February 06, 2015, 09:38:02 AM
Just to kick it off:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-kzB6cPuQI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-kzB6cPuQI)
Ryanair shares will be down today, I reckon.
Most of the arguments on both sides are here in one handy video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApuOOIv9LZY
Would be in the Yes camp myself, but never underestimate the ability of the Irish liberal/left to find a foot, shoot it off, then stick it in their own gobs. At least with the right, you know what you're going to get - a Binchy/quinn/Iona/ Youth defence composite argubot, who starts out all reasonable but you know is only one "Panti-bliss" reference away from whipping out a crozier, mouth frothing and eyeball rolling, and regulating himself a few degenerates. Given the predictability of the playbook, you'd think Yes was a shoo-in. But guaranteed, some tone-deaf D4 eejit, with a bad case of marbles-in-mouth, will undoubtedly says something stupid, which will be wilfully misinterpreted as slaggiing off a. Catholics b. culchies or c. Catholic culchies. Thus making the referendum a lot closer and impinging on the sanity of good people from both sides for months on end.
And then it will pass, 56% to 44%.
Get yer bets on.
Quote from: easytiger95 on February 06, 2015, 12:26:52 PM
Would be in the Yes camp myself, but never underestimate the ability of the Irish liberal/left to find a foot, shoot it off, then stick it in their own gobs. At least with the right, you know what you're going to get - a Binchy/quinn/Iona/ Youth defence composite argubot, who starts out all reasonable but you know is only one "Panti-bliss" reference away from whipping out a crozier, mouth frothing and eyeball rolling, and regulating himself a few degenerates. Given the predictability of the playbook, you'd think Yes was a shoo-in. But guaranteed, some tone-deaf D4 eejit, with a bad case of marbles-in-mouth, will undoubtedly says something stupid, which will be wilfully misinterpreted as slaggiing off a. Catholics b. culchies or c. Catholic culchies. Thus making the referendum a lot closer and impinging on the sanity of good people from both sides for months on end.
And then it will pass, 56% to 44%.
Get yer bets on.
This made me smile. You can also add in the habit of liberals in debates in overselling the benefits of a change. I'm cool with the idea that gay adults should have the same rights and responsibilities as straight adults and don't need another reason to vote Yes. But no, that's never enough! We'll be hearing of the benefits of the pink euro to the hospitality sector and making Ireland a better place to visit and a flowering of cultural benefits as music and poetry are created to celebrate the occasion and the weather will be better and we'll all live longer and tooth decay will be a thing of the past and . . .
It's going to be a grind.
Did a quick poll in a whatsapp group there I'm in....11 lads and 5 girls all in 26-28 age bracket.....
14 NO, 2 YES.....2 yes's were girls.
would this whatsapp group be north mayo nazis or something?
Most marriages are same sex, she's on to or you're on top ;)
Quote from: guy crouchback on February 06, 2015, 04:38:56 PM
would this whatsapp group be north mayo nazis or something?
;D
Dublin, Clare, Laois, Waterford, Kildare and Mayo represented.
What can I say, the people have spoken. Cancel the referendum.
Easy on the Nazi name calling for having a difference of opinion BTW....may not help the yes cause as easytiger and deiseach pointed out.
Hardy, stick a poll on this one, would be interesting to see the split here.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 06, 2015, 05:31:16 PM
Hardy, stick a poll on this one, would be interesting to see the split here.
Done.
I'm guessing a referendum on this matter would see both the lowest turnout in history and a landslide for the yes vote.
Most irish people - even those with gays in the family - aren't directly affected enough to make this worth going out of your way to vote upon, and I'd guess even those who get annoye by homosexuality aren't daft enough to think that banning marriage will have any impact on a person's sexuality.
Shouldn't hold a referendum on one topic only. How is this vote being paid for?
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 06, 2015, 10:39:06 AM
I always assumed I'd vote yes before I heard any debate. What's putting me off is the obnoxiousness of the yes side, and by that I mean the general public in social media.
If anyone with any doubts brings up, for example, that by allowing gay marriage it's the first step to allowing polygamy, they are scoffed at.
I'll still probably vote yes but maybe I need to listen to different debates.
Whining about obnoxiousness is just looking for an excuse or an out.
Vote based on logic and the merits of the issue, not because someone else's overzealousness or rudeness.
A civil rights issue like this should not be subject to majority rule anyway.
Unless there is some legitimate argument AGAINST allowing gays to marry? Or the constitution explicitly prohibits it...
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2015, 06:44:01 PM
A civil rights issue like this should not be subject to majority rule anyway.
Unless there is some legitimate argument AGAINST allowing gays to marry? Or the constitution explicitly prohibits it...
The courts have ruled it as unconstitutional, hence the referendum.
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2015, 06:44:01 PM
A civil rights issue like this should not be subject to majority rule anyway.
Unless there is some legitimate argument AGAINST allowing gays to marry? Or the constitution explicitly prohibits it...
the constitution was written in the 1930s when ireland was run by a catholic junta.
It a pretty shit constitution. A brain dead woman was kept alive artificially recently because doctors were worried switching the machine off would be illegal.
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2015, 06:44:01 PM
A civil rights issue like this should not be subject to majority rule anyway.
There is no question of civil rights here and to describe as such is typical of the abuse of the English language accompanying this issue.
There are people in the world whose civil rights have been denied, those who are free to have a relationship but one classed civil partnership instead of marriage are not repressed.
Slightly surprised the opinion here is that Yes will piss it, the silent majority are as conservative as fook imo.
Quote from: bennydorano on February 06, 2015, 07:43:11 PM
Slightly surprised the opinion here is that Yes will piss it, the silent majority are as conservative as fook imo.
Opinion polls have been suggesting a strong Yes vote.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 06, 2015, 06:58:55 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2015, 06:44:01 PM
A civil rights issue like this should not be subject to majority rule anyway.
Unless there is some legitimate argument AGAINST allowing gays to marry? Or the constitution explicitly prohibits it...
The courts have ruled it as unconstitutional, hence the referendum.
On what grounds?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 06, 2015, 07:13:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2015, 06:44:01 PM
A civil rights issue like this should not be subject to majority rule anyway.
There is no question of civil rights here and to describe as such is typical of the abuse of the English language accompanying this issue.
There are people in the world whose civil rights have been denied, those who are free to have a relationship but one classed civil partnership instead of marriage are not repressed.
I am heterosexual. I've got the right to marry the partner of my choice. If I was homosexual and still living in Ireland, I would not have that right.
Seems like a clearcut denial of civil rights to me.
But, in case i am out of touch, in Ireland, what is the difference between a civil partnership and marriage?
armaghniac, I have to disagree with you, as much as it pains me to be on an opposite side to a fellow apple-eater, but I think it's absolutely about civil rights. Same-sex couples marry for the same reasons that straight couples do, and it isn't just for love. At least here in the US a marriage license safeguards families and provides protections including hospital visitations, adoption. medical decision-making, automatic inheritance, access to family insurance policies, exemption from property tax upon the death of a spouse, domestic violence protections, to name but a very few. All of these are civil rights issues. I don't know what civil rights are denied in Ireland, bt I imagine it's quite a few.
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2015, 08:10:05 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 06, 2015, 06:58:55 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2015, 06:44:01 PM
A civil rights issue like this should not be subject to majority rule anyway.
Unless there is some legitimate argument AGAINST allowing gays to marry? Or the constitution explicitly prohibits it...
The courts have ruled it as unconstitutional, hence the referendum.
On what grounds?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
there will be a yes vote. I don't agree with it but at the same time Christians gave up the right to the term "marriage" a long time ago....
Iceman, I don't know what you mean by "gave up the right to." Are you suggesting that at one time Christians, in some way, owned marriage? Then what about married Jews, Muslims or atheists? We're they not married? Of course the church has every right to say who it will or will not marry, but marriage isn't simply a religious union, it's a civil one too, so shouldn't two people in love be allowed to marry and to enjoy the legal protections of the marriage contract?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 06, 2015, 08:45:06 PM
there will be a yes vote. I don't agree with it but at the same time Christians gave up the right to the term "marriage" a long time ago....
You think allowing non-Christians to marry is a bad thing?
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 06, 2015, 09:05:45 PM
Iceman, I don't know what you mean by "gave up the right to." Are you suggesting that at one time Christians, in some way, owned marriage? Then what about married Jews, Muslims or atheists? We're they not married? Of course the church has every right to say who it will or will not marry, but marriage isn't simply a religious union, it's a civil one too, so shouldn't two people in love be allowed to marry and to enjoy the legal protections of the marriage contract?
I think it's funny how you start off with I don't know what you mean and then continue to argue with yourself over what you think I mean :)
Most of the Christian debate on Gay Marriage is centered around a re-defining of marriage. My response is that we gave up any rights we had to the term Marriage a long time ago within the confines of the Church. Marriage within the Church isn't really anything exclusively sacred anymore. For a nice envelope any man or woman can be married. So I have no problem with people getting "married".
Does the Church though have the right to say who it will or will not marry? Do you think that right will remain safe over the coming years? I personally don't.
The Nolan debate was enjoyable as always to watch. He invites people on for a reason.
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
This issue causes a national referendum?? WTF. Wasting cash again.
If we concentrated on fixing the actual problems in the country rather than this smokescreen we'd be better off.
No chance of adding a few items up for debate and to the voting ticket. Water charges anyone?
Still, takes the heat off the government. That'll do nicely.
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
There's words for people like you.
Quote from: foxcommander on February 06, 2015, 09:23:30 PM
This issue causes a national referendum?? WTF. Wasting cash again.
If we concentrated on fixing the actual problems in the country rather than this smokescreen we'd be better off.
No chance of adding a few items up for debate and to the voting ticket. Water charges anyone?
Still, takes the heat off the government. That'll do nicely.
You still just don't get it. One of these things requires a change to the constitution, the other doesn't.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 06, 2015, 09:15:45 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 06, 2015, 09:05:45 PM
Iceman, I don't know what you mean by "gave up the right to." Are you suggesting that at one time Christians, in some way, owned marriage? Then what about married Jews, Muslims or atheists? We're they not married? Of course the church has every right to say who it will or will not marry, but marriage isn't simply a religious union, it's a civil one too, so shouldn't two people in love be allowed to marry and to enjoy the legal protections of the marriage contract?
I think it's funny how you start off with I don't know what you mean and then continue to argue with yourself over what you think I mean :)
Most of the Christian debate on Gay Marriage is centered around a re-defining of marriage. My response is that we gave up any rights we had to the term Marriage a long time ago within the confines of the Church. Marriage within the Church isn't really anything exclusively sacred anymore. For a nice envelope any man or woman can be married. So I have no problem with people getting "married".
Does the Church though have the right to say who it will or will not marry? Do you think that right will remain safe over the coming years? I personally don't.
The Nolan debate was enjoyable as always to watch. He invites people on for a reason.
On what grounds can a church be made to marry someone it does not want to?
If the only marriages that were recognized by a state were religious ones, you might have a point.
Iceman, you say that you have no problem with "people getting married." Same-sex couples are people, so you'd have no problem with them getting "married," albeit outside the church?
Quote from: foxcommander on February 06, 2015, 09:24:49 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
There's words for people like you.
Correction -
There ARE words.
I presume the words are
Voter
Adult
Opinion
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 06, 2015, 09:37:03 PM
Iceman, you say that you have no problem with "people getting married." Same-sex couples are people, so you'd have no problem with them getting "married," albeit outside the church?
thats what I said.
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2015, 09:32:02 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 06, 2015, 09:15:45 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 06, 2015, 09:05:45 PM
Iceman, I don't know what you mean by "gave up the right to." Are you suggesting that at one time Christians, in some way, owned marriage? Then what about married Jews, Muslims or atheists? We're they not married? Of course the church has every right to say who it will or will not marry, but marriage isn't simply a religious union, it's a civil one too, so shouldn't two people in love be allowed to marry and to enjoy the legal protections of the marriage contract?
I think it's funny how you start off with I don't know what you mean and then continue to argue with yourself over what you think I mean :)
Most of the Christian debate on Gay Marriage is centered around a re-defining of marriage. My response is that we gave up any rights we had to the term Marriage a long time ago within the confines of the Church. Marriage within the Church isn't really anything exclusively sacred anymore. For a nice envelope any man or woman can be married. So I have no problem with people getting "married".
Does the Church though have the right to say who it will or will not marry? Do you think that right will remain safe over the coming years? I personally don't.
The Nolan debate was enjoyable as always to watch. He invites people on for a reason.
On what grounds can a church be made to marry someone it does not want to?
If the only marriages that were recognized by a state were religious ones, you might have a point.
It may not happen in Ireland but in some states in America I'd say fairly soon Churches (on the grounds of equal rights) will be forced to conduct same sex ceremonies or face the consequences.
Many of the Protestant Churches are already breaking off into yet more ones that support Gay Marriage. The church of england already support it so look for the Church of Ireland to jump on that wagon too. I'd say it won't be long before it is being forced.
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
You will be voting no because you are a homophobe. you are the ultimate hypocrite. A self righteous twat.
My goodness. Who would oppose this?
Iceman, you're confusing me. On the one hand, you say you don't agree with a 'Yes' vote, but now you say you'd have no problem with same-sex couples marrying outside the church. Why oppose a 'Yes' vote then?
Also, I don't see how the Catholic Church can be forced to conduct a service contrary to its principles.
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2015, 06:39:08 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 06, 2015, 10:39:06 AM
I always assumed I'd vote yes before I heard any debate. What's putting me off is the obnoxiousness of the yes side, and by that I mean the general public in social media.
If anyone with any doubts brings up, for example, that by allowing gay marriage it's the first step to allowing polygamy, they are scoffed at.
I'll still probably vote yes but maybe I need to listen to different debates.
Whining about obnoxiousness is just looking for an excuse or an out.
Vote based on logic and the merits of the issue, not because someone else's overzealousness or rudeness.
You are factually incorrect if you're referring to my particular whining.
I agree with your second point and will do so. I just pointed out how I find some of the Yes side.
Quote from: charlieTully on February 06, 2015, 10:22:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
You will be voting no because you are a homophobe. you are the ultimate hypocrite. A self righteous twat.
You know nothing about me and your silly clichéd comments prove that.
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
Does civil partnership allow the surviving partner to get a spouse's pension ?
Quote from: seafoid on February 06, 2015, 11:19:15 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
Does civil partnership allow the surviving partner to get a spouse's pension ?
Why should it? Why should the person not have their own pension and not be subsidised by other people?
Has to be the most complex poll ever undertaken on this Board.Im in the "I don't have a vote,but I know somebody who has and if I was in their shoes I might vote yes or no" camp.
You'll not be surprised to learn I'm in the No camp.For moral and religious reasons I object to these practices being equated to the status of normal male female relationships as defined by scripture.
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 06, 2015, 10:28:19 PM
Iceman, you're confusing me. On the one hand, you say you don't agree with a 'Yes' vote, but now you say you'd have no problem with same-sex couples marrying outside the church. Why oppose a 'Yes' vote then?
Also, I don't see how the Catholic Church can be forced to conduct a service contrary to its principles.
I wouldn't vote yes. I also don't mind people getting married.
Where I live it is legal to smoke weed. In the vote to legalize it my household voted no. But I don't mind people smoking - I just don't want it to be legal.
If gay marriage is legalized then why stop at Civil ceremonies. Surely if the state recognizes it should the Church not be forced to eventually? surely a Christian man can marry his fellow Christian man and have that marriage blessed by the Church?
Looking back over history the oppressed become the oppressor. They are never satisfied with equality - they want retribution - they want those they perceive to be oppressing them to be the oppressed.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 06, 2015, 11:58:42 PM
Has to be the most complex poll ever undertaken on this Board.Im in the "I don't have a vote,but I know somebody who has and if I was in their shoes I might vote yes or no" camp.
You'll not be surprised to learn I'm in the No camp.For moral and religious reasons I object to these practices being equated to the status of normal male female relationships as defined by scripture.
Fcuk me. That's more laughable than depressing.
Not alone is it mad to devote your life to adoring a "lord" or a "god" or "almighty" but to demand he is straight too.......
In 100 years you lads will be coupled with the earth is flatters or black as slave believers....
Quote from: T Fearon on February 06, 2015, 11:58:42 PM
Has to be the most complex poll ever undertaken on this Board.Im in the "I don't have a vote,but I know somebody who has and if I was in their shoes I might vote yes or no" camp.
You'll not be surprised to learn I'm in the No camp.For moral and religious reasons I object to these practices being equated to the status of normal male female relationships as defined by scripture.
Ah come on... There's nothing complex about it. There's two categories, with a Yes, No or Maybe in each. The results are actually turning out to be quite interesting.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 06, 2015, 11:48:23 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 06, 2015, 11:19:15 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
Does civil partnership allow the surviving partner to get a spouse's pension ?
Why should it? Why should the person not have their own pension and not be subsidised by other people?
Does the surviving spouse of a heterosexual marriage get the pension?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 06, 2015, 10:11:53 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2015, 09:32:02 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 06, 2015, 09:15:45 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 06, 2015, 09:05:45 PM
Iceman, I don't know what you mean by "gave up the right to." Are you suggesting that at one time Christians, in some way, owned marriage? Then what about married Jews, Muslims or atheists? We're they not married? Of course the church has every right to say who it will or will not marry, but marriage isn't simply a religious union, it's a civil one too, so shouldn't two people in love be allowed to marry and to enjoy the legal protections of the marriage contract?
I think it's funny how you start off with I don't know what you mean and then continue to argue with yourself over what you think I mean :)
Most of the Christian debate on Gay Marriage is centered around a re-defining of marriage. My response is that we gave up any rights we had to the term Marriage a long time ago within the confines of the Church. Marriage within the Church isn't really anything exclusively sacred anymore. For a nice envelope any man or woman can be married. So I have no problem with people getting "married".
Does the Church though have the right to say who it will or will not marry? Do you think that right will remain safe over the coming years? I personally don't.
The Nolan debate was enjoyable as always to watch. He invites people on for a reason.
On what grounds can a church be made to marry someone it does not want to?
If the only marriages that were recognized by a state were religious ones, you might have a point.
It may not happen in Ireland but in some states in America I'd say fairly soon Churches (on the grounds of equal rights) will be forced to conduct same sex ceremonies or face the consequences.
Many of the Protestant Churches are already breaking off into yet more ones that support Gay Marriage. The church of england already support it so look for the Church of Ireland to jump on that wagon too. I'd say it won't be long before it is being forced.
But churches are essentially private clubs. How can they be forced?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 07, 2015, 12:07:13 AM
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 06, 2015, 10:28:19 PM
Iceman, you're confusing me. On the one hand, you say you don't agree with a 'Yes' vote, but now you say you'd have no problem with same-sex couples marrying outside the church. Why oppose a 'Yes' vote then?
Also, I don't see how the Catholic Church can be forced to conduct a service contrary to its principles.
I wouldn't vote yes. I also don't mind people getting married.
Where I live it is legal to smoke weed. In the vote to legalize it my household voted no. But I don't mind people smoking - I just don't want it to be legal.
If gay marriage is legalized then why stop at Civil ceremonies. Surely if the state recognizes it should the Church not be forced to eventually? surely a Christian man can marry his fellow Christian man and have that marriage blessed by the Church?
Looking back over history the oppressed become the oppressor. They are never satisfied with equality - they want retribution - they want those they perceive to be oppressing them to be the oppressed.
"The oppressed become the oppressor"??
Seriously? That's an argument you want to use to justify not granting equality?
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 01:17:44 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 06, 2015, 11:48:23 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 06, 2015, 11:19:15 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
Does civil partnership allow the surviving partner to get a spouse's pension ?
Why should it? Why should the person not have their own pension and not be subsidised by other people?
Does the surviving spouse of a heterosexual marriage get the pension?
Whataboutery, the whole thing is based on getting what themmuns have, not justified for its own sake.
If you agree then put forward a postive justification for people paying more for pensions and tax reliefs for same sex couples.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:29:28 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 01:17:44 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 06, 2015, 11:48:23 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 06, 2015, 11:19:15 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
Does civil partnership allow the surviving partner to get a spouse's pension ?
Why should it? Why should the person not have their own pension and not be subsidised by other people?
Does the surviving spouse of a heterosexual marriage get the pension?
Whataboutery, the whole thing is based on getting what themmuns have, not justified for its own sake.
If you agree then put forward a postive justification for people paying more for pensions and tax reliefs for same sex couples.
Yes, that is the whole point.
Themmums are ussems , ussems are themmums. There shouldn't really be a distinction under law.
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 01:25:04 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 07, 2015, 12:07:13 AM
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 06, 2015, 10:28:19 PM
Iceman, you're confusing me. On the one hand, you say you don't agree with a 'Yes' vote, but now you say you'd have no problem with same-sex couples marrying outside the church. Why oppose a 'Yes' vote then?
Also, I don't see how the Catholic Church can be forced to conduct a service contrary to its principles.
I wouldn't vote yes. I also don't mind people getting married.
Where I live it is legal to smoke weed. In the vote to legalize it my household voted no. But I don't mind people smoking - I just don't want it to be legal.
If gay marriage is legalized then why stop at Civil ceremonies. Surely if the state recognizes it should the Church not be forced to eventually? surely a Christian man can marry his fellow Christian man and have that marriage blessed by the Church?
Looking back over history the oppressed become the oppressor. They are never satisfied with equality - they want retribution - they want those they perceive to be oppressing them to be the oppressed.
"The oppressed become the oppressor"??
Seriously? That's an argument you want to use to justify not granting equality?
No, I never once said it was an argument against equality - I was using it to defend my point that Church's will one day be forced. that equality is not good enough - retribution will be the ultimate goal.
The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.
Shane in 100 years time I will be enjoying heavenly bliss,you will be in hell suffering eternal misery,everyday will be like that glorious day in 2002 for me,with the same pain it caused for you
Quote from: charlieTully on February 06, 2015, 10:22:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
You will be voting no because you are a homophobe. you are the ultimate hypocrite. A self righteous twat.
Hold on horse, that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw one.
Al the intolerant bigots aren't to be found on the No side in this debate.
For the record, I don''t agree with Rossfan but he is entitled to his opinion as I am to mine or you are to yours- no more and no less.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 07, 2015, 01:48:19 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 01:25:04 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 07, 2015, 12:07:13 AM
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 06, 2015, 10:28:19 PM
Iceman, you're confusing me. On the one hand, you say you don't agree with a 'Yes' vote, but now you say you'd have no problem with same-sex couples marrying outside the church. Why oppose a 'Yes' vote then?
Also, I don't see how the Catholic Church can be forced to conduct a service contrary to its principles.
I wouldn't vote yes. I also don't mind people getting married.
Where I live it is legal to smoke weed. In the vote to legalize it my household voted no. But I don't mind people smoking - I just don't want it to be legal.
If gay marriage is legalized then why stop at Civil ceremonies. Surely if the state recognizes it should the Church not be forced to eventually? surely a Christian man can marry his fellow Christian man and have that marriage blessed by the Church?
Looking back over history the oppressed become the oppressor. They are never satisfied with equality - they want retribution - they want those they perceive to be oppressing them to be the oppressed.
"The oppressed become the oppressor"??
Seriously? That's an argument you want to use to justify not granting equality?
No, I never once said it was an argument against equality - I was using it to defend my point that Church's will one day be forced. that equality is not good enough - retribution will be the ultimate goal.
Based on what?
If retribution is always the ultimate goal of victims, the Catholic Church probably has bigger worries than gay people.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on February 07, 2015, 11:37:29 AM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 06, 2015, 10:22:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
You will be voting no because you are a homophobe. you are the ultimate hypocrite. A self righteous twat.
Hold on horse, that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw one.
Al the intolerant bigots aren't to be found on the No side in this debate.
For the record, I don''t agree with Rossfan but he is entitled to his opinion as I am to mine or you are to yours- no more and no less.
The "your intolerance of my intolerance makes you an intolerant bigot " argument.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:50:56 AM
The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.
Ridiculous hyperbole much?
Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:29:28 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 01:17:44 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 06, 2015, 11:48:23 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 06, 2015, 11:19:15 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
Does civil partnership allow the surviving partner to get a spouse's pension ?
Why should it? Why should the person not have their own pension and not be subsidised by other people?
Does the surviving spouse of a heterosexual marriage get the pension?
Whataboutery, the whole thing is based on getting what themmuns have, not justified for its own sake.
If you agree then put forward a postive justification for people paying more for pensions and tax reliefs for same sex couples.
The only argument needed is that by not granting rights such as entitlement to spousal pensions, the state is denying the legitimacy and codependency of homosexual relationships compared to heterosexual ones. Gay couples have all the same financial issues as the rest of us, including those that are shared with committed partners. They also pay the same taxes. As citizens, they are entitled to the same benefits. That includes the benefits deriving from making legal commitments such as marriage.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 07, 2015, 11:33:38 AM
Shane in 100 years time I will be enjoying heavenly bliss,you will be in hell suffering eternal misery,everyday will be like that glorious day in 2002 for me,with the same pain it caused for you
a keeper
You are going to be in for a such a land when you find out that Hindus were on the righteous path and you're reborn as a tyrone woman,
to learn what you couldn't or wouldn't in this life :D.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 06, 2015, 11:48:23 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 06, 2015, 11:19:15 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
Does civil partnership allow the surviving partner to get a spouse's pension ?
Why should it? Why should the person not have their own pension and not be subsidised by other people?
Carers can't always work, those who raise kids can't always work- spouses pensions are part of what makes our society civilised.
Part of what gives people a floor so they don't end up destitute.
why should straight people have it but not gay people?
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 11:58:21 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:50:56 AM
The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.
Ridiculous hyperbole much?
Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?
As Gandhi said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and you expect the effect of a change to be evident in 10, you are not serious.
Marriage has certain fiscal advantages which society provides to encourage men and women to get together and raise their children together. This is an attempt by people opposed to that concept to freeload on established arrangements. THe proposition here is we we're a same sex couple, we're going to set up house together, would the rest of your please chip in to pay for this. This proposition would be rejected as there is no public policy reason for this. But by freeloading on established arrangements people want to achieve this by the back door.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:29:52 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 11:58:21 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:50:56 AM
The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.
Ridiculous hyperbole much?
Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?
As Gandhi said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and you expect the effect of a change to be evident in 10, you are not serious.
Marriage has certain fiscal advantages which society provides to encourage men and women to get together and raise their children together. This is an attempt by people opposed to that concept to freeload on established arrangements. THe proposition here is we we're a same sex couple, we're going to set up house together, would the rest of your please chip in to pay for this. This proposition would be rejected as there is no public policy reason for this. But by freeloading on established arrangements people want to achieve this by the back door.
Bollocks.
Please point out where and when opposition to heterosexual marriage has been a component of the campaign for gay marriage. And if the fiscal benefits afforded to heterosexually married couples is all about raising children, they why are childless couples not denied them? Why do we have extra benefits such as the children's allowance or, in the US, income tax deductions and credits based on number of children?
And I don't expect any effect on marriage by gay couples getting married. I can't even imagine what effects you are talking about. Perhaps you could outline what they will be?
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 11:54:36 AM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on February 07, 2015, 11:37:29 AM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 06, 2015, 10:22:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
You will be voting no because you are a homophobe. you are the ultimate hypocrite. A self righteous twat.
Hold on horse, that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw one.
Al the intolerant bigots aren't to be found on the No side in this debate.
For the record, I don''t agree with Rossfan but he is entitled to his opinion as I am to mine or you are to yours- no more and no less.
The "your intolerance of my intolerance makes you an intolerant bigot " argument.
In a nutshell. every man alive has a degree of bigotry in their soul whether they care to admit it or not.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:29:52 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 11:58:21 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:50:56 AM
The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.
Ridiculous hyperbole much?
Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?
As Gandhi said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and you expect the effect of a change to be evident in 10, you are not serious.
Marriage has certain fiscal advantages which society provides to encourage men and women to get together and raise their children together. This is an attempt by people opposed to that concept to freeload on established arrangements. THe proposition here is we we're a same sex couple, we're going to set up house together, would the rest of your please chip in to pay for this. This proposition would be rejected as there is no public policy reason for this. But by freeloading on established arrangements people want to achieve this by the back door.
I think marriage as an institution has been undermined by straight people between divorce and not bothering getting married (which is grand as well). Gay couples should have the same pension rights as straight people and if they want to f**k up their marriages like straight people let them at it.
Iceman, not to derail the hilarity here - why if you don't mind people smoking weed do you not want it to be legal?
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2015, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:29:52 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 11:58:21 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:50:56 AM
The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.
Ridiculous hyperbole much?
Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?
As Gandhi said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and you expect the effect of a change to be evident in 10, you are not serious.
Marriage has certain fiscal advantages which society provides to encourage men and women to get together and raise their children together. This is an attempt by people opposed to that concept to freeload on established arrangements. THe proposition here is we we're a same sex couple, we're going to set up house together, would the rest of your please chip in to pay for this. This proposition would be rejected as there is no public policy reason for this. But by freeloading on established arrangements people want to achieve this by the back door.
I think marriage as an institution has been undermined by straight people between divorce and not bothering getting married (which is grand as well). Gay couples should have the same pension rights as straight people and if they want to f**k up their marriages like straight people let them at it.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Some people undermining marriage is no justification whatsoever for allowing an increased number of people undermine marriage.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 04:14:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2015, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:29:52 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 11:58:21 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:50:56 AM
The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.
Ridiculous hyperbole much?
Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?
As Gandhi said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and you expect the effect of a change to be evident in 10, you are not serious.
Marriage has certain fiscal advantages which society provides to encourage men and women to get together and raise their children together. This is an attempt by people opposed to that concept to freeload on established arrangements. THe proposition here is we we're a same sex couple, we're going to set up house together, would the rest of your please chip in to pay for this. This proposition would be rejected as there is no public policy reason for this. But by freeloading on established arrangements people want to achieve this by the back door.
I think marriage as an institution has been undermined by straight people between divorce and not bothering getting married (which is grand as well). Gay couples should have the same pension rights as straight people and if they want to f**k up their marriages like straight people let them at it.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Some people undermining marriage is no justification whatsoever for allowing an increased number of people undermine marriage.
Give everyone the same rights.
Straight people do most damage to marriage anyway.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 06, 2015, 11:58:42 PM
You'll not be surprised to learn I'm in the No camp.For moral and religious reasons I object to these practices being equated to the status of normal male female relationships as defined by scripture.
"these practices"??
With posts like the one above tony you are going to run the risk of being labelled a truly horrific, hate-riddled bigot of the first degree. Before jumping to that conclusion myself i will grant you the right to at least explain yourself. Can you please detail where in scripture homosexuality is deemed to compromise morality or offend "god"?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:50:56 AM
The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.
Please explain?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 07, 2015, 11:33:38 AM
Shane in 100 years time I will be enjoying heavenly bliss,you will be in hell suffering eternal misery,everyday will be like that glorious day in 2002 for me,with the same pain it caused for you
Another lesson in the fine virtues of the Christian virtues that the god character will reward when vetting entrance to his little club
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:29:52 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 11:58:21 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:50:56 AM
The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.
Ridiculous hyperbole much?
Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?
As Gandhi said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and you expect the effect of a change to be evident in 10, you are not serious.
Marriage has certain fiscal advantages which society provides to encourage men and women to get together and raise their children together. This is an attempt by people opposed to that concept to freeload on established arrangements. THe proposition here is we we're a same sex couple, we're going to set up house together, would the rest of your please chip in to pay for this. This proposition would be rejected as there is no public policy reason for this. But by freeloading on established arrangements people want to achieve this by the back door.
You are just inventing things now.
You believe that those in the yes campaign are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? What is your evidence for this.
Personally I think you are dangerously unhinged.
Quote from: foxcommander on February 06, 2015, 09:23:30 PM
This issue causes a national referendum?? WTF. Wasting cash again.
If we concentrated on fixing the actual problems in the country rather than this smokescreen we'd be better off.
No chance of adding a few items up for debate and to the voting ticket. Water charges anyone?
Still, takes the heat off the government. That'll do nicely.
You are right.
Imagine having to tolerate a referendum on tolerance.
Nearly afraid to post on this thread after some of what I've read but here goes. At the outset of the campaign I was going to vote yes. I had reservations but overall I just thought "live and let live". However, since the debate has started and I've read a little and read parts of the constitution my reservations have resurfaced with a vengeance. They're to do with the family, children etc. At the risk of being called a bigot I do believe it is better (all things being equal) for a child to have a mother and a father. I apologise if that's offensive to people but I can't help feeling that way. If this referendum is passed it will fundamentally change the constitutional definition of "family" as a "family" is based on marriage.
This is how I feel and why I think I will be voting no.
Now, I'll get the suit of armour.
MS you should never be afraid to air your convictions.There is a reason why there are two sexes,and it is utterly ridiculous to elevate unnatural phenomena onto an equal plane with normal,conventional.As usual in these debates the effect on children growing up with two same sex parents is not considered.In my view it cannot be a good environment,every child needs a mother and father to nurture them through the formative years,not two mothers and no father nor vice versa.
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2015, 07:53:26 PM
Nearly afraid to post on this thread after some of what I've read but here goes. At the outset of the campaign I was going to vote yes. I had reservations but overall I just thought "live and let live". However, since the debate has started and I've read a little and read parts of the constitution my reservations have resurfaced with a vengeance. They're to do with the family, children etc. At the risk of being called a bigot I do believe it is better (all things being equal) for a child to have a mother and a father. I apologise if that's offensive to people but I can't help feeling that way. If this referendum is passed it will fundamentally change the constitutional definition of "family" as a "family" is based on marriage.
This is how I feel and why I think I will be voting no.
Now, I'll get the suit of armour.
What has "family" got to do with it? At the very least, a gay couple, as it stands, could get a surrogate to bear a child for them. A lesbian can could just go out for the night and get knocked up if she wanted to. Your "reservations" are irrelevant to this unless there is a prohibition on gay couples, married or not, having kids.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 04:14:11 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2015, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:29:52 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 11:58:21 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:50:56 AM
The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.
Ridiculous hyperbole much?
Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?
As Gandhi said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and you expect the effect of a change to be evident in 10, you are not serious.
Marriage has certain fiscal advantages which society provides to encourage men and women to get together and raise their children together. This is an attempt by people opposed to that concept to freeload on established arrangements. THe proposition here is we we're a same sex couple, we're going to set up house together, would the rest of your please chip in to pay for this. This proposition would be rejected as there is no public policy reason for this. But by freeloading on established arrangements people want to achieve this by the back door.
I think marriage as an institution has been undermined by straight people between divorce and not bothering getting married (which is grand as well). Gay couples should have the same pension rights as straight people and if they want to f**k up their marriages like straight people let them at it.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Some people undermining marriage is no justification whatsoever for allowing an increased number of people undermine marriage.
Once again, how will permitting gay couples to marry undermine marriage?
Quote from: LCohen on February 07, 2015, 05:22:33 PM
You believe that those in the yes campaign are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? What is your evidence for this.
I believe that they are opposed to the support of society for children being raised by their own parents, otherwise there wouldn't have this campaign at all.
Quote
Personally I think you are dangerously unhinged.
It doesn't take long to start playing the man rather than the ball, does it? Par for the course, as previously by other posters here who couldn't effectively argue my points and so resorted to abuse. Believing that marriage should be as it has always been may not be "progressive", but is hardly unhinged by any reasonable definition.
Seanie, the problem with articulating the view that communism can have points in its favour, is that you can suddenly find yourself being endorsed by Pol Pot.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 08:17:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 07, 2015, 05:22:33 PM
You believe that those in the yes campaign are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? What is your evidence for this.
I believe that they are opposed to the support of society for children being raised by their own parents, otherwise there wouldn't have this campaign at all.
You "believe"?
Based on what?
You don't think its even remotely possible that gay people simply want for their relationships the same respect and legitimacy straight people receive?
Quote from: LCohen on February 07, 2015, 05:13:20 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 06, 2015, 11:58:42 PM
You'll not be surprised to learn I'm in the No camp.For moral and religious reasons I object to these practices being equated to the status of normal male female relationships as defined by scripture.
"these practices"??
With posts like the one above tony you are going to run the risk of being labelled a truly horrific, hate-riddled bigot of the first degree. Before jumping to that conclusion myself i will grant you the right to at least explain yourself. Can you please detail where in scripture homosexuality is deemed to compromise morality or offend "god"?
Sorry Tony
i missed the bit where you found the evidence in the bible to justify your views?
Quote from: magpie seanie on February 07, 2015, 07:53:26 PM
Nearly afraid to post on this thread after some of what I've read but here goes. At the outset of the campaign I was going to vote yes. I had reservations but overall I just thought "live and let live". However, since the debate has started and I've read a little and read parts of the constitution my reservations have resurfaced with a vengeance.
What contributions to the debate have lead you to cease to believe in equality?
quote author=magpie seanie link=topic=25487.msg1437763#msg1437763 date=1423338806]
They're to do with the family, children etc. At the risk of being called a bigot I do believe it is better (all things being equal) for a child to have a mother and a father. I apologise if that's offensive to people but I can't help feeling that way. If this referendum is passed it will fundamentally change the constitutional definition of "family" as a "family" is based on marriage.
[/quote]
Which children will be robbed of having a father and a mother? Serious question.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 07, 2015, 08:04:18 PM
MS you should never be afraid to air your convictions.There is a reason why there are two sexes,and it is utterly ridiculous to elevate unnatural phenomena onto an equal plane with normal,conventional.As usual in these debates the effect on children growing up with two same sex parents is not considered.In my view it cannot be a good environment,every child needs a mother and father to nurture them through the formative years,not two mothers and no father nor vice versa.
I think we all know why there are 2 sexes - the procreation of the species. But what has that got to do with the current debate on equality?
If as you claim that homosexuality is unnatural, where do you think it arises from? Again a serious question.
What has this debate got to do with children?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 07, 2015, 08:04:18 PM
MS you should never be afraid to air your convictions.There is a reason why there are two sexes,and it is utterly ridiculous to elevate unnatural phenomena onto an equal plane with normal,conventional.As usual in these debates the effect on children growing up with two same sex parents is not considered.In my view it cannot be a good environment,every child needs a mother and father to nurture them through the formative years,not two mothers and no father nor vice versa.
How is homosexuality unnatural?
1. Who chooses their sexual orientation? Did you choose to be (presumably) attracted to women? If your orientation natural?
2. Homosexual behaviour is very common among other species. For example, read up on our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos.
3. Down syndrome and a host of other genetically-determined conditions are rare. 1 in 700 babies is born with Down syndrome. The prevalence of homosexuality is much higher. Rarity does not equal "unnatural".
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 08:17:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 07, 2015, 05:22:33 PM
You believe that those in the yes campaign are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? What is your evidence for this.
I believe that they are opposed to the support of society for children being raised by their own parents, otherwise there wouldn't have this campaign at all.
Quote
Personally I think you are dangerously unhinged.
It doesn't take long to start playing the man rather than the ball, does it? Par for the course, as previously by other posters here who couldn't effectively argue my points and so resorted to abuse. Believing that marriage should be as it has always been may not be "progressive", but is hardly unhinged by any reasonable definition.
I use the word unhinged because the debate is about marriage. It has nothing to do with children. If it is to do with children then please detail how the children of a hetrosexual union (whether the 2 individuals are estranged, in a relationship, married or don't even know each other) will be impacted?
Give me some evidence of these impacts on children or give me some evidence that supports your belief that those in the yes campaign "are opposed to the support of society for children being raised by their own parents" or some evidence that the campaign is not in fact about equality and then I will reassess the allegation that you are unhinged. In the meantime the allegation must stand.
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 08:20:58 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 08:17:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 07, 2015, 05:22:33 PM
You believe that those in the yes campaign are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? What is your evidence for this.
I believe that they are opposed to the support of society for children being raised by their own parents, otherwise there wouldn't have this campaign at all.
You "believe"?
Based on what?
You don't think its even remotely possible that gay people simply want for their relationships the same respect and legitimacy straight people receive?
Of course I think that gay people want the same as married people, that's the whole point,!. They want the benefits for themselves without providing the benefits to society.
Quote from: LcohenI use the word unhinged because the debate is about marriage. It has nothing to do with children
Anyone who believes that it is unhinged to point out the association of marriage with families is either profoundly ignorant or is living in some make believe world of their own construction.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 08:45:48 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 08:20:58 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 08:17:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 07, 2015, 05:22:33 PM
You believe that those in the yes campaign are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? What is your evidence for this.
I believe that they are opposed to the support of society for children being raised by their own parents, otherwise there wouldn't have this campaign at all.
You "believe"?
Based on what?
You don't think its even remotely possible that gay people simply want for their relationships the same respect and legitimacy straight people receive?
Of course I think that gay people want the same as married people, that's the whole point,!. They want the benefits for themselves without providing the benefits to society.
What benefits are they NOT providing that straight married couples do? What benefits are they attempting to receive that you object to?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 08:45:48 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 08:20:58 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 08:17:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 07, 2015, 05:22:33 PM
You believe that those in the yes campaign are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? What is your evidence for this.
I believe that they are opposed to the support of society for children being raised by their own parents, otherwise there wouldn't have this campaign at all.
You "believe"?
Based on what?
You don't think its even remotely possible that gay people simply want for their relationships the same respect and legitimacy straight people receive?
Of course I think that gay people want the same as married people, that's the whole point,!. They want the benefits for themselves without providing the benefits to society.
Quote from: LcohenI use the word unhinged because the debate is about marriage. It has nothing to do with children
Anyone who believes that it is unhinged to point out the association of marriage with families is either profoundly ignorant or is living in some make believe world of their own construction.
The is an association between the convention of marriage and wedding ceremonies, best man speeches, honeymoons, name changes etc etc etc. Pointing out any of that is not unhinged but what has allowing gay couples to have a legally recognised union and that union being called marriage got to do with children?
Inventing that connection and using it as a basis for denying equality is i'm afraid unhinged
Quote from: LCohen on February 07, 2015, 05:22:33 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:29:52 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 11:58:21 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 01:50:56 AM
The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.
Ridiculous hyperbole much?
Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?
As Gandhi said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and you expect the effect of a change to be evident in 10, you are not serious.
Marriage has certain fiscal advantages which society provides to encourage men and women to get together and raise their children together. This is an attempt by people opposed to that concept to freeload on established arrangements. THe proposition here is we we're a same sex couple, we're going to set up house together, would the rest of your please chip in to pay for this. This proposition would be rejected as there is no public policy reason for this. But by freeloading on established arrangements people want to achieve this by the back door.
You are just inventing things now.
You believe that those in the yes campaign are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? What is your evidence for this.
Personally I think you are dangerously unhinged.
The invention here, is that Gandhi (one of life's great hypocrites) is not credited with saying any such thing.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 06, 2015, 11:58:42 PM
You'll not be surprised to learn I'm in the No camp.For moral and religious reasons I object to these practices being equated to the status of normal male female relationships as defined by scripture.
(https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/4fad667a42542a00030018ba/attachments/biblemarriage.jpg)
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 07, 2015, 09:17:16 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 06, 2015, 11:58:42 PM
You'll not be surprised to learn I'm in the No camp.For moral and religious reasons I object to these practices being equated to the status of normal male female relationships as defined by scripture.
(https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/4fad667a42542a00030018ba/attachments/biblemarriage.jpg)
Well bugger me with a prize winning leek but has there ever been a better post?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 09:21:14 PM
matrimony, n.
Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈmatrᵻməni/ , U.S. /ˈmætrəˌmoʊni/
Forms: ME matermone, ME matermoyn, ME matermoyne, ME matirmonye, ME matirmoyne... (Show More)
Etymology: < Anglo-Norman matermoine, matremoine, matrimoigne, matrimone, matrimonie and Middle French matremoine, matrimoigne (14th cent.; c1155 in Old French in sense 'property inherited from one's mother': compare 1a) < classical Latin mātrimōnium state of being married < mātri- , māter mother
Are you going to base a vote on equality on that?
Quote from: LCohen on February 07, 2015, 09:23:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 09:21:14 PM
matrimony, n.
Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈmatrᵻməni/ , U.S. /ˈmætrəˌmoʊni/
Forms: ME matermone, ME matermoyn, ME matermoyne, ME matirmonye, ME matirmoyne... (Show More)
Etymology: < Anglo-Norman matermoine, matremoine, matrimoigne, matrimone, matrimonie and Middle French matremoine, matrimoigne (14th cent.; c1155 in Old French in sense 'property inherited from one's mother': compare 1a) < classical Latin mātrimōnium state of being married < mātri- , māter mother
Are you going to base a vote on equality on that?
I appreciate that using the actual meaning of the English language is an obstacle to those who seek to misuse language. Tough.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 09:21:14 PM
matrimony, n.
Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈmatrᵻməni/ , U.S. /ˈmætrəˌmoʊni/
Forms: ME matermone, ME matermoyn, ME matermoyne, ME matirmonye, ME matirmoyne... (Show More)
Etymology: < Anglo-Norman matermoine, matremoine, matrimoigne, matrimone, matrimonie and Middle French matremoine, matrimoigne (14th cent.; c1155 in Old French in sense 'property inherited from one's mother': compare 1a) < classical Latin mātrimōnium state of being married < mātri- , māter mother
What does the origin of a word nearly 1000 years ago have to do with this particular debate?
And if that's how you want to define marriage, should it be off limits for women or men who may be infertile, or women who want to get married in their 50s, 60s etc.?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 09:25:39 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 07, 2015, 09:23:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 09:21:14 PM
matrimony, n.
Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈmatrᵻməni/ , U.S. /ˈmætrəˌmoʊni/
Forms: ME matermone, ME matermoyn, ME matermoyne, ME matirmonye, ME matirmoyne... (Show More)
Etymology: < Anglo-Norman matermoine, matremoine, matrimoigne, matrimone, matrimonie and Middle French matremoine, matrimoigne (14th cent.; c1155 in Old French in sense 'property inherited from one's mother': compare 1a) < classical Latin mātrimōnium state of being married < mātri- , māter mother
Are you going to base a vote on equality on that?
I appreciate that using the actual meaning of the English language is an obstacle to those who seek to misuse language. Tough.
You are confusing "meaning" with "etymology". Which is funny as it seems to be the basis of your argument
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 09:25:39 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 07, 2015, 09:23:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 09:21:14 PM
matrimony, n.
Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈmatrᵻməni/ , U.S. /ˈmætrəˌmoʊni/
Forms: ME matermone, ME matermoyn, ME matermoyne, ME matirmonye, ME matirmoyne... (Show More)
Etymology: < Anglo-Norman matermoine, matremoine, matrimoigne, matrimone, matrimonie and Middle French matremoine, matrimoigne (14th cent.; c1155 in Old French in sense 'property inherited from one's mother': compare 1a) < classical Latin mātrimōnium state of being married < mātri- , māter mother
Are you going to base a vote on equality on that?
I appreciate that using the actual meaning of the English language is an obstacle to those who seek to misuse language. Tough.
Because the meaning of words doesn't ever evolve, after all... ::)
Armaghniac
Presumably you would consider the Republic of Ireland as a third world country?
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 07, 2015, 09:28:07 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 09:21:14 PM
matrimony, n.
Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈmatrᵻməni/ , U.S. /ˈmætrəˌmoʊni/
Forms: ME matermone, ME matermoyn, ME matermoyne, ME matirmonye, ME matirmoyne... (Show More)
Etymology: < Anglo-Norman matermoine, matremoine, matrimoigne, matrimone, matrimonie and Middle French matremoine, matrimoigne (14th cent.; c1155 in Old French in sense 'property inherited from one's mother': compare 1a) < classical Latin mātrimōnium state of being married < mātri- , māter mother
What does the origin of a word nearly 1000 years ago have to do with this particular debate?
And if that's how you want to define marriage, should it be off limits for women or men who may be infertile, or women who want to get married in their 50s, 60s etc.?
I asked him something similar earlier in the thread with respect to fiscal benefits. No response yet...
Quote from: LCohenArmaghniac
Presumably you would consider the Republic of Ireland as a third world country?
I don't, perhaps you do given your unionist views expressed elsewhere.
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 09:30:41 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 07, 2015, 09:28:07 PM
And if that's how you want to define marriage, should it be off limits for women or men who may be infertile, or women who want to get married in their 50s, 60s etc.?
I asked him something similar earlier in the thread with respect to fiscal benefits. No response yet...
I was watching GAA on the tele, this being GAABoard some of you could do with some interest in GAA.
I don't see that the status of individual men and women getting married is a problem for the institution of marriage, this has no connection to its extension to same sex relationships.
QuoteHe is used the term "all things being equal" while suggesting that a gay couple would be unequal to a straight couple.
In relation to parenthood a gay couple is unequal to married couple.
Full Definition of HUSBANDRY
1
archaic : the care of a household
2
: the control or judicious use of resources : conservation
3
a : the cultivation or production of plants or animals : agriculture
b : the scientific control and management of a branch of farming and especially of domestic animals
Not sure what the point of using old definitions of words is.
I am inclined to think all Darwinian on this one. Homo Sapiens were freaks when they appeared. Neanderthals mated with them which must have been beyond freaky. In fact, I am certain I played against some of the offspring.
Life has survived on Earth because of change. The notion that we can stop evolving, or worse, cherrypick how we evolve is absurd.
But regarding this issue.
Simple question: Would anyone leave a child in an orphanage because they didn't believe a perfectly suitable gay couple should be allowed adopt that child?
This referendum will be passed easily.
Given that the phrase "the Third World" was coined in the early stages of the Cold War to define countries that were not aligned with either the communist bloc or NATO you must surely consider the Republic of Ireland a third world country unless you are completely changing your tune on your earlier laughable confusion between meaning and etymology. Sad really that you are going to allow that confusion, laughable as it is to deny someone equality
Many of you are getting caught up with legalities and definitions.
Marriage is an institution that was introduced some 7,000 years ago by Shiva into society, primarily to protect the rights of children.
These days it doesn't legally matter that same sex unions don't conform to that religious/spiritual concept of the institution of marriage, what matters is that the same sex union enjoys the same rights in society as a male female marriage.
Seeing as we are already there or thereabouts in legal acceptance of same sex unions, what is the this particular debate about? To my mind, the debate should be about the farce of having a vote on the matter, the horse has already bolted on much of the discussion here.
Catholic doctrine on marriage has copied some parts what was already established in Indian society some 5,000 years previous.
There is no threat to that catholic doctrine in this legislation. Religions are free to constitute their own bias otherwise we would already be seeing women having the same rights as men in the catholic church.
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2015, 10:35:06 PM
Many of you are getting caught up with legalities and definitions.
Marriage is an institution that was introduced some 7,000 years ago by Shiva into society, primarily to protect the rights of children.
These days it doesn't legally matter that same sex unions don't conform to that religious/spiritual concept of the institution of marriage, what matters is that the same sex union enjoys the same rights in society as a male female marriage.
Seeing as we are already there or thereabouts in legal acceptance of same sex unions, what is the this particular debate about? To my mind, the debate should be about the farce of having a vote on the matter, the horse has already bolted on much of the discussion here.
Catholic doctrine on marriage has copied some parts what was already established in Indian society some 5,000 years previous.
There is no threat to that catholic doctrine in this legislation. Religions are free to constitute their own bias otherwise we would already be seeing women having the same rights as men in the catholic church.
Good post and I especially like the rather brilliant last line.
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2015, 10:35:06 PM
Many of you are getting caught up with legalities and definitions.
Marriage is an institution that was introduced some 7,000 years ago by Shiva into society, primarily to protect the rights of children
These days it doesn't legally matter that same sex unions don't conform to that religious/spiritual concept of the institution of marriage, what matters is that the same sex union enjoys the same rights in society as a male female marriage.
Seeing as we are already there or thereabouts in legal acceptance of same sex unions, what is the this particular debate about? To my mind, the debate should be about the farce of having a vote on the matter, the horse has already bolted on much of the discussion here.
Catholic doctrine on marriage has copied some parts what was already established in Indian society some 5,000 years previous.
There is no threat to that catholic doctrine in this legislation. Religions are free to constitute their own bias otherwise we would already be seeing women having the same rights as men in the catholic church.
Thats total bullshit, do you realise that?
If marriage was introduced for anything, it was so that men could have more control over women. Simple as.
I couldn't care less if gay men or women are allowed to get married, it wont improve or undermine my marriage to my wife. Get a grip. And bringing gods that never existed into it hardly helps
Quote from: muppet on February 07, 2015, 10:08:52 PM
Life has survived on Earth because of change. The notion that we can stop evolving, or worse, cherrypick how we evolve is absurd.
We should pick the values we wish to incorporate in our laws and not go along with fads generated by pressure groups.
QuoteMarriage is an institution that was introduced some 7,000 years ago by Shiva into society, primarily to protect the rights of children.
These days it doesn't legally matter that same sex unions don't conform to that religious/spiritual concept of the institution of marriage, what matters is that the same sex union enjoys the same rights in society as a male female marriage.
The rights of children is not a religious concept, but is a valid concern of law, even if not of interest to many posters here.
QuoteIf marriage was introduced for anything, it was so that men could have more control over women. Simple as.
Marriage is as much designed to keep men around contributing to the children,
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 10:46:44 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 07, 2015, 10:08:52 PM
Life has survived on Earth because of change. The notion that we can stop evolving, or worse, cherrypick how we evolve is absurd.
Quote
We should pick the values we wish to incorporate in our laws and not go along with fads generated by pressure groups.
QuoteMarriage is an institution that was introduced some 7,000 years ago by Shiva into society, primarily to protect the rights of children.
These days it doesn't legally matter that same sex unions don't conform to that religious/spiritual concept of the institution of marriage, what matters is that the same sex union enjoys the same rights in society as a male female marriage.
The rights of children is not a religious concept, but is a valid concern of law, even if not of interest to many posters here.
QuoteIf marriage was introduced for anything, it was so that men could have more control over women. Simple as.
Marriage is as much designed to keep men around contributing to the children,
Bullshit
Its ridiculous, in this day and age, to be against gay marriage. It is a civil rights issue. Ffs, they are normal people the same as the rest of us!
QuoteWe should pick the values we wish to incorporate in our laws and not go along with fads generated by pressure groups.
Are you serious?
Is homosexuality a fad 'generated by pressure groups'?
Quote from: muppet on February 07, 2015, 11:05:20 PM
QuoteWe should pick the values we wish to incorporate in our laws and not go along with fads generated by pressure groups.
Is homosexuality a fad 'generated by pressure groups'?
Presumably homosexuality hasn't changed much, nor have other aspects of human relationships, so there is no particular need for change of marriage.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 11:23:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 07, 2015, 11:05:20 PM
QuoteWe should pick the values we wish to incorporate in our laws and not go along with fads generated by pressure groups.
Is homosexuality a fad 'generated by pressure groups'?
Presumably homosexuality hasn't changed much, nor have other aspects of human relationships, so there is no particular need for change of marriage.
Better hope your kids don't get that gay disease 😆
Quote from: armaghniac on February 07, 2015, 10:05:52 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2015, 09:30:41 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 07, 2015, 09:28:07 PM
And if that's how you want to define marriage, should it be off limits for women or men who may be infertile, or women who want to get married in their 50s, 60s etc.?
I asked him something similar earlier in the thread with respect to fiscal benefits. No response yet...
I was watching GAA on the tele, this being GAABoard some of you could do with some interest in GAA.
I don't see that the status of individual men and women getting married is a problem for the institution of marriage, this has no connection to its extension to same sex relationships.
You are the one hanging your objections on the production of children. If couples choose to enter a relationship where children are NOT produced, then by YOUR logic and statements, they are reaping the benefits offered by the state and giving nothing in return. Society is made up of individuals. Rights are guaranteed for individuals.
Where do gay couples with children fall in your scheme? By your definition, they are earning those benefits by producing children.
So we should uphold long-standing traditions and not yield to fads generated by pressure groups. Wow, with that kind of thinking we'd still have slavery and women couldn't vote.
Same-sex marriage poses no threat to traditional marriage. Nor does it coerce churches to perform ceremonies contrary to their belief systems. Nor does it threaten the well-being of children. In fact, for some children it might offer a haven from dysfunctional homes from which some of them have come, homes broken apart by domestic violence, alcoholism and so on.
And for those who cite a biblical taboo, how's life for you without your rashers, ham and shrimp cocktail. Isn't the foremost scriptural value that of love, the same virtue that drives heterosexual couples to marry.
In enlightened societies, as they evolve, outmoded traditions are changed. As Martin Buber noted, and MLK restated, we should fix a system where one group treats another as lesser/inferior. We should replace an I/it relationship with an I/thou one. Granting same-sex couples the right to marry does that. It is their right, a civil right.
Quote from: J70 on February 08, 2015, 12:03:13 AM
You are the one hanging your objections on the production of children. If couples choose to enter a relationship where children are NOT produced, then by YOUR logic and statements, they are reaping the benefits offered by the state and giving nothing in return.
I said that I didn't see any need to micromanage the definition of marriage, as distinct from changing it entirely. This is a perfectly comprehensible difference to anyone not arguing for the sake of arguing.
QuoteSociety is made up of individuals. Rights are guaranteed for individuals.
All individuals have an equal right to marry at present, so presumably you are happy with this.
Quote
Where do gay couples with children fall in your scheme? By your definition, they are earning those benefits by producing children.
Gay couples do not produce children as a product of their union, but rather they separate the children from one of their parents and at best associate them with the sexual partner of one of the parents.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 08, 2015, 12:25:12 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 08, 2015, 12:03:13 AM
You are the one hanging your objections on the production of children. If couples choose to enter a relationship where children are NOT produced, then by YOUR logic and statements, they are reaping the benefits offered by the state and giving nothing in return.
I said that I didn't see any need to micromanage the definition of marriage, as distinct from changing it entirely. This is a perfectly comprehensible difference to anyone not arguing for the sake of arguing.
Not arguing for the sake of arguing at all. You are defending your objection to gay marriage on the grounds that they shouldn't be entitled to marriage benefits because they don't produce children. I am pointing out the flaws in your objection. If you don't want to address that, that's fine!
Basically, if marriage benefits are dished out for the purpose of child production, then their receipt should kick in ONLY when children are produced. There is no other just way.
Quote
QuoteSociety is made up of individuals. Rights are guaranteed for individuals.
All individuals have an equal right to marry at present, so presumably you are happy with this.
What an ignorant bigoted statement!
Straight people have the right to marry the person they love. Gays don't.
And its not as if they're looking for special priveleges. The right to gay marry will be extended to you too.
Quote
Quote
Where do gay couples with children fall in your scheme? By your definition, they are earning those benefits by producing children.
Gay couples do not produce children as a product of their union, but rather they separate the children from one of their parents and at best associate them with the sexual partner of one of the parents.
A little behind on scientific news I see. Three parent babies, using mitochondrial DNA for the third parent, is looking very viable. Its mainly aimed at curing disease, but it might not be too long till gay parents can be biological parents. What would your position be then?
But for now, if separation from a parent is such an issue, where do you stand on adoption, surrogate mothers, sperm and egg donation etc. etc.? How about divorced parents who have remarried? They're getting benefits, but their kids are separated from a parent.
BTW, you still haven't outlined how gay marriage will undermine straight marriage.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 07, 2015, 08:04:18 PM
MS you should never be afraid to air your convictions.There is a reason why there are two sexes,and it is utterly ridiculous to elevate unnatural phenomena onto an equal plane with normal,conventional.As usual in these debates the effect on children growing up with two same sex parents is not considered.In my view it cannot be a good environment,every child needs a mother and father to nurture them through the formative years,not two mothers and no father nor vice versa.
Homosexuality is as natural as the gene for alcoholism or the proportion of beautiful women in a population.
"Everyone needs a mother and a father. "Alcoholism and trauma often take parents away from families leaving one parent to bring up kids. That is "natural" too. But it is better than 2 women getting married ?
Genes are irrelevant.Alcohol is a disease for which victims receive treatment,counselling etc.No one is trying to suppress homosexuality but it is wrong to elevate such relationships to a par with normal heterosexual ones and demeans the holy sacrament of marriage.I dare anyone in this discussion to state that they would have been content to have been reared by same sex "parents".
LCohen the bible is laced with condemnation of homosexuality.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 08, 2015, 09:04:57 AM
Genes are irrelevant.Alcohol is a disease for which victims receive treatment,counselling etc.No one is trying to suppress homosexuality but it is wrong to elevate such relationships to a par with normal heterosexual ones and demeans the holy sacrament of marriage.I dare anyone in this discussion to state that they would have been content to have been reared by same sex "parents".
LCohen the bible is laced with condemnation of homosexuality.
The bible is laced with a lot of things that are conveniently ignored.
And marriage is only a holy sacrament if it's a religious marriage. An increasing number of heterosexual weddings are civil. Do you want to ban these too?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 08, 2015, 09:04:57 AM
Genes are irrelevant.Alcohol is a disease for which victims receive treatment,counselling etc.No one is trying to suppress homosexuality but it is wrong to elevate such relationships to a par with normal heterosexual ones and demeans the holy sacrament of marriage.I dare anyone in this discussion to state that they would have been content to have been reared by same sex "parents".
LCohen the bible is laced with condemnation of homosexuality.
This thread has a great dynamic. Opposing views strongly held plus Tony doing comedy.
The holy sacrament of marriage is a social construct that is decreasing in relevance. Lots of kids are reared now by unmarried parents. It doesn't seem to do them much harm.
Do gay people go to heaven, Tony ?
I would have a lot of time for magpie seanie's point of view. He doesn't feel comfortable about voting yes but he doesn't come out with a load of mumbo jumbo in support of his thinking.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 08, 2015, 09:04:57 AM
Genes are irrelevant.Alcohol is a disease for which victims receive treatment,counselling etc.No one is trying to suppress homosexuality but it is wrong to elevate such relationships to a par with normal heterosexual ones and demeans the holy sacrament of marriage.I dare anyone in this discussion to state that they would have been content to have been reared by same sex "parents".
LCohen the bible is laced with condemnation of homosexuality.
Tony what if the bible is all bullshit??
Quote from: T Fearon on February 08, 2015, 09:04:57 AM
Genes are irrelevant.
Genes are the reason we exist and have survived thus far.
QuoteAlcohol is a disease for which victims receive treatment,counselling etc.
Alcohol is a liquid not a disease.
QuoteNo one is trying to suppress homosexuality but it is wrong to elevate such relationships to a par with normal heterosexual ones and demeans the holy sacrament of marriage.
"I am not trying to put down Irish people but it is wrong to elevate them to the same status as British people and to bestow equal rights upon them."
QuoteI dare anyone in this discussion to state that they would have been content to have been reared by same sex "parents".
No one could have been before now. We may find in the future they outperform other children. I dare any Armagh person to say they would have been content to be raised as a Tyronie. Should we ban them too?
QuoteLCohen the bible is laced with condemnation of homosexuality.
This is simply what it comes down to for many people. I will condemn others because then I will go to Heaven.
What if the bible is not bullshit,but true,and there is a Day of Judgement and a Heaven and Hell.It cannot be discounted as none of us know whether it's true or not.
All Christian denominations oppose homosexuality (but not homosexuals),it's one of the few points of total agreement.They are perfectly entitled therefore to oppose gay marriage as a desecration of the sacrament of matrimony and to have real concern about where society is heading.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 08, 2015, 09:54:27 AM
What if the bible is not bullshit,but true,and there is a Day of Judgement and a Heaven and Hell.It cannot be discounted as none of us know whether it's true or not.
All Christian denominations oppose homosexuality (but not homosexuals),it's one of the few points of total agreement.They are perfectly entitled therefore to oppose gay marriage as a desecration of the sacrament of matrimony and to have real concern about where society is heading.
All Christian denominations condemned Jews until about a century ago.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 08, 2015, 09:54:27 AM
What if the bible is not bullshit,but true,and there is a Day of Judgement and a Heaven and Hell.It cannot be discounted as none of us know whether it's true or not.
All Christian denominations oppose homosexuality (but not homosexuals),it's one of the few points of total agreement.They are perfectly entitled therefore to oppose gay marriage as a desecration of the sacrament of matrimony and to have real concern about where society is heading.
Its one of the silver linings of this vote, it will show the "christian denominations" that the majority of people dont' give two shites what they think or teach.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 08, 2015, 09:04:57 AM
LCohen the bible is laced with condemnation of homosexuality.
You keep telling me how easy it will be you to fine evidence and then go on to fail to produce any evidence. Fail in the most complete sense i.e. not one single syllable
BTW "laced" indicates a very interesting choice of verb
Quote from: muppet on February 08, 2015, 09:57:18 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 08, 2015, 09:54:27 AM
What if the bible is not bullshit,but true,and there is a Day of Judgement and a Heaven and Hell.It cannot be discounted as none of us know whether it's true or not.
All Christian denominations oppose homosexuality (but not homosexuals),it's one of the few points of total agreement.They are perfectly entitled therefore to oppose gay marriage as a desecration of the sacrament of matrimony and to have real concern about where society is heading.
All Christian denominations condemned Jews until about a century ago.
Tony it does not work like that. Are you following the quran, the book of mormon or even great tracts of the ilyad? Or do you have proof that they definitively wrong. Your life would be one of great hypocrisy if your justification for hedging the bible did not extend to other texts of a similar nature
Muppet
well said. You have reminded all who read this that it is very possible for christianity to be unified on a point of practice and for that practice to be motivated by either shocking ignorance or pure "evil" and to be subsequently exposed as such. The unity of christianity on a point is no barometer of the wisdom or even decency of the position. And you have hit upon a shining example.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 08, 2015, 09:04:57 AM
Genes are irrelevant.Alcohol is a disease for which victims receive treatment,counselling etc.No one is trying to suppress homosexuality but it is wrong to elevate such relationships to a par with normal heterosexual ones and demeans the holy sacrament of marriage.I dare anyone in this discussion to state that they would have been content to have been reared by same sex "parents".
LCohen the bible is laced with condemnation of homosexuality.
I would have been fine with it. I'm sure the bigots and ignoramuses would have made life difficult at times, but sure that is the case for any family that is different, whether it is skin colour or religion or accent or whatever.
Is it just me or are there a significant number of people who would vote for or support anything just to get up the noses of Christians? Where does this hatred of Christianity emanate from? Is it a sign of fear that causes many to ridicule the existence of God or the veracity of scripture? Deep down is there a tiny part of them that concedes that maybe it is all true and that they will face judgement? Why can't Christian beliefs be respected? After all,if the people support gay marriage in a referendum,it will be enacted,but no right thinking person should deny the Christian churches the right to guide their flocks and others?
Given the talk about alcoholism, i think I'm a Fearonholic. I look at the posts, think to myself "No, that way lies madness," I go and lie in a darkened room, get the shakes.....and then I'm back on the site, hitting reply. Good Jaysis, here we go again.....
Tony, this vote is not about scripture. Any changes in the constitution will not have to be adopted by the Catholic Church. It simply means the state will recognise these marriages, which will be made under the auspices of the state, not organised religions (except for the ones who do recognize them consistent with their own doctrine).
Given the ambiguity and doubt the Pope has expressed about Catholicism's treatment of homosexuality (don't worry if you don't recognise the words "ambiguity" and "doubt" - they relate to human emotions, Tony) you would think that any Catholics, who think deeply about their religion, would question the wisdom of taking a millenia-old collection of books from the Middle East on face value. Especially given that many of these books directly contradict each other.
But even that is just my opinion, it is not my place to question the beliefs of others, and this is not what this referendum seeks to do. Rather than seeking to extend secular influence into religious matters, it seeks to remove religious influence from the secular. And after that, let every cripple have his own crutch.
That doesn't mean, of course, that i have to listen to some guy telling me I'm going to burn in hell forever for holding this opinion - that's just bad manners, and every religion and non-religion has their share of nuts. I'd hate to be stuck in a lift with Richard Dawkins, whilst on my way to bringing my son to his first Communion, for instance. I think you'd get on with him Tony. Fundamentalists always recognise each other.
I am not a religious fundamentalist,but I believe the basic tenet that commit sin and face punishment.I don't get too exercised by the minutiae of the bible,save for the gospel and the life of Christ,and particularly his resurrection. But scripture does make it clear in a non contradictory manner that there is no approval for homosexuality and I think the issue of gay marriage and particularly the ability of those in gay marriages to adopt children,should be examined very carefully for all the ramifications. It simply is not natural and should not be elevated to the same plane of what is natural.
Yes, I know you don't bother with the minutiae of the Bible. in another thread, you said Barrabas died beside Jesus. Which is a fairly big mistake to make, Mr. Luther.
But if you really don't bother with the minutiae, then why don't you tell us exactly where the homosexuality prohibition in the Bible is in the Bible - surely, for a one-page Christian like yourself, it must have been somewhere fairly prominent? Like the 10 commandments, maybe? Or the Last Supper? Or the Sermon on the Mount? Surely, a man as unconcerned with details as yourself isn't talking about something as obscure as Leviticus? Because it is not mentioned in the Gospels Tony.
As for the unnatural nature of homosexuality - well, it's been present in human behaviour and cultures since there were humans, and I think the Neanadarthals (you know them tony!) and the Cro-Magnons had their share as well. Indeed, homosexuality is present in all forms of mammals, especially those Godless dolphins!! I know you don't like evolution Tony, but it has always been with us, it hasn't been bred out of our and other species, and what could be more natural than that?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 08, 2015, 12:45:21 PM
I am not a religious fundamentalist,but I believe the basic tenet that commit sin and face punishment.I don't get too exercised by the minutiae of the bible,save for the gospel and the life of Christ,and particularly his resurrection. But scripture does make it clear in a non contradictory manner that there is no approval for homosexuality and I think the issue of gay marriage and particularly the ability of those in gay marriages to adopt children,should be examined very carefully for all the ramifications. It simply is not natural and should not be elevated to the same plane of what is natural.
Awful stuff there. really awful. the absence of (and indeed contempt for) logic, rational thinking and indeed compassion.
You are quite entitled to your view on the link between sin and punishment. But you will be held to account on what should constitute sin and separately what should constitute legitimate punishment. It is the sin bit that is up for debate here. You source your belief that homosexual behaviour is sinful per the scripture. Kindly evidence this? Be specific.
As for the non-natural bit. Kindly inform us where a homosexuality comes from if it is not from nature? You have declare that it is "simply not natural" and being a man of reason you will not have said this if you did not have a sound basis - all I'm asking is that you share this with us.
Quote from: easytiger95 on February 08, 2015, 01:03:44 PM
Yes, I know you don't bother with the minutiae of the Bible. in another thread, you said Barrabas died beside Jesus. Which is a fairly big mistake to make, Mr. Luther.
But if you really don't bother with the minutiae, then why don't you tell us exactly where the homosexuality prohibition in the Bible is in the Bible - surely, for a one-page Christian like yourself, it must have been somewhere fairly prominent? Like the 10 commandments, maybe? Or the Last Supper? Or the Sermon on the Mount? Surely, a man as unconcerned with details as yourself isn't talking about something as obscure as Leviticus? Because it is not mentioned in the Gospels Tony.
As for the unnatural nature of homosexuality - well, it's been present in human behaviour and cultures since there were humans, and I think the Neanadarthals (you know them tony!) and the Cro-Magnons had their share as well. Indeed, homosexuality is present in all forms of mammals, especially those Godless dolphins!! I know you don't like evolution Tony, but it has always been with us, it hasn't been bred out of our and other species, and what could be more natural than that?
Easy tiger. easytiger95
You are dealing with Tony on a rational basis and asking him questions. Tony will dodge the question and then accuse you of being anti-religion. It is obvious that decency would dictate that Tony engages in the debate and answers the questions. I will log in later to see if Tony can measure up to the standard of decency.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 08, 2015, 12:03:56 PM
Is it just me or are there a significant number of people who would vote for or support anything just to get up the noses of Christians? Where does this hatred of Christianity emanate from? Is it a sign of fear that causes many to ridicule the existence of God or the veracity of scripture? Deep down is there a tiny part of them that concedes that maybe it is all true and that they will face judgement? Why can't Christian beliefs be respected? After all,if the people support gay marriage in a referendum,it will be enacted,but no right thinking person should deny the Christian churches the right to guide their flocks and others?
Yeah Tony, this is all about disrespecting christians! Just like the civil rights movements in the six counties was all about sticking it to the unionists. Same with white people in the US south. They were the real victims!
Religion is and has been used to justify all kinds of questionable and objectionable beliefs and practices. There is no onus on society to respect any belief just because it is draped in the fig leaf of religion.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 08, 2015, 12:45:21 PM
I am not a religious fundamentalist,but I believe the basic tenet that commit sin and face punishment.I don't get too exercised by the minutiae of the bible,save for the gospel and the life of Christ,and particularly his resurrection. But scripture does make it clear in a non contradictory manner that there is no approval for homosexuality and I think the issue of gay marriage and particularly the ability of those in gay marriages to adopt children,should be examined very carefully for all the ramifications. It simply is not natural and should not be elevated to the same plane of what is natural.
Post it up Tony.
Otherwise you might be accused of bearing false witness.
Isn't the passage in Leviticus (along with a lot if other important instructions! :p ).
Quote from: J70 on February 08, 2015, 02:37:05 PM
Isn't the passage in Leviticus (along with a lot if other important instructions! :p ).
Quote"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Here is Leviticus on hairstyles:
QuoteYou shall not round off the side-growth of your heads
Here it is on pigs:
Quote"You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses;
Timothy states the following:
Quote"Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."
Where is Tony's moral pontification on the above Biblical issues?
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 10:02:09 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on February 06, 2015, 09:24:49 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
There's words for people like you.
Correction -
There ARE words.
Let's play countdown
O H M O P H O B E
See if you can make a word out of that....
Quote from: foxcommander on February 08, 2015, 07:36:47 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 10:02:09 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on February 06, 2015, 09:24:49 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
There's words for people like you.
Correction -
There ARE words.
Let's play countdown
O H M O P H O B E
See if you can make a word out of that....
mohophobe = fear of people in caravans
ohmophobe = fear of resistors
Quote from: armaghniac on February 08, 2015, 09:17:44 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on February 08, 2015, 07:36:47 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 10:02:09 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on February 06, 2015, 09:24:49 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
There's words for people like you.
Correction -
There ARE words.
Let's play countdown
O H M O P H O B E
See if you can make a word out of that....
mohophobe = fear of people in caravans
ohmophobe = fear of resistors
omaghphobe = fear of blankets
omophhobe = fear of detergents
I thought Omaghphobe was fear of Dominic Kirwan?
Quote from: foxcommander on February 08, 2015, 07:36:47 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 10:02:09 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on February 06, 2015, 09:24:49 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
There's words for people like you.
Correction -
There ARE words.
Let's play countdown
O H M O P H O B E
See if you can make a word out of that....
So, will you label anyone who dares to vote no, as I would, a homophobe?
Quote from: Sandy Hill on February 08, 2015, 10:02:17 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on February 08, 2015, 07:36:47 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 10:02:09 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on February 06, 2015, 09:24:49 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
There's words for people like you.
Correction -
There ARE words.
Let's play countdown
O H M O P H O B E
See if you can make a word out of that....
So, will you label anyone who dares to vote no, as I would, a homophobe?
they'll probably label you as deranged as well.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 08, 2015, 10:20:28 PM
Quote from: Sandy Hill on February 08, 2015, 10:02:17 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on February 08, 2015, 07:36:47 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 10:02:09 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on February 06, 2015, 09:24:49 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
There's words for people like you.
Correction -
There ARE words.
Let's play countdown
O H M O P H O B E
See if you can make a word out of that....
So, will you label anyone who dares to vote no, as I would, a homophobe?
they'll probably label you as deranged as well.
The word was unhinged. And yes anyone who argues that the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children is always going to run the risk of being labelled unhinged. That stands to reason.
Quote from: Sandy Hill on February 08, 2015, 10:02:17 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on February 08, 2015, 07:36:47 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 10:02:09 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on February 06, 2015, 09:24:49 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
There's words for people like you.
Correction -
There ARE words.
Let's play countdown
O H M O P H O B E
See if you can make a word out of that....
So, will you label anyone who dares to vote no, as I would, a homophobe?
Certainly anyone voting No would run the risk of being labelled a homophobe. But in your case it probably would be best to outline your reasons for voting no and then I could consider whether i would label you a homophobe. That way we can all be logical and reasonable.
When I say "outline your reasons" I do mean something more than simply saying the bible is generally but not in any specific way that you can share with us against homosexuality. That would just be cowardice and illogicality. It will take something more than that.
Looks like Tony et al have accepted that there is nothing in the bible that could demand or even justify voting No in this referendum.
Either that or they are under some form of compulsion to prevent them sharing this valuable data with the sane world.
My apologies, Sandy Hill, what I meant to say that they'll probably label you as
(http://www.artandartdeadlines.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Learn-more-about-the-Unhinged-show-from-BWAC.jpg)
Quote from: armaghniac on February 08, 2015, 11:31:33 PM
My apologies, Sandy Hill, what I meant to say that they'll probably label you as
(http://www.artandartdeadlines.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Learn-more-about-the-Unhinged-show-from-BWAC.jpg)
Enough of the distractions. Have you yet come up with anything, anthing at all to support your view that that Yes campaign is constituted by people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? Anything at all?
Quote from: LCohen on February 08, 2015, 11:40:55 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 08, 2015, 11:31:33 PM
My apologies, Sandy Hill, what I meant to say that they'll probably label you as
(http://www.artandartdeadlines.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Learn-more-about-the-Unhinged-show-from-BWAC.jpg)
Enough of the distractions. Have you yet come up with anything, anthing at all to support your view that that Yes campaign is constituted by people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? Anything at all?
You are not paying attention, or more likely have decided to ignore anything that doesn't suit.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 08, 2015, 11:53:47 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 08, 2015, 11:40:55 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 08, 2015, 11:31:33 PM
My apologies, Sandy Hill, what I meant to say that they'll probably label you as
(http://www.artandartdeadlines.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Learn-more-about-the-Unhinged-show-from-BWAC.jpg)
Enough of the distractions. Have you yet come up with anything, anthing at all to support your view that that Yes campaign is constituted by people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? Anything at all?
You are not paying attention, or more likely have decided to ignore anything that doesn't suit.
I'm quite, quite sure that I have been keeping up. I'm quite, quite sure that you have offered nothing that supports your wild accusation that the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children. Quite sure.
Quote from: LCohen on February 09, 2015, 12:06:56 AM
I'm quite, quite sure that I have been keeping up. I'm quite, quite sure that you have offered nothing that supports your wild accusation that the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children. Quite sure.
In post #81 I stated that the people promoting this campaign were to opposed to support for men and women marrying and raising children. This is self evident.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 12:33:07 AM
Quote from: LCohen on February 09, 2015, 12:06:56 AM
I'm quite, quite sure that I have been keeping up. I'm quite, quite sure that you have offered nothing that supports your wild accusation that the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children. Quite sure.
In post #81 I stated that the people promoting this campaign were to opposed to support for men and women marrying and raising children. This is self evident.
Its just brilliant. Brilliant. That post has all the intellectual rigour of "my argument must be true because I said it earlier"
In what way is it self evident?
Awful stuff really and I shouldn't laugh. There remains the risk that this sort of unhinged thinking results in the continuation of inequality
Well then, since you are such an advocate of "equality", why are married people treated differently from single people, shouldn't everyone be equal?
The next abortion referendum will be rira agus ruaille buaille if this discussion is anything to go by.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 08, 2015, 09:54:27 AM
What if the bible is not bullshit,but true,and there is a Day of Judgement and a Heaven and Hell.It cannot be discounted as none of us know whether it's true or not.
All Christian denominations oppose homosexuality (but not homosexuals),it's one of the few points of total agreement.They are perfectly entitled therefore to oppose gay marriage as a desecration of the sacrament of matrimony and to have real concern about where society is heading.
Regardless of your stance on gay marriage, if the bible is real, you in particular will fail the entrance exam on plenty of other criteria.
Tony Fearon presenting himself as a poster boy for good Catholics everywhere. They'll be mortified.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 12:33:07 AM
Quote from: LCohen on February 09, 2015, 12:06:56 AM
I'm quite, quite sure that I have been keeping up. I'm quite, quite sure that you have offered nothing that supports your wild accusation that the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children. Quite sure.
In post #81 I stated that the people promoting this campaign were to opposed to support for men and women marrying and raising children. This is self evident.
I can't follow this logic at all. This is the strangest syllogism I've seen, if it can be called a syllogism.
All yes supporters support Gay Marriage - no problem so far
Some people are opposed to 'support for man and women marrying and raising children' - fair enough I suppose
Therefore 'the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children' - WTF?
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 11:58:44 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 12:33:07 AM
Quote from: LCohen on February 09, 2015, 12:06:56 AM
I'm quite, quite sure that I have been keeping up. I'm quite, quite sure that you have offered nothing that supports your wild accusation that the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children. Quite sure.
In post #81 I stated that the people promoting this campaign were to opposed to support for men and women marrying and raising children. This is self evident.
I can't follow this logic at all. This is the strangest syllogism I've seen, if it can be called a syllogism.
All yes supporters support Gay Marriage - no problem so far
Some of them probably don't, but are just trying to piss off the church/ the establishment/ The Tea Party/ their mother/ Tony Fearon or whatever.
Quote
Therefore 'the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children' - WTF?
see post #81.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 12:08:16 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 11:58:44 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 12:33:07 AM
Quote from: LCohen on February 09, 2015, 12:06:56 AM
I'm quite, quite sure that I have been keeping up. I'm quite, quite sure that you have offered nothing that supports your wild accusation that the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children. Quite sure.
In post #81 I stated that the people promoting this campaign were to opposed to support for men and women marrying and raising children. This is self evident.
I can't follow this logic at all. This is the strangest syllogism I've seen, if it can be called a syllogism.
All yes supporters support Gay Marriage - no problem so far
Some of them probably don't, but are just trying to piss off the church/ the establishment/ The Tea Party/ their mother/ Tony Fearon or whatever.
Quote
Therefore 'the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children' - WTF?
see post #81.
The only thing I can find is a post assuming that if a Gay couple raise a child, then it is a child of one Gay partner and a 3rd person. You then further assume that the child came from a 'normal' couple (a happily married man and a woman that is) that was split up in favour of the Gay couple. That is two quite big assumptions to base the following on:
'the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children'For a start if a Gay man and a woman have a child, under the current law the child won't go to the father. Unless the mother dies or doesn't want the kid in which case the referendum will allow the gay couple to properly become parents. You don't consider the possibility of the gay couple adopting non-biologically related children which to me is the obvious route to a family for them.
I asked the question earlier, which no one answered, would you prefer to see a suitable gay couple adopt a child, or leave the child in an orphanage?
For me it is a no brainer and is a big reason why I will vote yes.
Quote from: muppetI asked the question earlier, which no one answered, would you prefer to see a suitable gay couple adopt a child, or leave the child in an orphanage?
I would prefer to see a suitable gay couple adopt a child, rather than leave the child in an orphanage.
I would prefer to see a suitable normal couple adopt a child rather than a gay couple.
The point is that there are very few adoptions, and any child centric approach to adoption would scarcely exhaust the pool of suitable normal couples, so that others would not get to adopt. In the present atmosphere which emphasises the adults rather than the children this would be "discrimination".
QuoteFor me it is a no brainer and is a big reason why I will vote yes.
This is not a good reason to vote yes, we are being told by the yes campaign that this has nothing to do with adoption, or children of any sort.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 12:26:11 PM
Quote from: muppetI asked the question earlier, which no one answered, would you prefer to see a suitable gay couple adopt a child, or leave the child in an orphanage?
I would prefer to see a suitable gay couple adopt a child, rather than leave the child in an orphanage.
I would prefer to see a suitable normal couple adopt a child rather than a gay couple.
The point is that there are very few adoptions, and any child centric approach to adoption would scarcely exhaust the pool of suitable normal couples, so that others would not get to adopt. In the present atmosphere which emphasises the adults rather than the children this would be "discrimination".
Woah there. Gay couples can't adopt now, so that in itself lowers the figures. Also, are you basing your figures on the adoption of Irish children only? According to this only 1.5% of orphaned children worldwide are adopted each year: http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/07/08/child_adoptions_worldwide/ (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/07/08/child_adoptions_worldwide/)
Quote
QuoteFor me it is a no brainer and is a big reason why I will vote yes.
This is not a good reason to vote yes, we are being told by the yes campaign that this has nothing to do with adoption, or children of any sort.
[/quote]
Do I seem like the sort of fella that is persuaded by a yes or no campaign? ;D
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 12:37:16 PM
Woah there. Gay couples can't adopt now, so that in itself lowers the figures.
It doesn't lower the figures. The number of children for adoption is very much less than the number wishing to adopt so an increase in the number eligible to adopt is neither here nor there.
QuoteAlso, are you basing your figures on the adoption of Irish children only?
QuoteI am basing my figures on the number legally adopted in Ireland, whether Irish or foreign. There may be many more children in the world, but these may be in places where there is no legal path to adoption and many are in places not interested in gay adoption.
QuoteDo I seem like the sort of fella that is persuaded by a yes or no campaign? ;D
I'm sure you will reflect on the points raised by both.
Apart from the opposition to homosexuality / gay marriage explicit in scripture,what chance has any child of growing up normal in a gay marriage scenario? What chance has it got of experiencing the natural heterosexual perspective so vital for normality,procreation etc? Zilch in my opinion,and whatever about gay marriage I don't see how anyone could rationally support the upbringing of children in such an environment
Quote from: T Fearon on February 09, 2015, 05:54:27 PM
Apart from the opposition to homosexuality / gay marriage explicit in scripture,what chance has any child of growing up normal in a gay marriage scenario? What chance has it got of experiencing the natural heterosexual perspective so vital for normality,procreation etc? Zilch in my opinion,and whatever about gay marriage I don't see how anyone could rationally support the upbringing of children in such an environment
Are you saying that gay parents will turn a heterosexual child gay?
That they wouldn't have the intelligence or wherewithal to properly educate their child, just like heterosexual couples?
I suppose you're right though. I mean what is a young child supposed to think when he sees his two male parents always dressed in leather chaps and whips and never, ever doing normal every day stuff like other parents.
How could a child growing up in that scenario and be normal? How could it grow up with any concept of opposite sex relationships,with an appreciation of the different values a man and woman brings to parenthood?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 09, 2015, 05:54:27 PM
Apart from the opposition to homosexuality / gay marriage explicit in scripture,what chance has any child of growing up normal in a gay marriage scenario? What chance has it got of experiencing the natural heterosexual perspective so vital for normality,procreation etc? Zilch in my opinion,and whatever about gay marriage I don't see how anyone could rationally support the upbringing of children in such an environment
You are right, leave it in the orphanage.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 09, 2015, 06:06:30 PM
How could a child growing up in that scenario and be normal? How could it grow up with any concept of opposite sex relationships,with an appreciation of the different values a man and woman brings to parenthood?
Normal? Hmm - nice.
But yes - it's a puzzle, for sure. I mean, how could a child of a heterosexual couple grow up with any concept of same sex relationships? You'll have to give us your theory of where homosexuality comes from under this edition of your logic.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 09, 2015, 06:06:30 PM
How could a child growing up in that scenario and be normal? How could it grow up with any concept of opposite sex relationships,with an appreciation of the different values a man and woman brings to parenthood?
What different values?
That women may be a little moody for a few days each month? That men hate asking for directions? Are they going to be cocooned away from the world, never interacting with the opposite sex?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 09, 2015, 06:06:30 PM
How could a child growing up in that scenario and be normal? How could it grow up with any concept of opposite sex relationships,with an appreciation of the different values a man and woman brings to parenthood?
I'm guessing you emerged from a heterosexual relationship and they made a right f**k up.
You know it's not right,not normal,and I have not seen a convincing argument to the contrary
Quote from: T Fearon on February 09, 2015, 06:50:35 PM
You know it's not right,not normal,and I have not seen a convincing argument to the contrary
Everything that we know and do was 'not right,not normal' at one time.
Imagine the reaction to the first fella to move out of the cave, into the suburbs.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 09, 2015, 06:50:35 PM
You know it's not right,not normal,and I have not seen a convincing argument to the contrary
Nor have you attempted to offer one in support. You are a child.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 09, 2015, 06:50:35 PM
You know it's not right,not normal,and I have not seen a convincing argument to the contrary
Interracial marriage was illegal in parts of the US as recently as the sixties. The same decade saw Aboriginal people in Australia removed from the native fauna list. Homosexual acts were illegal as was contraception in Ireland until the 80s.
What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms.
Besides, if you want to discriminate against a group of people, is the onus not on YOU to justify it?
Surely the burden of proof falls more on those who wish to change the status quo?
Quote from: Sandy Hill on February 09, 2015, 07:52:59 PM
Surely the burden of proof falls more on those who wish to change the status quo?
Depends on what the proposed change to the status quo is. If we wanted to embrace nuclear power, then obviously there are legitimate arguments for and against which would have to be debated. Equality issues, in the other hand, the burden is on (or should be on) those who wish to deny it.
So I've heard the jist of the story of 50 shades of grey. And there have been some high profile cases recently of young men (pre the legal age of consent) being seduced (under the law: abused) by older women.
If a consenting older woman and a consenting younger man/boy want to be together why can't they be? Why is their desire/love/lust not equal to yours?
Quote from: J70 on February 09, 2015, 07:43:05 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 09, 2015, 06:50:35 PM
You know it's not right,not normal,and I have not seen a convincing argument to the contrary
Interracial marriage was illegal in parts of the US as recently as the sixties. The same decade saw Aboriginal people in Australia removed from the native fauna list. Homosexual acts were illegal as was contraception in Ireland until the 80s.
What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms.
Besides, if you want to discriminate against a group of people, is the onus not on YOU to justify it?
You are wasting your time arguing with him. Quite simply, he is a narrow-minded bigot.
Quote from: Sandy Hill on February 09, 2015, 07:52:59 PM
Surely the burden of proof falls more on those who wish to change the status quo?
As the master said to the slave.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2015, 08:09:00 PM
So I've heard the jist of the story of 50 shades of grey. And there have been some high profile cases recently of young men (pre the legal age of consent) being seduced (under the law: abused) by older women.
If a consenting older woman and a consenting younger man/boy want to be together why can't they be? Why is their desire/love/lust not equal to yours?
Because the law and experience tells us that the young are not mature enough to make such a decision so we put an arbitrary age on it to protect easily influenced (and thus easily abused) children.
Quote from: Sandy Hill on February 08, 2015, 10:02:17 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on February 08, 2015, 07:36:47 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 10:02:09 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on February 06, 2015, 09:24:49 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 06, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.
There's words for people like you.
Correction -
There ARE words.
Let's play countdown
O H M O P H O B E
See if you can make a word out of that....
So, will you label anyone who dares to vote no, as I would, a homophobe?
No, just rossfan in this case as he's the one who said it.
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 08:18:02 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2015, 08:09:00 PM
So I've heard the jist of the story of 50 shades of grey. And there have been some high profile cases recently of young men (pre the legal age of consent) being seduced (under the law: abused) by older women.
If a consenting older woman and a consenting younger man/boy want to be together why can't they be? Why is their desire/love/lust not equal to yours?
Because the law and experience tells us that the young are not mature enough to make such a decision so we put an arbitrary age on it to protect easily influenced (and thus easily abused) children.
what did stepping out of the cave teach us?
every woman who has read this new book probably think now that it was ok for this lad to have been "abused" at 15 by the older woman to make him in to the man he is today....
what if society starts leaning that way - you might not think it now but 50 years ago who would have thought Protestants and Catholics would be getting married.. or two men?
where are lines drawn and erased and by whom?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2015, 08:09:00 PM
So I've heard the jist of the story of 50 shades of grey. And there have been some high profile cases recently of young men (pre the legal age of consent) being seduced (under the law: abused) by older women.
If a consenting older woman and a consenting younger man/boy want to be together why can't they be? Why is their desire/love/lust not equal to yours?
Once the kid his 16 or 18 or whatever the legal age in the jurisdiction is, then they can currently be together, can't they?
If you want to debate age of consent, voting age, drinking age, driving age and all the other child-into-adulthood thresholds, that is a separate issue.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2015, 08:22:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 08:18:02 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2015, 08:09:00 PM
So I've heard the jist of the story of 50 shades of grey. And there have been some high profile cases recently of young men (pre the legal age of consent) being seduced (under the law: abused) by older women.
If a consenting older woman and a consenting younger man/boy want to be together why can't they be? Why is their desire/love/lust not equal to yours?
Because the law and experience tells us that the young are not mature enough to make such a decision so we put an arbitrary age on it to protect easily influenced (and thus easily abused) children.
what did stepping out of the cave teach us?
every woman who has read this new book probably think now that it was ok for this lad to have been "abused" at 15 by the older woman to make him in to the man he is today....
what if society starts leaning that way - you might not think it now but 50 years ago who would have thought Protestants and Catholics would be getting married.. or two men?
where are lines drawn and erased and by whom?
I didn't read that book so we not be speaking about the same thing.
If society 'starts leaning' that way? It used to be that way. Women got married at 16 and younger in this country 150 years ago.
Didn't Jerry Lee Lewis marry his 13 year old cousin?
So, Iceman, pull your thought to its logical conclusion--who'd have thought fifty shades of grey, I mean fifty years ago, that Protestants or Catholics could get married . . . Or two men, BUT today Protestants and Catholics do get married (snagged me a Proddy) and all is well, as it would be if two men got married. Unless the two men decide to draw cartoons of Mohammed and print them in the Belfast Telegragh. Well, then there'd be Hell to pay, but that's another scenario. The world will not end if same-sex couples marry. And maybe another barrier obstructing equality can be removed.
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 09, 2015, 08:45:48 PM
So, Iceman, pull your thought to its logical conclusion--who'd have thought fifty shades of grey, I mean fifty years ago, that Protestants or Catholics could get married . . . Or two men, BUT today Protestants and Catholics do get married (snagged me a Proddy) and all is well, as it would be if two men got married. Unless the two men decide to draw cartoons of Mohammed and print them in the Belfast Telegragh. Well, then there'd be Hell to pay, but that's another scenario. The world will not end if same-sex couples marry. And maybe another barrier obstructing equality can be removed.
I just don't know where the equality line is drawn. That's what I am asking here. who draws that line?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2015, 08:51:40 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 09, 2015, 08:45:48 PM
So, Iceman, pull your thought to its logical conclusion--who'd have thought fifty shades of grey, I mean fifty years ago, that Protestants or Catholics could get married . . . Or two men, BUT today Protestants and Catholics do get married (snagged me a Proddy) and all is well, as it would be if two men got married. Unless the two men decide to draw cartoons of Mohammed and print them in the Belfast Telegragh. Well, then there'd be Hell to pay, but that's another scenario. The world will not end if same-sex couples marry. And maybe another barrier obstructing equality can be removed.
I just don't know where the equality line is drawn. That's what I am asking hershe. who draws that line?
Society, through the democratic process. That's why we're having a referendum. Who else should draw it?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2015, 08:51:40 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 09, 2015, 08:45:48 PM
So, Iceman, pull your thought to its logical conclusion--who'd have thought fifty shades of grey, I mean fifty years ago, that Protestants or Catholics could get married . . . Or two men, BUT today Protestants and Catholics do get married (snagged me a Proddy) and all is well, as it would be if two men got married. Unless the two men decide to draw cartoons of Mohammed and print them in the Belfast Telegragh. Well, then there'd be Hell to pay, but that's another scenario. The world will not end if same-sex couples marry. And maybe another barrier obstructing equality can be removed.
I just don't know where the equality line is drawn. That's what I am asking here. who draws that line?
Sometimes popular vote, sometimes the judiciary making constitutional rulings, sometimes legislators.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 01:08:47 AM
Well then, since you are such an advocate of "equality", why are married people treated differently from single people, shouldn't everyone be equal?
Yes
everyone should be equal. Nobody reasonable would use one inequality to justify another inequality
Quote from: J70 on February 09, 2015, 07:43:05 PM
Interracial marriage was illegal in parts of the US as recently as the sixties. The same decade saw Aboriginal people in Australia removed from the native fauna list. Homosexual acts were illegal as was contraception in Ireland until the 80s.
This is comparing apples and cabbages, which is par for the course.Interracial sexual relations and homosexual ones were outright prohibited, the intention was to not allow them happen. Likewise the intention was to prevent the use of contraceptives, it wasn't the case that it was ok it you called it birth control. Same sex relations are now in no way prohibited, what is at issue is whether we should fund them with tax relief and the like.
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 09, 2015, 08:45:48 PM
So, Iceman, pull your thought to its logical conclusion--who'd have thought fifty shades of grey, I mean fifty years ago, that Protestants or Catholics could get married . . . Or two men, BUT today Protestants and Catholics do get married (snagged me a Proddy) and all is well, as it would be if two men got married. Unless the two men decide to draw cartoons of Mohammed and print them in the Belfast Telegragh. Well, then there'd be Hell to pay, but that's another scenario.
Another pointless comparison, my aunt married a protestant 70 years ago, there was no legal restriction on doing so.
Quote
The world will not end if same-sex couples marry
No, but it will be poorer place if marriage is devalued in this way.
Quote from: LCohen on February 09, 2015, 09:10:25 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 01:08:47 AM
Well then, since you are such an advocate of "equality", why are married people treated differently from single people, shouldn't everyone be equal?
Yes everyone should be equal. Nobody reasonable would use one inequality to justify another inequality
So single people should be equal to married people?
QuoteSo single people should be equal to married people?
This is silly.
A single person is equal to a married person, with the exception of the rights they agreed to amend as a result of the marriage.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 09, 2015, 05:54:27 PM
Apart from the opposition to homosexuality / gay marriage explicit in scripture
But there is no opposition to homosexuality / gay marriage in the bible.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 09, 2015, 05:54:27 PM
what chance has any child of growing up normal in a gay marriage scenario? What chance has it got of experiencing the natural heterosexual perspective so vital for normality,procreation etc? Zilch in my opinion,and whatever about gay marriage I don't see how anyone could rationally support the upbringing of children in such an environment
There are good parents, there are bad parents and there are ok parents.
There will be good parents, there will be bad parents and there will be ok parents. The latter is an eternal truth. It won't be impacted upon by legalising gay marriage
Quote from: T Fearon on February 09, 2015, 06:06:30 PM
How could a child growing up in that scenario and be normal?
Very easily
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2015, 08:22:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 08:18:02 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2015, 08:09:00 PM
So I've heard the jist of the story of 50 shades of grey. And there have been some high profile cases recently of young men (pre the legal age of consent) being seduced (under the law: abused) by older women.
If a consenting older woman and a consenting younger man/boy want to be together why can't they be? Why is their desire/love/lust not equal to yours?
Because the law and experience tells us that the young are not mature enough to make such a decision so we put an arbitrary age on it to protect easily influenced (and thus easily abused) children.
what did stepping out of the cave teach us?
every woman who has read this new book probably think now that it was ok for this lad to have been "abused" at 15 by the older woman to make him in to the man he is today....
what if society starts leaning that way - you might not think it now but 50 years ago who would have thought Protestants and Catholics would be getting married.. or two men?
where are lines drawn and erased and by whom?
Will they?! What complete and utter hysterical, fear mongering nonsense.
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 09:22:53 PM
QuoteSo single people should be equal to married people?
This is silly.
A single person is equal to a married person, with the exception of the rights they agreed to amend as a result of the marriage.
Except they pay more tax to support married people, pay more for their pensions to support spouses pensions etc.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 09, 2015, 06:50:35 PM
You know it's not right,not normal,and I have not seen a convincing argument to the contrary
It realy is the morality of the gutter. Repugnant in the extreme.
let us hear this evidence that it is not right and not normal
Quote from: Sandy Hill on February 09, 2015, 07:52:59 PM
Surely the burden of proof falls more on those who wish to change the status quo?
Not really. The status quo enshrines an inequality. Those who favour inequality will find the burden of proof lying firmly with them.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 09:28:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 09:22:53 PM
QuoteSo single people should be equal to married people?
This is silly.
A single person is equal to a married person, with the exception of the rights they agreed to amend as a result of the marriage.
Except they pay more tax to support married people, pay more for their pensions to support spouses pensions etc.
....if one spouse isn't working, which is usually for children reasons. My wife doesn't work and we lose money because if she was single (and not working) she could collect the dole. But married and not working = no support, other than a poxy tax credit.
And as for the pensions, you would pay anyway, just like everyone else. Single people get pensions as well y'know.
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 09:34:16 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 09:28:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 09:22:53 PM
QuoteSo single people should be equal to married people?
This is silly.
A single person is equal to a married person, with the exception of the rights they agreed to amend as a result of the marriage.
Except they pay more tax to support married people, pay more for their pensions to support spouses pensions etc.
....if one spouse isn't working, which is usually for children reasons. My wife doesn't work and we lose money because if she was single (and not working) she could collect the dole. But married and not working = no support, other than a poxy tax credit.
The point about the unemployment benefit has some validity, but in a common enough situation where one spouse earns less than the other, less tax is paid. My point is that this support child rearing, and that is why society organises things this way. Same sex marriage breaks any possible connection with procreation and will, in time, diminish society's willingness to support marriage in any shape or form. Why should same sex couples expect other people to subsidise them? What is their case?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 09:56:11 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 09:34:16 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 09:28:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 09:22:53 PM
QuoteSo single people should be equal to married people?
This is silly.
A single person is equal to a married person, with the exception of the rights they agreed to amend as a result of the marriage.
Except they pay more tax to support married people, pay more for their pensions to support spouses pensions etc.
....if one spouse isn't working, which is usually for children reasons. My wife doesn't work and we lose money because if she was single (and not working) she could collect the dole. But married and not working = no support, other than a poxy tax credit.
The point about the unemployment benefit has some validity, but in a common enough situation where one spouse earns less than the other, less tax is paid. My point is that this support child rearing, and that is why society organises things this way. Same sex marriage breaks any possible connection with procreation and will, in time, diminish society's willingness to support marriage in any shape or form. Why should same sex couples expect other people to subsidise them? What is their case?
That doesn't follow.
Many women love weddings and are hardly going to be turned off by 2 men getting hitched.
Weddings are not going to be driven to extinction by gay marriage.
Maybe we should hold back and let the No Campaign have the floor here. Let the next post be the clearly evidenced rationale for voting to deny equality based upon grounds of sexual orientation.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 09:56:11 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 09:34:16 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 09:28:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 09:22:53 PM
QuoteSo single people should be equal to married people?
This is silly.
A single person is equal to a married person, with the exception of the rights they agreed to amend as a result of the marriage.
Except they pay more tax to support married people, pay more for their pensions to support spouses pensions etc.
....if one spouse isn't working, which is usually for children reasons. My wife doesn't work and we lose money because if she was single (and not working) she could collect the dole. But married and not working = no support, other than a poxy tax credit.
The point about the unemployment benefit has some validity, but in a common enough situation where one spouse earns less than the other, less tax is paid. My point is that this support child rearing, and that is why society organises things this way. Same sex marriage breaks any possible connection with procreation and will, in time, diminish society's willingness to support marriage in any shape or form. Why should same sex couples expect other people to subsidise them? What is their case?
They might be raising a child?
Or maybe they won't, like those heterosexual couples that don't.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2015, 10:51:13 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 09:56:11 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 09:34:16 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 09:28:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 09, 2015, 09:22:53 PM
QuoteSo single people should be equal to married people?
This is silly.
A single person is equal to a married person, with the exception of the rights they agreed to amend as a result of the marriage.
Except they pay more tax to support married people, pay more for their pensions to support spouses pensions etc.
....if one spouse isn't working, which is usually for children reasons. My wife doesn't work and we lose money because if she was single (and not working) she could collect the dole. But married and not working = no support, other than a poxy tax credit.
The point about the unemployment benefit has some validity, but in a common enough situation where one spouse earns less than the other, less tax is paid. My point is that this support child rearing, and that is why society organises things this way. Same sex marriage breaks any possible connection with procreation and will, in time, diminish society's willingness to support marriage in any shape or form. Why should same sex couples expect other people to subsidise them? What is their case?
They might be raising a child?
Not a child of the union.
QuoteOr maybe they won't, like those heterosexual couples that don't.
If you read the newspaper yesterday about the value of the pink Euro, arising as homosexual couples are wealthier and much less likely to have children.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 09:12:16 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 09, 2015, 07:43:05 PM
Interracial marriage was illegal in parts of the US as recently as the sixties. The same decade saw Aboriginal people in Australia removed from the native fauna list. Homosexual acts were illegal as was contraception in Ireland until the 80s.
This is comparing apples and cabbages, which is par for the course.Interracial sexual relations and homosexual ones were outright prohibited, the intention was to not allow them happen. Likewise the intention was to prevent the use of contraceptives, it wasn't the case that it was ok it you called it birth control. Same sex relations are now in no way prohibited, what is at issue is whether we should fund them with tax relief and the like.
First, why did you leave out the second part of the quote? You know, the one that places it in the context of my response to Tony:
"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"
All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.
And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2015, 09:12:16 PM
Quote
The world will not end if same-sex couples marry
No, but it will be poorer place if marriage is devalued in this way.
So you keep claiming. How about you back up this claim for once? In what way will marriage be devalued?
Gay marriage is legal where I live in the states (and will likely be legalized nationally by the Supreme Court in June). A very close family friend is in a same-sex marriage. How is the recognition of his marriage by the state of New York devaluing my or anyone else's heterosexual marriage?
I'm still wracking my brains and I can't come up with anything.
To posters against same sex marriage. No big deal really, both won't be able to vote on it anyways so their backward views their homophobic stance doesn't make a difference to how this will pan out.
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 01:26:02 AM
"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"
All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.
And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.
So you'll be here next year arguing that a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman?
Quoteo posters against same sex marriage. No big deal really, both won't be able to vote on it anyways so their backward views their homophobic stance doesn't make a difference to how this will pan out.
The name calling and abuse associated with the yes side here is good indication of tenor of this campaign.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 01:26:02 AM
"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"
All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.
And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.
So you'll be here next year arguing that a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman?
Quoteo posters against same sex marriage. No big deal really, both won't be able to vote on it anyways so their backward views their homophobic stance doesn't make a difference to how this will pan out.
The name calling and abuse associated with the yes side here is good indication of tenor of this campaign.
I think your missing the whole point with equality ::)
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 01:32:14 AM
So you keep claiming. How about you back up this claim for once? In what way will marriage be devalued?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/10277728_352933704891964_9211834340325736506_n.jpg?oh=0f1c59cf43d12375b76842dc2045b88a&oe=5505564C&__gda__=1426257938_666b5cfdf9a32c2c4e8272f4572b56e7)
Quote from: Hardy on February 07, 2015, 08:18:00 PM
Seanie, the problem with articulating the view that communism can have points in its favour, is that you can suddenly find yourself being endorsed by Pol Pot.
What an apt description of what happened.
I just would like to take this opportunity to disassociate myself from Pol Pot and his ilk. Frankly they're doing a great job for the side they oppose with their bigotry.
A few people asked me questions and I would like to answer (from memory) but I can't trawl trough all the pages in a limited time. Likewise I apologies if I'm going over something that has been discussed already. I suppose for an adoption if the choice came between a straight couple and a gay couple who scored roughly the same in whatever assessment method is used (ability to provide a good home) I think the straight couple should get preference. If this referendum is passed it will be illegal to do that. Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe it's a small thing and will only happen is a small number of cases and maybe I should get over it but it does concern me.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 01:26:02 AM
"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"
All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.
And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.
So you'll be here next year arguing that a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman?
Quoteo posters against same sex marriage. No big deal really, both won't be able to vote on it anyways so their backward views their homophobic stance doesn't make a difference to how this will pan out.
The name calling and abuse associated with the yes side here is good indication of tenor of this campaign.
So you're not homophobic and backward in your views on this? I fail to see where the abuse is, but carry on
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 10, 2015, 12:08:26 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 01:26:02 AM
"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"
All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.
And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.
So you'll be here next year arguing that a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman?
Quoteo posters against same sex marriage. No big deal really, both won't be able to vote on it anyways so their backward views their homophobic stance doesn't make a difference to how this will pan out.
The name calling and abuse associated with the yes side here is good indication of tenor of this campaign.
So you're not homophobic and backward in your views on this? I fail to see where the abuse is, but carry on
Of course, given your well known commitment to exercising the democratic franchise, it is a truly cutting remark that some commenting on this thread will not be able to vote.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 12:11:56 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 10, 2015, 12:08:26 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 01:26:02 AM
"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"
All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.
And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.
So you'll be here next year arguing that a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman?
Quoteo posters against same sex marriage. No big deal really, both won't be able to vote on it anyways so their backward views their homophobic stance doesn't make a difference to how this will pan out.
The name calling and abuse associated with the yes side here is good indication of tenor of this campaign.
So you're not homophobic and backward in your views on this? I fail to see where the abuse is, but carry on
Of course, given your well known commitment to exercising the democratic franchise, it is a truly cutting remark that some commenting on this thread will not be able to vote.
And that's what offended you? Seriously? I'm bored of this thread in fairness, it's the same stuff coming from the same people.
If it does not affect you why worry? There is a hell of a lot more shit to be worried about than same sex marriages and the rights they will be entitled to once it has been passed. I going out on a limb here but I reckon you'll still get paid (if in employment), water will still be produced, the sun will keep coming up and the world will still turn
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 10, 2015, 12:30:45 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 12:11:56 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 10, 2015, 12:08:26 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 01:26:02 AM
"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"
All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.
And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.
So you'll be here next year arguing that a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman?
Quoteo posters against same sex marriage. No big deal really, both won't be able to vote on it anyways so their backward views their homophobic stance doesn't make a difference to how this will pan out.
The name calling and abuse associated with the yes side here is good indication of tenor of this campaign.
So you're not homophobic and backward in your views on this? I fail to see where the abuse is, but carry on
Of course, given your well known commitment to exercising the democratic franchise, it is a truly cutting remark that some commenting on this thread will not be able to vote.
And that's what offended you? Seriously? I'm bored of this thread in fairness, it's the same stuff coming from the same people.
If it does not affect you why worry? There is a hell of a lot more shit to be worried about than same sex marriages and the rights they will be entitled to once it has been passed. I going out on a limb here but I reckon you'll still get paid (if in employment), water will still be produced, the sun will keep coming up and the world will still turn
Its the thin end of the wedge, next thing there'll be homosexual Priests, Bishops and even Popes!!
8)
Quote from: johnneycool on February 10, 2015, 12:55:03 PM
Its the thin end of the wedge, next thing there'll be homosexual Priests, Bishops and even Popes!!
The next Pope will be a Protestant lesbian.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 01:40:15 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 10, 2015, 12:55:03 PM
Its the thin end of the wedge, next thing there'll be homosexual Priests, Bishops and even Popes!!
The next Pope will be a Protestant lesbian.
A definite improvement on the paedophile-enabling previous incumbent.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 01:26:02 AM
"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"
All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.
And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.
So you'll be here next year arguing that a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman?
You forgot sheep, given that you're resorting to slippery slope arguments.
That aside, bisexuals not being allowed to marry a man AND a woman is hardly an equality issue given that NO ONE ELSE has the right to marry more than one person at a time. Bigamy and polygamy are illegal.
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 02:15:06 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 01:26:02 AM
"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"
All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.
And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.
So you'll be here next year arguing that a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman?
You forgot sheep, given that you're resorting to slippery slope arguments.
That aside, bisexuals not being allowed to marry a man AND a woman is hardly an equality issue given that NO ONE ELSE has the right to marry more than one person at a time. Bigamy and polygamy are illegal.
But surely these people's human rights are being infringed by not being allowed marry in their preferred combination?
I don't think that bisexuals necessarily want to have sex with/marry men and women simultaneously. Just saying.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 02:47:54 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 02:15:06 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 01:26:02 AM
"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"
All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.
And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.
So you'll be here next year arguing that a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman?
You forgot sheep, given that you're resorting to slippery slope arguments.
That aside, bisexuals not being allowed to marry a man AND a woman is hardly an equality issue given that NO ONE ELSE has the right to marry more than one person at a time. Bigamy and polygamy are illegal.
But surely these people's human rights are being infringed by not being allowed marry in their preferred combination?
I'm sure some feel they should be entitled to pay for sex or take a shite in the street or drive 120 mph. Society has rules. Currently we don't allow people to marry more than one person. If someone feels strongly that that is a denial of human rights, let them make the argument. It has nothing to do with gay people wanting what straight people are already entitled to. It is not an equality issue if the same rules apply to all.
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 03:08:49 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 02:47:54 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 02:15:06 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 01:26:02 AM
"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"
All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.
And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.
So you'll be here next year arguing that a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman?
You forgot sheep, given that you're resorting to slippery slope arguments.
That aside, bisexuals not being allowed to marry a man AND a woman is hardly an equality issue given that NO ONE ELSE has the right to marry more than one person at a time. Bigamy and polygamy are illegal.
But surely these people's human rights are being infringed by not being allowed marry in their preferred combination?
I'm sure some feel they should be entitled to pay for sex or take a shite in the street or drive 120 mph. Society has rules. Currently we don't allow people to marry more than one person. If someone feels strongly that that is a denial of human rights, let them make the argument. It has nothing to do with gay people wanting what straight people are already entitled to. It is not an equality issue if the same rules apply to all.
Gay men can marry women, just like straight men can. Gay women can marry men too. ;)
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 10, 2015, 03:27:07 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 03:08:49 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 02:47:54 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 02:15:06 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2015, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2015, 01:26:02 AM
"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"
All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.
And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.
So you'll be here next year arguing that a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman?
You forgot sheep, given that you're resorting to slippery slope arguments.
That aside, bisexuals not being allowed to marry a man AND a woman is hardly an equality issue given that NO ONE ELSE has the right to marry more than one person at a time. Bigamy and polygamy are illegal.
But surely these people's human rights are being infringed by not being allowed marry in their preferred combination?
I'm sure some feel they should be entitled to pay for sex or take a shite in the street or drive 120 mph. Society has rules. Currently we don't allow people to marry more than one person. If someone feels strongly that that is a denial of human rights, let them make the argument. It has nothing to do with gay people wanting what straight people are already entitled to. It is not an equality issue if the same rules apply to all.
Gay men can marry women, just like straight men can. Gay women can marry men too. ;)
Gay men can also join the priesthood, gay women can't, go figure.
is there going to b a no campaign? One that engages in a debate?
Not picking up on anything across the media that outlines the argument for voting No
Quote from: LCohen on February 15, 2015, 05:33:24 PM
is there going to b a no campaign? One that engages in a debate?
Not picking up on anything across the media that outlines the argument for voting No
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/bishops-riposte-on-samesex-marriage-referendum-30797622.html (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/bishops-riposte-on-samesex-marriage-referendum-30797622.html)
Quote from: muppet on February 15, 2015, 05:38:09 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 15, 2015, 05:33:24 PM
is there going to b a no campaign? One that engages in a debate?
Not picking up on anything across the media that outlines the argument for voting No
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/bishops-riposte-on-samesex-marriage-referendum-30797622.html (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/bishops-riposte-on-samesex-marriage-referendum-30797622.html)
i read that but there is nothing in it. A couple of bland statements about the meaning of marriage and a bit of scare mongering about the impact on hetrosexual couples but nothing of any substance. Have they given up on the outcome or will they brave the debate closer to the time?
Have I posted this before? Can't remember, it's too long a thread for me to read all of it.
Anyway, Zach Wahls speaks about the effects of being raised by a same-sex couple:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q)
Has a date been set yet?
Taoiseach said probably Fri 22 May.
Quote from: Hardy on February 20, 2015, 10:59:03 AM
Taoiseach said probably Fri 22 May.
The intention is to have the present adoption Bill through before this. This Bill is a complex thing in its own right and it should get the time required to discuss it, even if the May date has to slip as consequence.
Arseblog's take
We're having a marriage referendum in Ireland here shortly and arguments go on all day between the people who rightly believe that people who love each other should be able to get married, and the people who think they have some kind of right to stop this happening.
The question, of course, is what happens to you if two men or two women get married? What impact does it have on your life? The answer is absolutely none. Two people I have never met go through some kind of ceremony in a place I've never been at a time I'm unaware of and my life goes on the same as it did before this happened. It's not as if every time a gay couple get married a massive hole is punched in the ozone layer and there's a plague of cancer locusts.
Nothing happens other than these two people and their friends and families have a nice day and the couple hopefully have a nice life together. So imagine what kind of person you have to be to actively campaign against that. Just mind your own business.
That's the thing: if people would just mind their own goddam business and leave people who have nothing to do with them alone then this would be a much happier planet. You're this, I'm that, or maybe we could just look at each other as people and not worry about what arbitrary category we belong in, and we can just get on with our lives.
Quote from: ONeill on February 20, 2015, 01:18:07 PM
Arseblog's take
We're having a marriage referendum in Ireland here shortly and arguments go on all day between the people who rightly believe that people who love each other should be able to get married, and the people who think they have some kind of right to stop this happening.
The question, of course, is what happens to you if two men or two women get married? What impact does it have on your life? The answer is absolutely none. Two people I have never met go through some kind of ceremony in a place I've never been at a time I'm unaware of and my life goes on the same as it did before this happened. It's not as if every time a gay couple get married a massive hole is punched in the ozone layer and there's a plague of cancer locusts.
Nothing happens other than these two people and their friends and families have a nice day and the couple hopefully have a nice life together. So imagine what kind of person you have to be to actively campaign against that. Just mind your own business.
That's the thing: if people would just mind their own goddam business and leave people who have nothing to do with them alone then this would be a much happier planet. You're this, I'm that, or maybe we could just look at each other as people and not worry about what arbitrary category we belong in, and we can just get on with our lives.
That's about the crux of the argument. We keep hearing about the "weakening" of marriage that gay marriage will lead to, but we never get any details on what the actual effects will be.
Quote from: ONeill on February 20, 2015, 01:18:07 PM
The question, of course, is what happens to you if two men or two women get married? What impact does it have on your life? The answer is absolutely none. Two people I have never met go through some kind of ceremony in a place I've never been at a time I'm unaware of and my life goes on the same as it did before this happened. It's not as if every time a gay couple get married a massive hole is punched in the ozone layer and there's a plague of cancer locusts.
Nothing happens other than these two people and their friends and families have a nice day and the couple hopefully have a nice life together. So imagine what kind of person you have to be to actively campaign against that. Just mind your own business.
This is naive, but typical. If two people want a party and to spend a nice life together than that is indeed not the business of someone else, they can do that now, so no need for a time-wasting referendum . If they wish to be given legal privileges at the expense of other citizens then it becomes everyone's business.
Quote from: J70 on February 20, 2015, 01:53:54 PM
Quote from: ONeill on February 20, 2015, 01:18:07 PM
Arseblog's take
We're having a marriage referendum in Ireland here shortly and arguments go on all day between the people who rightly believe that people who love each other should be able to get married, and the people who think they have some kind of right to stop this happening.
The question, of course, is what happens to you if two men or two women get married? What impact does it have on your life? The answer is absolutely none. Two people I have never met go through some kind of ceremony in a place I've never been at a time I'm unaware of and my life goes on the same as it did before this happened. It's not as if every time a gay couple get married a massive hole is punched in the ozone layer and there's a plague of cancer locusts.
Nothing happens other than these two people and their friends and families have a nice day and the couple hopefully have a nice life together. So imagine what kind of person you have to be to actively campaign against that. Just mind your own business.
That's the thing: if people would just mind their own goddam business and leave people who have nothing to do with them alone then this would be a much happier planet. You're this, I'm that, or maybe we could just look at each other as people and not worry about what arbitrary category we belong in, and we can just get on with our lives.
That's about the crux of the argument. We keep hearing about the "weakening" of marriage that gay marriage will lead to, but we never get any details on what the actual effects will be.
Elections and Referenda are won with soundbites, not reason. I don't expect much genuine debate. Vincent Browne is an example of the circus that poses as debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMukwjJTfA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMukwjJTfA)
Quote from: armaghniac on February 20, 2015, 03:19:36 PM
Quote from: ONeill on February 20, 2015, 01:18:07 PM
The question, of course, is what happens to you if two men or two women get married? What impact does it have on your life? The answer is absolutely none. Two people I have never met go through some kind of ceremony in a place I've never been at a time I'm unaware of and my life goes on the same as it did before this happened. It's not as if every time a gay couple get married a massive hole is punched in the ozone layer and there's a plague of cancer locusts.
Nothing happens other than these two people and their friends and families have a nice day and the couple hopefully have a nice life together. So imagine what kind of person you have to be to actively campaign against that. Just mind your own business.
This is naive, but typical. If two people want a party and to spend a nice life together than that is indeed not the business of someone else, they can do that now, so no need for a time-wasting referendum . If they wish to be given legal privileges at the expense of other citizens then it becomes everyone's business.
How is it at the 'expense' of other citizens? I am under the impression that this will just allow gay people to get married, and enjoy the same rights as every other married couple?
I say let them at it, why should they be happier than everyone else?
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 20, 2015, 03:27:18 PM
How is it at the 'expense' of other citizens? I am under the impression that this will just allow gay people to get married, and enjoy the same rights as every other married couple?
Those "rights" include taxation privileges, do they not?
I have a good friend that is a homosexual, he recently sent me an invite to his wedding, I declined the invite on the grounds that I simply have no interest in watching two lads get married to each other, that said I wish them well and bought them a present which was returned.
Things are further complicated by the fact that I coach his three sons and all are under contract with me until June fifteenth next year, his partner has told him he is banning me from ever entering their home and that he is going to take me to court to fight the contract my mate signed, being a stubborn hoor I could and might spend whatever it takes to piss him off but I will probably let them go and move on.
Tony is hammered on this thread because of his stance, three years ago I would have agreed with him one hundred percent however as long as they dont get married in a Christian Church it does not bother me, I reserve the right to be repulsed by homosexuality but i respect the fact my friend has the right to wed in many states here in the USA.I would vote yes with a heavy heart because not to do so would be a vote to discriminate against fellow citizens and that I cannot live with in good conscience!
Never change, Stew.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 20, 2015, 03:31:11 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 20, 2015, 03:27:18 PM
How is it at the 'expense' of other citizens? I am under the impression that this will just allow gay people to get married, and enjoy the same rights as every other married couple?
Those "rights" include taxation privileges, do they not?
Such as what? Will a gay couple who marry not be subject to the same tax law as everyone else?
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 20, 2015, 04:26:43 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 20, 2015, 03:31:11 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 20, 2015, 03:27:18 PM
How is it at the 'expense' of other citizens? I am under the impression that this will just allow gay people to get married, and enjoy the same rights as every other married couple?
Those "rights" include taxation privileges, do they not?
Such as what? Will a gay couple who marry not be subject to the same tax law as everyone else?
I expect they will be subject to the same tax law as everyone else.
If you have two unmarried people, or one unmarried person, who pay more tax to that a gay couple can pay less, what is the value proposition that justifies that being the case?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 20, 2015, 04:35:16 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 20, 2015, 04:26:43 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 20, 2015, 03:31:11 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 20, 2015, 03:27:18 PM
How is it at the 'expense' of other citizens? I am under the impression that this will just allow gay people to get married, and enjoy the same rights as every other married couple?
Those "rights" include taxation privileges, do they not?
Such as what? Will a gay couple who marry not be subject to the same tax law as everyone else?
I expect they will be subject to the same tax law as everyone else.
If you have two unmarried people, or one unmarried person, who pay more tax to that a gay couple can pay less, what is the value proposition that justifies that being the case?
Are you saying we shouldn't allow gay marriage as it will reduce the tax take?
Quote from: stew on February 20, 2015, 03:31:26 PM
I have a good friend that is a homosexual, he recently sent me an invite to his wedding, I declined the invite on the grounds that I simply have no interest in watching two lads get married to each other, that said I wish them well and bought them a present which was returned.
Things are further complicated by the fact that I coach his three sons and all are under contract with me until June fifteenth next year, his partner has told him he is banning me from ever entering their home and that he is going to take me to court to fight the contract my mate signed, being a stubborn hoor I could and might spend whatever it takes to piss him off but I will probably let them go and move on.
Tony is hammered on this thread because of his stance, three years ago I would have agreed with him one hundred percent however as long as they dont get married in a Christian Church it does not bother me, I reserve the right to be repulsed by homosexuality but i respect the fact my friend has the right to wed in many states here in the USA.I would vote yes with a heavy heart because not to do so would be a vote to discriminate against fellow citizens and that I cannot live with in good conscience!
Jaysus Stew, that is a sad story and a very impersonal, detached way to view a friend's wedding. Its not just two gay men getting married - its a friend marrying the person he loves.
I'm sure many gay people are repulsed by the thought of heterosexual relations. I find the idea of being with a man repulsive myself. I also would rather not think of my parents or, someday, my kids being sexually active. Luckily there's a lot more to everyday relationships than just sexuality.
I loved my pet rabbit before it died, but I wasn't allowed to marry it.
When I was fifteen, I wanted to drive my Dad's car but the state forbade it.
Luckily now I'm old enough to drive but I can't even bring my new cocker spaniel to the cinema never mind anything else. And we have to be very careful who sees us drinking beer from a bong.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 20, 2015, 04:35:16 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 20, 2015, 04:26:43 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 20, 2015, 03:31:11 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 20, 2015, 03:27:18 PM
How is it at the 'expense' of other citizens? I am under the impression that this will just allow gay people to get married, and enjoy the same rights as every other married couple?
Those "rights" include taxation privileges, do they not?
Such as what? Will a gay couple who marry not be subject to the same tax law as everyone else?
I expect they will be subject to the same tax law as everyone else.
If you have two unmarried people, or one unmarried person, who pay more tax to that a gay couple can pay less, what is the value proposition that justifies that being the case?
Would it be okay if every gay person married a member of the opposite sex? That would have the same impact? Or do you think this is some sort of tax natural selection? I'm not really following this, it seems a bit tenuous to me. The more people we allow get married, the harder it will be on single people. Is that it?
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 20, 2015, 04:43:34 PM
Would it be okay if every gay person married a member of the opposite sex? That would have the same impact? Or do you think this is some sort of tax natural selection? I'm not really following this, it seems a bit tenuous to me. The more people we allow get married, the harder it will be on single people. Is that it?
It isn't rocket science. If you are proposing to increase the set of people receiving a tax allowance or benefit than you should have some justification for that, and and justification that goes beyond whataboutery.
I must say that's a bizarre reason. Effectively every gay person in Ireland could marry a person of the opposite sex, thereby having the same net effect (at least) and you'd be happy.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 20, 2015, 04:56:23 PM
I must say that's a bizarre reason.
You are entitled to think that, but not to deny the logic of my point.
But my point is that this is not about people having a day out and living happily ever after, this is already possible. It is about legal rules and whatnot. Yet much of the commentary is based on the false proposition that the day out and living happily ever after is somehow not possible now.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 20, 2015, 04:56:23 PM
I must say that's a bizarre reason. Effectively every gay person in Ireland could marry a person of the opposite sex, thereby having the same net effect (at least) and you'd be happy.
But then we wouldn't have to know there were gay married people, and they might produce kids with two "normal" parents, so it would all be ok.
Armaghniac - I'm not sure of the tax or other concessions available available to married people that are not available to those in civil partnerships. Can you clarify?
Quote from: Hardy on February 20, 2015, 05:15:47 PM
Armaghniac - I'm not sure of the tax or other concessions available available to married people that are not available to those in civil partnerships. Can you clarify?
There are a few obscure differences, highlighted by the yes campaign. But the legal difference means that a difference could be introduced in the future.
Quote from: J70 on February 20, 2015, 05:10:03 PM
But then we wouldn't have to know there were gay married people, and they might produce kids with two "normal" parents, so it would all be ok.
The contempt for the interests of children is a mark of the tenor of this campaign.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 20, 2015, 05:26:37 PM
Quote from: Hardy on February 20, 2015, 05:15:47 PM
Armaghniac - I'm not sure of the tax or other concessions available available to married people that are not available to those in civil partnerships. Can you clarify?
There are a few obscure differences, highlighted by the yes campaign. But the legal difference means that a difference could be introduced in the future.
Quote from: J70 on February 20, 2015, 05:10:03 PM
But then we wouldn't have to know there were gay married people, and they might produce kids with two "normal" parents, so it would all be ok.
The contempt for the interests of children is a mark of the tenor of this campaign.
The sneering obnoxiousness of those who pretend to be safeguarding the interests of children (from a "threat" that has no scientific basis whatsoever) to mask their own bigotry is a mark of the tenor of the no "campaign".
Thankfully most people in 21st century Ireland are civilised enough to see through this.
Quote from: gallsman on February 20, 2015, 05:38:09 PM
Thankfully most people in 21st century Ireland are civilised enough to see through this.
I think the implication that civilised people are only on one side of the debate is equally informative.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 20, 2015, 05:26:37 PM
Quote from: Hardy on February 20, 2015, 05:15:47 PM
Armaghniac - I'm not sure of the tax or other concessions available available to married people that are not available to those in civil partnerships. Can you clarify?
There are a few obscure differences, highlighted by the yes campaign. But the legal difference means that a difference could be introduced in the future.
Quote from: J70 on February 20, 2015, 05:10:03 PM
But then we wouldn't have to know there were gay married people, and they might produce kids with two "normal" parents, so it would all be ok.
The contempt for the interests of children is a mark of the tenor of this campaign.
Your comment proceeds from the presumption that I acknowledge that there is something contrary to the best interests of children in allowing gay couples to raise them.
I don't!
So it has nothing to do with same sex people being together and possibly if they want adopt kids... Its all about tax?? Ones arguing over it live elsewhere when it doesn't effect their tax!! Lol
I wonder what the troika think about this gay marriage stuff? It seems its an economic matter.
I'm glad you guys accept that this is not about people being together, which is possible in any case, and is about legalities, which should be considered by any rational citizen and which have nothing in particular to do with God.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 21, 2015, 01:38:38 AM
I'm glad you guys accept that this is not about people being together, which is possible in any case, and is about legalities, which should be considered by any rational citizen and which have nothing in particular to do with God.
So hows it going to affect you personally? And why stop there.... Lets start shopping all the dole spongers that you know. And the tax dodgers who can afford accountants and tax men who 'fix' it for high earners to save money!!
Quote from: armaghniac on February 21, 2015, 01:38:38 AM
I'm glad you guys accept that this is not about people being together, which is possible in any case, and is about legalities, which should be considered by any rational citizen and which have nothing in particular to do with God.
Just for clarity can you confirm that you would be happy for infertile hetrosexual couples to avail of tax/legal privileges when they marry? And what about hetrosexual couples that can have children but chose not to?
Do you want tax/legal privileges removed from these people? If not can you explain the rationale behind your discrimination between these couples and homosexual couples?
What about hetrosexual couples who "stay together for the kids" but provide a dysfunctional home - what steps are you proposing to wrestle back tax/legal privileges back from these people?
Also what is the cost to the exchequer of affording these tax/legal privileges to married couples? What does this mean in financial terms for everyday tax payers and the wider economy? How would these figures be impacted by granting the same privileges to married gay couples? And how would that figure compare to the amount that could be saved from reigning back the same privileges from hetrosexual, married couples who cannot or do not have kids?
It would be repugnant if anyone was to just guess these figures and then use their guesses as the basis of voting to deny equality. So it absolutely that if this economic argument is backed up with numbers if is to be taken seriously. Otherwise it fall the way of the religious/scripture based argument of just being vague and not evidenced in any way that can stand up to the merest scrutiny
Quote from: LCohen on February 21, 2015, 01:04:53 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 21, 2015, 01:38:38 AM
I'm glad you guys accept that this is not about people being together, which is possible in any case, and is about legalities, which should be considered by any rational citizen and which have nothing in particular to do with God.
Just for clarity can you confirm that you would be happy for infertile hetrosexual couples to avail of tax/legal privileges when they marry? And what about hetrosexual couples that can have children but chose not to?
I don't think it necessary to investigate the status of individuals.
QuoteDo you want tax/legal privileges removed from these people? If not can you explain the rationale behind your discrimination between these couples and homosexual couples?
It is perfectly obvious, you should not provide a benefit to people who cannot possibly meet the objectives of the benefit.
QuoteWhat about hetrosexual couples who "stay together for the kids" but provide a dysfunctional home - what steps are you proposing to wrestle back tax/legal privileges back from these people?
Why should you wrestle back anything from these people?
QuoteAlso what is the cost to the exchequer of affording these tax/legal privileges to married couples? What does this mean in financial terms for everyday tax payers and the wider economy? How would these figures be impacted by granting the same privileges to married gay couples? And how would that figure compare to the amount that could be saved from reigning back the same privileges from hetrosexual, married couples who cannot or do not have kids?
I couldn't care less what the amounts are, it is the principle.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 21, 2015, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 21, 2015, 01:04:53 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 21, 2015, 01:38:38 AM
I'm glad you guys accept that this is not about people being together, which is possible in any case, and is about legalities, which should be considered by any rational citizen and which have nothing in particular to do with God.
Just for clarity can you confirm that you would be happy for infertile hetrosexual couples to avail of tax/legal privileges when they marry? And what about hetrosexual couples that can have children but chose not to?
I don't think it necessary to investigate the status of individuals.
QuoteDo you want tax/legal privileges removed from these people? If not can you explain the rationale behind your discrimination between these couples and homosexual couples?
It is perfectly obvious, you should not provide a benefit to people who cannot possibly meet the objectives of the benefit.
QuoteWhat about hetrosexual couples who "stay together for the kids" but provide a dysfunctional home - what steps are you proposing to wrestle back tax/legal privileges back from these people?
Why should you wrestle back anything from these people?
QuoteAlso what is the cost to the exchequer of affording these tax/legal privileges to married couples? What does this mean in financial terms for everyday tax payers and the wider economy? How would these figures be impacted by granting the same privileges to married gay couples? And how would that figure compare to the amount that could be saved from reigning back the same privileges from hetrosexual, married couples who cannot or do not have kids?
I couldn't care less what the amounts are, it is the principle.
Initially there seemed to be a scriptural basis for voting No. That has fallen away for want of supporting evidence from scripture. Then it appeared that there was an economic argument. No we know that there is no evidence in support of this argument and it is in fact an argument that is not based upon either figures or individual circumstances.
It is based upon "principle". What is the principle? Its not having children (as people hetrosexuals who either do not, cannot or will not have children). Its not the care of children (as hetrosexuals who care badly for children will be treated the same as heterosexuals who provide good care but differently from homosexuals provide good care)?
The principle seems to be "homosexuals just should not be treated the same as hetrosexuals". Now that sort of bigotry and prejudice has no place is civilised society so its vitally important that this "principle" that your argument hinges upon is brought forward
Quote from: armaghniac on February 20, 2015, 05:26:37 PM
Quote from: Hardy on February 20, 2015, 05:15:47 PM
Armaghniac - I'm not sure of the tax or other concessions available available to married people that are not available to those in civil partnerships. Can you clarify?
There are a few obscure differences, highlighted by the yes campaign. But the legal difference means that a difference could be introduced in the future.
1. Assuming, then, that we can ignore the obscure differences, do I understand correctly that your objection to the proposal is not that providing the benefit of married status to same-sex couples will confer incremental fiscal privilege that is not already available under civil partnership, but that it could lead to fiscal anomalies in the future?
2. Is this "provision of a benefit to people who cannot possibly meet the objectives of the benefit", as you described it in another post, your only basis for objecting to the proposal?
Quote from: Hardy on February 21, 2015, 01:55:18 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 20, 2015, 05:26:37 PM
Quote from: Hardy on February 20, 2015, 05:15:47 PM
Armaghniac - I'm not sure of the tax or other concessions available available to married people that are not available to those in civil partnerships. Can you clarify?
There are a few obscure differences, highlighted by the yes campaign. But the legal difference means that a difference could be introduced in the future.
1. Assuming, then, that we can ignore the obscure differences, do I understand correctly that your objection to the proposal is not that providing the benefit of married status to same-sex couples will confer incremental fiscal privilege that is not already available under civil partnership, but that it could lead to fiscal anomalies in the future?
2. Is this "provision of a benefit to people who cannot possibly meet the objectives of the benefit", as you described it in another post, your only basis for objecting to the proposal?
I appreciate that "people who cannot possibly meet the objectives of the benefit" sounds a bit strong.
My point simply is this, society support marriage not because it is a great day out or whatever, this is mere frippery, but as a means of supporting families. Without this connection people's sex lives isn't really anyone's business. I contend that deliberately extending marriage to a type of relationship where the connection with a family is extremely tenous can only dilute any reason for society to respect or support marriage.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 21, 2015, 02:55:50 PM
Quote from: Hardy on February 21, 2015, 01:55:18 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 20, 2015, 05:26:37 PM
Quote from: Hardy on February 20, 2015, 05:15:47 PM
Armaghniac - I'm not sure of the tax or other concessions available available to married people that are not available to those in civil partnerships. Can you clarify?
There are a few obscure differences, highlighted by the yes campaign. But the legal difference means that a difference could be introduced in the future.
1. Assuming, then, that we can ignore the obscure differences, do I understand correctly that your objection to the proposal is not that providing the benefit of married status to same-sex couples will confer incremental fiscal privilege that is not already available under civil partnership, but that it could lead to fiscal anomalies in the future?
2. Is this "provision of a benefit to people who cannot possibly meet the objectives of the benefit", as you described it in another post, your only basis for objecting to the proposal?
I appreciate that "people who cannot possibly meet the objectives of the benefit" sounds a bit strong.
My point simply is this, society support marriage not because it is a great day out or whatever, this is mere frippery, but as a means of supporting families. Without this connection people's sex lives isn't really anyone's business. I contend that deliberately extending marriage to a type of relationship where the connection with a family is extremely tenous can only dilute any reason for society to respect or support marriage.
So in what way is this link to family more tenuous than say a hetrosexual couple where the woman is post menopause, a couple where one or more is infertile, a couple where one or more has chosen to be rendered infertile or a couple that chooses through everyday practice to not have children?
Or is this in some way ties up with the "principle" that we are not being told about?
If marriage is exclusively to support families, and in particular for the benefit of children, should we ban criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts and smokers from getting married? Obviously children of such parents would suffer vis a vis children form 'normal' relationships, so should we protect children from such an outcome?
http://www.adfam.ie/sites/default/files/Campaign%20Leaflet-1.pdf (http://www.adfam.ie/sites/default/files/Campaign%20Leaflet-1.pdf)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t34.0-12/11016467_865795083464299_928220735_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=bf5c592a8b8ea7220e87b7c7c86b587e&oe=54EB6F9F&__gda__=1424701954_c5423623b8cf4d75017eb199cc20c672)
And there endith the lesson.
Definitely voting no having reading that constructive, progressive and well evidenced contribution from ADFAM.
Is there a breakaway "continuity" faction of ADFAM that I could endorse?
Quote from: muppet on February 21, 2015, 08:37:17 PM
If marriage is exclusively to support families, and in particular for the benefit of children, should we ban criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts and smokers from getting married? Obviously children of such parents would suffer vis a vis children form 'normal' relationships, so should we protect children from such an outcome?
The same whataboutery again and again. There is nothing particularly unusual in the logic my argument and you would be using a similar logic in other debates, you are just arguing here for the sake of argument. I think the equation of smokers getting married and same sex marriage says it all about the bankrupt nature of your point.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 22, 2015, 02:28:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 21, 2015, 08:37:17 PM
If marriage is exclusively to support families, and in particular for the benefit of children, should we ban criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts and smokers from getting married? Obviously children of such parents would suffer vis a vis children form 'normal' relationships, so should we protect children from such an outcome?
The same whataboutery again and again. There is nothing particularly unusual in the logic my argument and you would be using a similar logic in other debates, you are just arguing here for the sake of argument. I think the equation of smokers getting married and same sex marriage says it all about the bankrupt nature of your point.
Hang on a second. You are using a tax argument against same-sex marriage, and you then accuse others of whataboutery? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
There is a far more valid point in banning, for example, known child abusers getting married than arguing on tax grounds.
Quote from: muppet
You are using a tax argument against same-sex marriage, and you then accuse others of whataboutery?
As legal marriage affects such things, it is hardly whataboutery, the whataboutery has come from you.
Quote from: muppet on February 22, 2015, 02:40:53 PM
There is a far more valid point in banning, for example, known child abusers getting married than arguing on tax grounds.
There may be. But the fact that known child abusers can get married is not a justification for same sex marriagem in my opinion. But you see to think it is. The fact that you continually cite the existence of flawed marriage in support of your argument tends to suggest that you see SSM as a flawed marriage, but think it should be allowed anyway given all the existing flawed marriages. Not a very convincing argument, all in all.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 22, 2015, 02:28:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 21, 2015, 08:37:17 PM
If marriage is exclusively to support families, and in particular for the benefit of children, should we ban criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts and smokers from getting married? Obviously children of such parents would suffer vis a vis children form 'normal' relationships, so should we protect children from such an outcome?
The same whataboutery again and again. There is nothing particularly unusual in the logic my argument and you would be using a similar logic in other debates, you are just arguing here for the sake of argument. I think the equation of smokers getting married and same sex marriage says it all about the bankrupt nature of your point.
One side of the argument seems to well and truly bankrupt.
You have argued that the No Canpaign is based upon having kids. Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't have kids. But you have no desire to see marriage or the benefits of marriage withheld from hetrosexuals who cannot or choose not to have kids. Your argument is self defeating and bankrupt. You are treating people differently not because of the fact of them having kids or their capacity to have kids but purely because of their sexuality.
It has been argued that homosexuals do not provide adequate care for kids. Yet marriage and the benefits of marriage are not to be withheld from hetrosexuals based upon their track record in looking after kids or capacity to look after kids. Your argument is self defeating and bankrupt. You are treating people differently not because of their record of/capacity to look after kids but purely because of their sexuality.
You have argued that society affords (legal and taxation) benefits to married couples because of the role of marriage in rearing families. You argue for those benefits to retained by hetrosexuals who do not raise their own kids, cannot raise own kids or raise their kids badly. Your argument is self defeating and bankrupt. You are treating people differently not because role or performance in raising kids but purely because of their sexuality.
You have argued that affording taxation benefits. But you say yourself that your argument is not based actual numbers or individual circumstances (how can tax be collected or forewent if its not based upon either numbers or individual circumstances?). An argument on taxation that not based upon numbers or individual circumstances is inherently bankrupt.
Your tax argument is supposedly based the role of married couples in raising children and yet is not based upon the whether the couple have kids, have the capacity to have kids, have the desire to have kids or how well they perform in raising kids. It will instead be based upon sexuality. Your argument is self defeating and bankrupt. You are treating people differently not because role or performance in raising kids but purely because of their sexuality
The only other argument being put forward by the no campaign is based in religion and scriptural evidence. It is difficult to evaluate this argument as this scriptural evidence is not being identified for consideration
Quote from: armaghniac on February 22, 2015, 03:34:32 PM
Quote from: muppet
You are using a tax argument against same-sex marriage, and you then accuse others of whataboutery?
Quote
As legal marriage affects such things, it is hardly whataboutery, the whataboutery has come from you.
Quote from: muppet on February 22, 2015, 02:40:53 PM
There is a far more valid point in banning, for example, known child abusers getting married than arguing on tax grounds.
There may be. But the fact that known child abusers can get married is not a justification for same sex marriagem in my opinion. But you see to think it is. The fact that you continually cite the existence of flawed marriage in support of your argument tends to suggest that you see SSM as a flawed marriage, but think it should be allowed anyway given all the existing flawed marriages. Not a very convincing argument, all in all.
I never said it was.
Child abusers can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.
Smokers can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at a greater health risk.
Alcoholics can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.
Criminals can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.
Same-sex marriage should be allowed as a civil right imho and the arguments regarding tax (nonsense) and children (see above) are completely spurious in my opinion. As far as I can see these arguments are to mask something that people like Stew had the honesty to come straight out and admit earlier on the thread.
Quote from: LCohenYou have argued that the No Canpaign is based upon having kids. Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't have kids. But you have no desire to see marriage or the benefits of marriage withheld from hetrosexuals who cannot or choose not to have kids. Your argument is self defeating and bankrupt. You are treating people differently not because of the fact of them having kids or their capacity to have kids but purely because of their sexuality.
Quote from: muppet on February 22, 2015, 03:55:22 PM
Child abusers can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.
Smokers can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at a greater health risk.
Alcoholics can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.
Criminals can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.
Both of these make the case that relatively uncommon examples of individual reduced capacity in marriage are justification for the extension of that union to combinations which intrinsically do not have that capacity, whatever the individuals involved. This logic is fallacious.
QuoteSame-sex marriage should be allowed as a civil right imho and the arguments regarding tax (nonsense) and children (see above) are completely spurious in my opinion. As far as I can see these arguments are to mask something that people like Stew had the honesty to come straight out and admit earlier on the thread.
Aha, the usual playing of the man. You are entitled to have the view the Same-sex marriage as being a right, as you are not concerned about the damaging effect on marriage. But not to characterise my arguments are nonsense given your lack of success in putting forward effective counter points to them.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 22, 2015, 04:15:15 PM
Quote from: LCohenYou have argued that the No Canpaign is based upon having kids. Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't have kids. But you have no desire to see marriage or the benefits of marriage withheld from hetrosexuals who cannot or choose not to have kids. Your argument is self defeating and bankrupt. You are treating people differently not because of the fact of them having kids or their capacity to have kids but purely because of their sexuality.
Quote from: muppet on February 22, 2015, 03:55:22 PM
Child abusers can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.
Smokers can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at a greater health risk.
Alcoholics can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.
Criminals can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.
Both of these make the case that relatively uncommon examples of individual reduced capacity in marriage are justification for the extension of that union to combinations which intrinsically do not have that capacity, whatever the individuals involved. This logic is fallacious.
They do no such thing, they expose the hypocrisy of the denial of civil rights based on fallacies such as tax grounds and the protection of children.
Quote
QuoteSame-sex marriage should be allowed as a civil right imho and the arguments regarding tax (nonsense) and children (see above) are completely spurious in my opinion. As far as I can see these arguments are to mask something that people like Stew had the honesty to come straight out and admit earlier on the thread.
Aha, the usual playing of the man. You are entitled to have the view the Same-sex marriage as being a right, as you are not concerned about the damaging effect on marriage. But not to characterise my arguments are nonsense given your lack of success in putting forward effective counter points to them.
Playing the man?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 22, 2015, 02:28:15 PM
The same whataboutery again and again. There is nothing particularly unusual in the logic my argument and you would be using a similar logic in other debates, you are just arguing here for the sake of argument. I think the equation of smokers getting married and same sex marriage says it all about the bankrupt nature of your point.
You do everything you accuse me of doing and more.
Armaghniac
Why not have a different tax treatment for those with kids and those without?
That way you could fulfill your social function without discrimination? And taxation would have nothing to do with someone's sexuality - which of course it shouldn't
Quote from: LCohen on February 22, 2015, 04:26:49 PM
Armaghniac
Why not have a different tax treatment for those with kids and those without?
That way you could fulfill your social function without discrimination? And taxation would have nothing to do with someone's sexuality - which of course it shouldn't
You certainly could do that. This would change affect existing marriages, however, in response to the question about how this would affect existing marriages.
The Yes campaign should be up front about doing this.
Once again is it right to place kids to be reared in such relationships and expect them to develop normally with two same sex foster parents as opposed to the different perspectives to upbringing each parent brings in an opposite sex relationship
Quote from: T Fearon on February 22, 2015, 10:01:56 PM
Once again is it right to place kids to be reared in such relationships and expect them to develop normally with two same sex foster parents as opposed to the different perspectives to upbringing each parent brings in an opposite sex relationship
The question is not 'is it right?'.
The question is 'is it legally wrong'....to exclude gay couples from adoption.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 22, 2015, 04:44:38 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 22, 2015, 04:26:49 PM
Armaghniac
Why not have a different tax treatment for those with kids and those without?
That way you could fulfill your social function without discrimination? And taxation would have nothing to do with someone's sexuality - which of course it shouldn't
You certainly could do that. This would change affect existing marriages, however, in response to the question about how this would affect existing marriages.
The Yes campaign should be up front about doing this.
I don't think the yes campaign have advocated this. I merely asked you a question.
Ot was you who linked the debate on gay marriage to the tax/legal privileges granted because of the role of marriage in raising kids. When given the opportunity to link the tax/legal privileges to the existence of kids you chose not to so - how interesting? You fall back to drawing the distinction between homosexual and hetrosexual people instead. Your argument is untenable.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 22, 2015, 10:01:56 PM
Once again is it right to place kids to be reared in such relationships and expect them to develop normally with two same sex foster parents as opposed to the different perspectives to upbringing each parent brings in an opposite sex relationship
What would be wrong with kids growing up in such an environment?
What evidence is there that children have suffered harm in such an environment from such an environment?
We are talking here about voting to deny equality. Surely ever decent human would need robust evidence before soing so?
Quote from: LCohen on February 22, 2015, 11:09:43 PM
Ot was you who linked the debate on gay marriage to the tax/legal privileges granted because of the role of marriage in raising kids. When given the opportunity to link the tax/legal privileges to the existence of kids you chose not to so - how interesting? You fall back to drawing the distinction between homosexual and hetrosexual people instead. Your argument is untenable.
I am not proposing a change, the tax/legal privileges are already connected to unions which have a general capacity to produce children of the relationship, notwithstanding individual examples. I am simply saying these should be not extended beyond those they were intended for and you haven't explained why they should, other than whataboutery.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 22, 2015, 11:19:35 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 22, 2015, 11:09:43 PM
Ot was you who linked the debate on gay marriage to the tax/legal privileges granted because of the role of marriage in raising kids. When given the opportunity to link the tax/legal privileges to the existence of kids you chose not to so - how interesting? You fall back to drawing the distinction between homosexual and hetrosexual people instead. Your argument is untenable.
I am not proposing a change, the tax/legal privileges are already connected to unions which have a general capacity to produce children of the relationship, notwithstanding individual examples. I am simply saying these should be not extended beyond those they were intended for and you haven't explained why they should, other than whataboutery.
I already pointed out to you earlier on the thread, which you acknowledged, that my wife stopped working when we had kids. If we were single she could claim the dole, but we aren't and she can't. It isn't much of a privilege versus an unmarried couple with kids.
Quote from: muppet on February 22, 2015, 11:33:07 PM
I already pointed out to you earlier on the thread, which you acknowledged, that my wife stopped working when we had kids. If we were single she could claim the dole, but we aren't and she can't. It isn't much of a privilege versus an unmarried couple with kids.
This is a mere point of detail, it doesn't affect the overall point one way or the other. However, if your wife wasn't looking for work she wasn't entitled to the dole in any case.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 23, 2015, 12:14:16 AM
Quote from: muppet on February 22, 2015, 11:33:07 PM
I already pointed out to you earlier on the thread, which you acknowledged, that my wife stopped working when we had kids. If we were single she could claim the dole, but we aren't and she can't. It isn't much of a privilege versus an unmarried couple with kids.
This is a mere point of detail, it doesn't affect the overall point one way or the other. However, if your wife wasn't looking for work she wasn't entitled to the dole in any case.
It is when it doesn't suit you.
However it is also a fact that completely undermines your tax argument.
Quote from: muppet on February 23, 2015, 12:18:12 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 23, 2015, 12:14:16 AM
Quote from: muppet on February 22, 2015, 11:33:07 PM
I already pointed out to you earlier on the thread, which you acknowledged, that my wife stopped working when we had kids. If we were single she could claim the dole, but we aren't and she can't. It isn't much of a privilege versus an unmarried couple with kids.
This is a mere point of detail, it doesn't affect the overall point one way or the other. However, if your wife wasn't looking for work she wasn't entitled to the dole in any case.
It is when it doesn't suit you.
However it is also a fact that completely undermines your tax argument.
Without some detailed calculations it is unclear whether you have a point of any sort. But even if you do prove to have such an example, one example does not prove anything just as one aged alcoholic infertile smoker getting married does not prove anything. If this was another thread and someone said that they did not have to pay tax because Brian Cowan was getting some it, you would be first to point out that one example of waste in public expenditure does not mean that most public expenditure does good.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 23, 2015, 12:36:14 AM
Quote from: muppet on February 23, 2015, 12:18:12 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 23, 2015, 12:14:16 AM
Quote from: muppet on February 22, 2015, 11:33:07 PM
I already pointed out to you earlier on the thread, which you acknowledged, that my wife stopped working when we had kids. If we were single she could claim the dole, but we aren't and she can't. It isn't much of a privilege versus an unmarried couple with kids.
This is a mere point of detail, it doesn't affect the overall point one way or the other. However, if your wife wasn't looking for work she wasn't entitled to the dole in any case.
It is when it doesn't suit you.
However it is also a fact that completely undermines your tax argument.
Without some detailed calculations it is unclear whether you have a point of any sort. But even if you do prove to have such an example, one example does not prove anything just as one aged alcoholic infertile smoker getting married does not prove anything. If this was another thread and someone said that they did not have to pay tax because Brian Cowan was getting some it, you would be first to point out that one example of waste in public expenditure does not mean that most public expenditure does good.
You are the one making the specific claims (tax and effect on children) and you have not backed them up with any evidence whatsoever. When someone suggests a similar argument, by way of comparison, you throw all of the toys out of the pram and demand evidence, and/or accuse them of attacking you.
Why don't honestly tell us why you are against it?
Quote from: muppet on February 23, 2015, 12:49:04 AM
You are the one making the specific claims (tax and effect on children) and you have not backed them up with any evidence whatsoever. When someone suggests a similar argument, by way of comparison, you throw all of the toys out of the pram and demand evidence, and/or accuse them of attacking you.
But that's the point. I contended that the reason that there was substantial legal support for marriage was because society was investing in the children that provides its future. Nobody has claimed that the discrimination inherent in that support is justified by some other reason, instead we get individual examples of this and that. If someone is using an individual example to illustrate their argument it is surely reasonable to ask for some details of that example and is not "throwing the toys out the pram".
In any case I've made my point, continually responding to examples of "Jimmy was brought up by a same sex couple and he's a lovely fellow", or "my aunty Mary never had any children and do you think she should be married" will not illustrate my point any further. Some people will vote for this and regardless of the consequences.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 23, 2015, 01:05:53 AM
Quote from: muppet on February 23, 2015, 12:49:04 AM
You are the one making the specific claims (tax and effect on children) and you have not backed them up with any evidence whatsoever. When someone suggests a similar argument, by way of comparison, you throw all of the toys out of the pram and demand evidence, and/or accuse them of attacking you.
But that's the point. I contended that the reason that there was substantial legal support for marriage was because society was investing in the children that provides its future. Nobody has claimed that the discrimination inherent in that support is justified by some other reason, instead we get individual examples of this and that. If someone is using an individual example to illustrate their argument it is surely reasonable to ask for some details of that example and is not "throwing the toys out the pram".
In any case I've made my point, continually responding to examples of "Jimmy was brought up by a same sex couple and he's a lovely fellow", or "my aunty Mary never had any children and do you think she should be married" will not illustrate my point any further. Some people will vote for this and regardless of the consequences.
Armaghniac, the great convenience in this argument is that you can make the claim
'the reason that there was substantial legal support for marriage was because society was investing in the children that provides its future' without the burden of having to back it up with anything, while then taking a snipers position at any contrarian responses.
You are correct that some people will vote regardless of the consequences. There is another old thread here on the Seanad referendum. I was in the minority there wanting it to be scrapped. Seem smart people put out a soundbite that a no vote could be a vote for reform of the Seanad. That was quite popular here too. Of course once the no vote was in, that was the last we heard of reform.
If we have learned anything about referendums in Ireland, it is that the vote can fly off chasing any kite cleverly launched with the right soundbite.
Quote from: muppet on February 22, 2015, 11:33:07 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 22, 2015, 11:19:35 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 22, 2015, 11:09:43 PM
Ot was you who linked the debate on gay marriage to the tax/legal privileges granted because of the role of marriage in raising kids. When given the opportunity to link the tax/legal privileges to the existence of kids you chose not to so - how interesting? You fall back to drawing the distinction between homosexual and hetrosexual people instead. Your argument is untenable.
I am not proposing a change, the tax/legal privileges are already connected to unions which have a general capacity to produce children of the relationship, notwithstanding individual examples. I am simply saying these should be not extended beyond those they were intended for and you haven't explained why they should, other than whataboutery.
I already pointed out to you earlier on the thread, which you acknowledged, that my wife stopped working when we had kids. If we were single she could claim the dole, but we aren't and she can't. It isn't much of a privilege versus an unmarried couple with kids.
Can't the married/unmarried loophole be fixed by the mother of the child being obligated to provide the fathers name on the birth cert. Whomever the lucky chap is then is liable for the welfare of the child and the mother.
DNA testing facilities would boom but this might be the only way to stop the epidemic. If no welfare is given without a name then you'd see a change in attitude.
Quote from: foxcommander on February 23, 2015, 02:10:34 AM
Quote from: muppet on February 22, 2015, 11:33:07 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 22, 2015, 11:19:35 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 22, 2015, 11:09:43 PM
Ot was you who linked the debate on gay marriage to the tax/legal privileges granted because of the role of marriage in raising kids. When given the opportunity to link the tax/legal privileges to the existence of kids you chose not to so - how interesting? You fall back to drawing the distinction between homosexual and hetrosexual people instead. Your argument is untenable.
I am not proposing a change, the tax/legal privileges are already connected to unions which have a general capacity to produce children of the relationship, notwithstanding individual examples. I am simply saying these should be not extended beyond those they were intended for and you haven't explained why they should, other than whataboutery.
I already pointed out to you earlier on the thread, which you acknowledged, that my wife stopped working when we had kids. If we were single she could claim the dole, but we aren't and she can't. It isn't much of a privilege versus an unmarried couple with kids.
Can't the married/unmarried loophole be fixed by the mother of the child being obligated to provide the fathers name on the birth cert. Whomever the lucky chap is then is liable for the welfare of the child and the mother.
DNA testing facilities would boom but this might be the only way to stop the epidemic. If no welfare is given without a name then you'd see a change in attitude.
Man gets girl pregnant and runs off. Girl then loses benefits. Brilliant idea.
Meanwhile back on topic.........
Just putting this up to see what anyone thinks of it.
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 23, 2015, 11:16:50 AM
Just putting this up to see what anyone thinks of it.
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
It doesn't compare families with the usual parents demographic (what is calls
Intact Biological Family) straight man/woman versus parents comprised of man/man or woman/woman. The study analysed the well-being of a group of 18-39 year olds it found that "
Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father. "
This is not a comparison of straight couples rearing children versus gay couples rearing children.
This is actually analysis of couples with one or other pretending to be straight, rearing children. A different thing entirely.
As far as I can see, this is a study to prove the deviance of homosexuals, using data of children who believe a parent may have had homosexual encounters, and then using this small sample to draw some big conclusions:
"The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). "And then here is the final conclusion:
"The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever."This is complete non-sense because there isn't a reference to one single respondent being reared by 'same-sex parents'.
Hidden throughout the article are points that logically render it nonsense, but they are quickly overturned by spin. Here are some examples:
"
Unlike the previous studies on children of homosexual parents, he has put together a representative, population-based sample that is large enough to draw scientifically and statistically valid conclusions. For these reasons, his "New Family Structures Study" (NFSS) deserves to be considered the "gold standard" in this field."
This was not a study on children of homosexual parents.
This is what they are basing everything on:
.......
in the end almost 3,000, a representative sample, actually completed the survey questionnaire. Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father.....
This is an insult to scientific method. A survey where 5.8% of respondents who ticked a box because they thought their mother had a same sex relationship and the 2.4% of respondents who thought their father had a same sex relationship, is not a basis for anything, let alone claiming to be 'The New Gold Standard' in analysis of the effect of 'same-sex marriage' on children.
The high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study because there were fewer of them. No shit?
The usual datum for statistical significance afaik is 5%. It can vary but, given the article doesn't mention what the datum was, I am guessing it was 5%. Thus the 'gay' father (who might not describe himself as gay at all - he wasn't asked) stats are not statistically significant, but the article still includes conclusions drawn from them. The lesbian mothers stats just make the threshold for significance, but then the respondents were not the individuals who were being called lesbians, it was their children.
The whole premise of the study is that a number of adults who believed one of their parents were homosexuals (the parents had no right of reply) we more likely to display anti-social tendencies or be victims of anti-social events, than children who didn't think either of their parents were homosexuals.
This study is perfect for the likes of The Daily Mail.
Well analysed, muppet.
All of these "studies" lack the size and structured nature to draw useful conclusions from them, which won't stop them being used by various factions.
Quote from: Hardy on February 23, 2015, 02:05:10 PM
Well analysed, muppet.
Agreed, saved me the effort of responding.
Apparently the governor of Texas and his underlings want to "undo" the marriage of a lesbian couple who were permitted to marry last week, a once-off kind of job because one of them is dying of ovarian cancer.
Should make for good optics, "compassionate" christian conservatives stripping a dying woman of her marital status in a bitter, futile attempt to delay the inevitable, coming down from the Supreme Court in June.
e author=J70 link=topic=25487.msg1442217#msg1442217 date=1424715422]
Apparently the governor of Txexas and his underlings want to "undo" the marriage of a lesbian couple who were permitted to marry last week, a once-off kind of job because one of them is dying of ovarian cancer.
Should make for good optics, "compassionate" christian conservatives stripping a dying woman of her marital status in a bitter, futile attempt to delay the inevitable, coming down from the Supreme Court in June.
[/quote]
What a shower of scumbags!
Thars
Quote from: armaghniac on February 23, 2015, 01:05:53 AM
Quote from: muppet on February 23, 2015, 12:49:04 AM
You are the one making the specific claims (tax and effect on children) and you have not backed them up with any evidence whatsoever. When someone suggests a similar argument, by way of comparison, you throw all of the toys out of the pram and demand evidence, and/or accuse them of attacking you.
But that's the point. I contended that the reason that there was substantial legal support for marriage was because society was investing in the children that provides its future. Nobody has claimed that the discrimination inherent in that support is justified by some other reason, instead we get individual examples of this and that. If someone is using an individual example to illustrate their argument it is surely reasonable to ask for some details of that example and is not "throwing the toys out the pram".
So, using that line, if the gay couples adopt (or go down the surrogacy route) and raise children, they're making the same contribution to society as (many) heterosexual couples. That being the scenario, what's the logic in your argument?
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 23, 2015, 08:04:30 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 23, 2015, 01:05:53 AM
Quote from: muppet on February 23, 2015, 12:49:04 AM
You are the one making the specific claims (tax and effect on children) and you have not backed them up with any evidence whatsoever. When someone suggests a similar argument, by way of comparison, you throw all of the toys out of the pram and demand evidence, and/or accuse them of attacking you.
But that's the point. I contended that the reason that there was substantial legal support for marriage was because society was investing in the children that provides its future. Nobody has claimed that the discrimination inherent in that support is justified by some other reason, instead we get individual examples of this and that. If someone is using an individual example to illustrate their argument it is surely reasonable to ask for some details of that example and is not "throwing the toys out the pram".
So, using that line, if the gay couples adopt (or go down the surrogacy route) and raise children, they're making the same contribution to society as (many) heterosexual couples. That being the scenario, what's the logic in your argument?
As I said adoption is a red herring, given the small numbers adopted there are enough normal couples to adopt them.
I don't wish to encourage surrogacy, many civilised countries outlaw it entirely.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 23, 2015, 08:17:59 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 23, 2015, 08:04:30 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 23, 2015, 01:05:53 AM
Quote from: muppet on February 23, 2015, 12:49:04 AM
You are the one making the specific claims (tax and effect on children) and you have not backed them up with any evidence whatsoever. When someone suggests a similar argument, by way of comparison, you throw all of the toys out of the pram and demand evidence, and/or accuse them of attacking you.
But that's the point. I contended that the reason that there was substantial legal support for marriage was because society was investing in the children that provides its future. Nobody has claimed that the discrimination inherent in that support is justified by some other reason, instead we get individual examples of this and that. If someone is using an individual example to illustrate their argument it is surely reasonable to ask for some details of that example and is not "throwing the toys out the pram".
So, using that line, if the gay couples adopt (or go down the surrogacy route) and raise children, they're making the same contribution to society as (many) heterosexual couples. That being the scenario, what's the logic in your argument?
As I said adoption is a red herring, given the small numbers adopted there are enough normal couples to adopt them.
I don't wish to encourage surrogacy, many civilised countries outlaw it entirely.
"Normal", indeed.
But the argument that there are enough normal couples to adopt isn't a logical argument. You could equally say, in Ireland, that there are enough white couples, enough Catholic couples, enough FG/FF/SF (delete as appropriate) voting couples, as a reason to exclude others.
There's nothing to suggest that a gay couple adopting a child wouldn't be making an equal contribution to society.
Adoption is a worthwhile contribution to society, but it is a different one to people having children together.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 23, 2015, 08:35:32 PM
Adoption is a worthwhile contribution to society, but it is a different one to people having children together.
Different, yes... but a lesser contribution?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 23, 2015, 08:35:32 PM
Adoption is a worthwhile contribution to society, but it is a different one to people having children together.
How? My sister has adopted two sisters and id like to know the difference (not the obvious one)
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 23, 2015, 08:54:00 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 23, 2015, 08:35:32 PM
Adoption is a worthwhile contribution to society, but it is a different one to people having children together.
How? My sister has adopted two sisters and id like to know the difference (not the obvious one)
In substance, there's no difference. It's just scrambling for an argument to support a position.
I didn't know you get paid for adopting in some cases.
Quote from: Kidder81 on February 23, 2015, 09:27:38 PM
I didn't know you get paid for adopting in some cases.
You considering it?
Quote from: Kidder81 on February 23, 2015, 09:27:38 PM
I didn't know you get paid for adopting in some cases.
Will you take in some of the Rossie posters for us?
Quote from: Kidder81 on February 23, 2015, 09:27:38 PM
I didn't know you get paid for adopting in some cases.
Fostering. Don't think my sister got anything. What circumstances you talk about
Apparently a priest laid into Eamon McGee at mass in Annagry at the weekend, due to public comments he made in support of gay marriage. A few people walked out.
What an arrogant p***k! Is the church so afraid of the debate that they have to try to silence any opposition opinion by singling out someone at mass like they used to in the bad old days?
http://www.joe.ie/news/donegal-churchgoers-walk-out-of-mass-after-priest-criticises-gaa-stars-stance-on-gay-marriage/487732 (http://www.joe.ie/news/donegal-churchgoers-walk-out-of-mass-after-priest-criticises-gaa-stars-stance-on-gay-marriage/487732)
Quote from: J70 on March 10, 2015, 05:18:38 PM
Apparently a priest laid into Eamon McGee at mass in Annagry at the weekend, due to public comments he made in support of gay marriage. A few people walked out.
What an arrogant p***k! Is the church so afraid of the debate that they have to try to silence any opposition opinion by singling out someone at mass like they used to in the bad old days?
http://www.joe.ie/news/donegal-churchgoers-walk-out-of-mass-after-priest-criticises-gaa-stars-stance-on-gay-marriage/487732 (http://www.joe.ie/news/donegal-churchgoers-walk-out-of-mass-after-priest-criticises-gaa-stars-stance-on-gay-marriage/487732)
"A Catholic organisation was ribbing me on Twitter and asking why the GAA was taking a stand on this. It's a societal issue rather than a political issue but the majority of it has been supportive and I think it's a good opportunity too for people to talk about it. It just shows you there's that bit of open-mindedness there."The same could be asked of the Catholic Organisation, but then that would be 'anti-Catholic'.
Quote from: J70 on March 10, 2015, 05:18:38 PM
Apparently a priest laid into Eamon McGee at mass in Annagry at the weekend, due to public comments he made in support of gay marriage. A few people walked out.
What an arrogant p***k! Is the church so afraid of the debate that they have to try to silence any opposition opinion by singling out someone at mass like they used to in the bad old days?
http://www.joe.ie/news/donegal-churchgoers-walk-out-of-mass-after-priest-criticises-gaa-stars-stance-on-gay-marriage/487732 (http://www.joe.ie/news/donegal-churchgoers-walk-out-of-mass-after-priest-criticises-gaa-stars-stance-on-gay-marriage/487732)
The "source" was Donegal Daily. Treat this story accordingly.
Quote from: StephenC on March 11, 2015, 08:16:09 AM
Quote from: J70 on March 10, 2015, 05:18:38 PM
Apparently a priest laid into Eamon McGee at mass in Annagry at the weekend, due to public comments he made in support of gay marriage. A few people walked out.
What an arrogant p***k! Is the church so afraid of the debate that they have to try to silence any opposition opinion by singling out someone at mass like they used to in the bad old days?
http://www.joe.ie/news/donegal-churchgoers-walk-out-of-mass-after-priest-criticises-gaa-stars-stance-on-gay-marriage/487732 (http://www.joe.ie/news/donegal-churchgoers-walk-out-of-mass-after-priest-criticises-gaa-stars-stance-on-gay-marriage/487732)
The "source" was Donegal Daily. Treat this story accordingly.
Indo are carrying it too, including a comment from the priest where he doesn't deny singling out McGee.
Bressie has a very interesting site devoted to mental health and one of the features is a Gay/Lesbian/whatever blog
http://www.my1000hours.com/schools-out/
"From my own experience of growing up gay the biggest problem wasn't what was said or done, but rather the opposite. It was the silence that surrounded the issue that was the main culprit. No student or teacher was out in school. No player or coach at football. Aunts and uncles teased you with the perpetual "any girlfriends?" jest, never "boyfriend". Nobody talked about it. Nobody talked about it. In fact, the only mention of "gay" in school was the slur "that's so gay" which was a phrase thrown around the corridors like confetti. It felt odd that the curriculum would spend hundreds of hours hammering trigonometry into you but blatantly ignore things more fundamental and meaningful to your being like your feelings. The result was fear and shame about being open about who you were, confusion over why this was the case, exclusion from the delights of sexuality (at 16 this matters), and worry that it would never change.
Then college. Wow. Physically only a few kilometers away from secondary school, college, with its diverse population and culture of openness, was a new way of life. People kissed whomever, dated whomever, held hands with whomever. It was out in the open, it was talked about, and (shockingly) nobody cared. It was like the discovery of a new planet previously unknown. Why had I needlessly worried? Why did nobody tell me about this? Hit with utter exasperation about the contrast in environments I wanted to do something about it and be that person who could tell others. So with a few friends I formed the non-profit ShoutOut which would do just that. It's mission: break the silence on LGBT issues in secondary schools across Ireland. "
The thing about college is that it is a select population - not everyone goes to college so the values are not always the same as in secondary school which is more like the general population. LGBT issues are probably a harder sell at secondary level.
Tony, time to load up the conestoga wagon and head off to Oklahomophobia.
The Oklahoma legislature is seeking to pass a Tonyesque law allowing "religious liberty", i.e. endorsing businesses' anti-gay discrimination.
Well, showing this law for what it is, a Dem. lawmaker, Emily Virgin (how topically apropos), has proposed an amendment.
Virgin wants to ensure that gay couples know which businesses and government agencies will refuse them service so they can avoid the indignity of being turned away based on their identity. So Virgin's amendment requires that "any person" who despises gay people too much to serve them must simply "post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites." The amendment would promulgate the same notice requirement for businesses that refuse to service based on race or gender identity.
An American Poyntz-They-Shall-Not-Pass
Oraisteach this is perfectly reasonable.Allows Christian businesses to stay true to their beliefs while avoiding any offence to members of the gay community.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2015, 07:25:48 AM
Oraisteach this is perfectly reasonable.Allows Christian businesses to stay true to their beliefs while avoiding any offence to members of the gay community.
Hitler had the similar beliefs Tony, was he reasonable?
Hitler believed in businesses having gay friendly signs? Ffs he gassed people for less
Tony, does your 'this' refer to Emily Virgin's amendment? You do know, right, that her aim is to have discriminatory businesses own up to their biases by forcing them to acknowledge openly that they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.? Her intent is to shame and additionally dissuade heterosexuals from patronizing openly offensive discriminatory businesses, not protect their 'religious liberty'.
Nothing like having the Klan kum out out of kloset and kommunicate their kind of kristianity.
But they're not discriminating.They will not serve any customers who ask for goods/services that contradict with their religious beliefs,be that customer black,white,gay,straight,Christian,Muslim,old,young.That is the point.
So, in sum, Tony, any form of discrimination is acceptable (gays, blacks, Muslims, the disabled, the old, the poor, the Catholic seeking a job in the six counties, the breathing) as long as you say it offends your religious beliefs. O Brave New World.
No discrimination is not acceptable,including discrimination against Christians,who should not be legally compelled to act against their religious beliefs
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2015, 03:04:31 PM
No discrimination is not acceptable,including discrimination against Christians,who should not be legally compelled to act against their religious beliefs
Does this apply to Christians only or do you extend this consideration to Jews and other religions?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2015, 03:04:31 PM
No discrimination is not acceptable,including discrimination against Christians,who should not be legally compelled to act against their religious beliefs
So what you're saying is that any form of discrimination
is acceptable?
Interestingly, the result to date of the gaaboard poll, including both those who have a vote and those who don't, correlates closely with that of the latest national poll by Red C.
If we remove from our poll those who don't have a vote, the poll shows a slightly more conservative tendency than both the nation at large and the gaaboard at large. That is a little surprising. Those without a vote are presumably overwhelmingly Northern and I would have expected a more conservative Catholic attitude from that constituency.
We have more non-voters than voters participating, reflecting the geographical demographics of the board. And, maybe not surprisingly, those without a vote are more sure of their position (fewer undecided) than those who actually have a vote. But it's a small sample.
Red C poll:
Yes 76%
No 18%
Undecided 8%
Excluding undecideds:
Yes 81%
No 19%
Gaaboard poll (voters and non-voters):
Yes 76%
No 20%
Undecided 4%
Excluding undecideds:
Yes 79%
No 21%
Gaaboard poll (voters only):
Yes 64%
No 27%
Undecided 9%
Excluding undecideds:
Yes 71%
No 29%
No one in business,of amy faith,Christian,Jew,Muslim etc,should be legally compelled to supply goods or services that are contrary to their beliefs.Those who are denied goods/or services on account of the religious beliefs of any business owner,have plenty of alternative options in this increasingly secular country and world. To describe them as victims of discrimination is laughable
So, Tony, by your terms, a Catholic in Northern Ireland, denied advancement in the Civil Service, or membership of a reserve police force, or work in a shipyard, because he or she is not a member of the Orange Order, an organization whose very belief system finds Catholicism anathema, is not in fact a victim of discrimination.
Or a black family making a trek across the US throughout most of the last century, denied a room in hotel after hotel, or B&B after B&B, because their skin color is against the proprietor's belief system has no cause for complaint because the owner is within his rights.
And please do not hide behind that bogus viable options argument. The number of options has no bearing whatsoever on whether a discriminatory act meets the discrimination standard. Discrimination is discrimination per se regardless of alternatives.
The only thing laughable is that you may actually believe what you're writing and that you're not simply reverting to WUMness. Neither is an admirable trait.
No.This is not the same thing.I certainly do not believe that people should be denied goods or services simply because they belong to any grouping,be that based on religion,colour,gender or sexual orientation etc.
But if the provision of a particular good or service directly conflicts with the beliefs of the business owner,then the business owner should not be legally compelled to provide such goods or services.
Tony, your statement is contradictory. You can't say, on the one hand, that you don't think that people should be denied goods or services based on gender, race, or religion, and then, on the other, uphold the right of a person to deny those goods and services because a person's gender, race or religion is against the denier's belief system.
People's rights are contradictory.How can anyone who is a Christian be reasonably expected to provide goods or services facilitating gay marriage when it is a total anathema to them and their beliefs?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 06:26:26 AM
People's rights are contradictory.How can anyone who is a Christian be reasonably expected to provide goods or services facilitating gay marriage when it is a total anathema to them and their beliefs?
Once again, with feeling:
Because, leaving aside the civil law and the illegality of discrimination, according to the Christ whose teachings you pretend to follow, you must. You are not required, in fact you are not permitted by the tenets of your professed faith to put yourself up as some sort of gatekeeper for Jesus, that Jesus himself would despise, by making any judgement on the actions of others. You must concern yourself only with your own actions and whether they are in accordance with the faith you profess, the fundamental principle of which is to be fair, reasonable and generous and assume the best not the worst of others.
How can you not understand this? I am not a believer in the supernatural but I can see this is a fine set of principles by which to live. And the polar opposite of the mean, squinting-window, selfish, small, stupid, fearful and spiteful mode of existence you profess here.
The mob are quick to turn on their own, if they are off message
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/31896339
Hardy those tenets don't extend to facilitating sin or promoting the defiance of God's Law.You simply cannot believe homosexuality to be wrong while simultaneously icing a design on a gay wedding cake celebrating such a union,and worse still,accept payment.That's simply hypocrisy.By not facilitating the request the business owner is not passing any judgement on anyone.He or she is simply trying to live in accordance with their.own beliefs.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 16, 2015, 01:53:44 PM
The mob are quick to turn on their own, if they are off message
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/31896339
What mob would that be? You realise that just because two people might be gay, they are allowed have differences of opinion?
You'd hardly much it if people decided you weren't allowed to have a difference of opinion with Tony because you're both from Armagh, would you?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 02:43:29 PM
Hardy those tenets don't extend to facilitating sin or promoting the defiance of God's Law.You simply cannot believe homosexuality to be wrong while simultaneously icing a design on a gay wedding cake celebrating such a union,and worse still,accept payment.That's simply hypocrisy.By not facilitating the request the business owner is not passing any judgement on anyone.He or she is simply trying to live in accordance with their.own beliefs.
Nonsense. You are passing judgement on the the actions of others. You can't do that and claim to be a Christian. There's no grey area here. Show up at your pearly gates with that on your rap sheet and it's the cinder pit for you.
That is nonsense.As a Christian your mission is to witness and be an example to.others.It is not in any way an act of judgement to politely refuse to be involved in the sins of others,or if you like aiding and abetting sin.
But by judging that what others are doing is sinful, you are sinning yourself - committing the biggest (some say the only) sin that Christ despises. "Judge not and you shall not be judged". "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Tony, you're pegging rocks with abandon at people who want a room for the night. Do you even have a place in your stable?
Even if it was true that the pair at your reception desk were sinners, even if they were the lowest of the low, you have a specific statement as to how your treatment of them will be judged when you ring the bell at Peter's gate: "Since you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me."
You say you want to set an example. There are two kinds of example. You know the sentence for someone who sets the example of specifically disobeying Christ's instructions. "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
But even a miserable sinner like you can repent and be saved, Tony. Take the weary travellers into the bosom of your B&B. Open the residents' bar. Offer them a hot water bottle. Bring them breakfast in bed. And don't backslide or allow your mind to dwell for a moment on what they might be doing in their room or you're back to square one and looking at eternity on the roasting spit.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 03:30:35 PM
That is nonsense.As a Christian your mission is to witness and be an example to.others.It is not in any way an act of judgement to politely refuse to be involved in the sins of others,or if you like aiding and abetting sin.
Tony - read the bit in bold again. You
ARE judging that someone else's actions are sinful. It's not up to you to judge. you might think you've a fair idea what is or isn't a sin but it's up to God to decide/judge. Live and let live. All you can do is mind what you do yourself and as you say, set (what you think is) good example. discriminating against people you think might be sinning is dodgy ground at best.
Quote from: Hardy on March 16, 2015, 03:55:59 PM
But by judging that what others are doing is sinful, you are sinning yourself - committing the biggest (some say the only) sin that Christ despises. "Judge not and you shall not be judged". "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Tony, you're pegging rocks with abandon at people who want a room for the night. Do you even have a place in your stable?
Even if it was true that the pair at your reception desk were sinners, even if they were the lowest of the low, you have a specific statement as to how your treatment of them will be judged when you ring the bell at Peter's gate: "Since you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me."
You say you want to set an example. There are two kinds of example. You know the sentence for someone who sets the example of specifically disobeying Christ's instructions. "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
But even a miserable sinner like you can repent and be saved, Tony. Take the weary travellers into the bosom of your B&B. Open the residents' bar. Offer them a hot water bottle. Bring them breakfast in bed. And don't backslide or allow your mind to dwell for a moment on what they might be doing in their room or you're back to square one and looking at eternity on the roasting spit.
I've said it before, most of these Christian types wouldn't even have given the carpenter Joseph and his heavily pregnant 'betrothed' virgin Mary the stable, let alone a bed for the night...
Hypocrites.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 03:30:35 PM
That is nonsense.As a Christian your mission is to witness and be an example to.others.It is not in any way an act of judgement to politely refuse to be involved in the sins of others,or if you like aiding and abetting sin.
Yet you are a huge fan of Sean Brady, the man who silenced one of the only people willing to speak out against Brendan Smyth.
Didn't Jesus hang around with sinners and even worse - tax collectors.
I think it's pretty clear that it's not up to us to decide who is "good" or "bad". Jesus didn't do it when he was here and isn't that the template we're supposed to aspire to?
A lot of people go to Mass every week and never listen.
Quote from: gallsman on March 16, 2015, 03:13:22 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 16, 2015, 01:53:44 PM
The mob are quick to turn on their own, if they are off message
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/31896339
What mob would that be? You realise that just because two people might be gay, they are allowed have differences of opinion?
You'd hardly much it if people decided you weren't allowed to have a difference of opinion with Tony because you're both from Armagh, would you?
Calling on people to boycott a business because someone expresses an opinion isn't very respectful of the alternate point of view. This is not unusual, people are often characterised as anti Gay if they express any opinion vaguely supportive of the continuation of marriage in its current form, you only have to look at this thread to see that.
In the Irish contect Keith Mills has been talking a lot of sense, but has been abused for saying so and not allowed make his point in Gay forums. A lot of people do not think he is entitled to his opinion.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/why-ill-be-voting-no-to-samesex-marriage-even-though-im-gay-30953906.html
http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/57301/ten-things-an-irish-woman-could-not-do-in-1970-and-be-prepared-to-cringe (http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/57301/ten-things-an-irish-woman-could-not-do-in-1970-and-be-prepared-to-cringe)
There were plenty of women who supported the status quo above too.
Quote from: muppet on March 16, 2015, 05:34:12 PM
http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/57301/ten-things-an-irish-woman-could-not-do-in-1970-and-be-prepared-to-cringe (http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/57301/ten-things-an-irish-woman-could-not-do-in-1970-and-be-prepared-to-cringe)
Another attempt to make a connection with worthy issues in the past with which the present one has nothing much in common.
Quote
There were plenty of women who supported the status quo too.
I blame Francis Rossi.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 16, 2015, 05:58:50 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 16, 2015, 05:34:12 PM
http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/57301/ten-things-an-irish-woman-could-not-do-in-1970-and-be-prepared-to-cringe (http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/57301/ten-things-an-irish-woman-could-not-do-in-1970-and-be-prepared-to-cringe)
Another attempt to make a connection with worthy issues in the past with which the present one has nothing much in common.
Quote
There were plenty of women who supported the status quo too.
I blame Francis Rossi.
Yes, you are right. We should never look at history for guidance.
Jesus hung out with sinners in a mission to convert them not to facilitate sin.It is not in any way Christian to offer unconditional love.I cannot fathom an intellect that considers an endorsement of sin as an act that has anything to do with being Christian.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
Jesus hung out with sinners in a mission to convert them not to facilitate sin.It is not in any way Christian to offer unconditional love.I cannot fathom an intellect that considers an endorsement of sin as an act that has anything to do with being Christian.
Do you think He would he have let them under his roof?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
Jesus hung out with sinners in a mission to convert them not to facilitate sin.
According to your bible, he chastised anyone who discriminated against them. Which parts of "judge not ... " and "let him who is without sin ... " do you fail to understand?
Quote
It is not in any way Christian to offer unconditional love.
Peter is really going to be pissed off at you trying to rewrite the gospels. Where does it say "conditionally love your enemies, do conditional good to them that hate you and conditionally pray for them that persecute and calumniate you"? Or "you shall conditionally love your neighbour as yourself"? If you're in the club, you're supposed to live by this stuff, you know, not make up your own versions.
Quote from: Hardy on March 16, 2015, 06:51:47 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
Jesus hung out with sinners in a mission to convert them not to facilitate sin.
According to your bible, he chastised anyone who discriminated against them. Which parts of "judge not ... " and "let him who is without sin ... " do you fail to understand?
Quote
It is not in any way Christian to offer unconditional love.
Peter is really going to be pissed off at you trying to rewrite the gospels. Where does it say "conditionally love your enemies, do conditional good to them that hate you and conditionally pray for them that persecute and calumniate you"? Or "you shall conditionally love your neighbour as yourself"? If you're in the club, you're supposed to live by this stuff, you know, not make up your own versions.
Love thy neighbour, but not the odious ones.
Thou shalt not kill, unless they deserve it.I think Tony would be far more Old Testament than Christian.
But no one is discriminating against anyone.I would no more knowingly facilitate an adulterous heterosexual couple in a double room than I would a homosexual couple.If true to the gospel Christians should be witnessing to homosexuals,but try that at next year's Gay Pride March in Belfast and find out who the real intolerant people are.
It's not discriminatory,it's not judgemental,it's quite simply the fact that Christians cannot condone,endorse,or profit from the sins of others.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 07:02:26 PM
But no one is discriminating against anyone.
I don't think those words think what you think they mean.
And I cannot fathom an intellect that sees ostracism as even remotely Christian. Christ humbled himself to wash others' feet, to associate with the diseased and the social pariah. He espoused a belief that was unambiguous--love thy neighbor and what you do to the least of these, you do to me. I believe that Jesus admired and loved the essential outsider, the Good Samaritan, who provided help when more 'religious' hypocrites ignored another's plight.
Christianity is a faith of action, or at least it ought to be. It elevates example over precept. So, when you cower selfishly in childlike fear of an OT angry god, think instead of what Jesus would do.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 07:02:26 PM
But no one is discriminating against anyone.I would no more knowingly facilitate an adulterous heterosexual couple in a double room than I would a homosexual couple.If true to the gospel Christians should be witnessing to homosexuals,but try that at next year's Gay Pride March in Belfast and find out who the real intolerant people are.
It's not discriminatory,it's not judgemental,it's quite simply the fact that Christians cannot condone,endorse,or profit from the sins of others.
But Tony, you famously booked into Citiwest. You thus endorsed their policy of accepting unmarried and same sex couples without prejudice, and obviously you condoned it.
(http://media1.giphy.com/media/lT4sgCJwC7B4c/giphy.gif)
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 07:02:26 PM
But no one is discriminating against anyone.I would no more knowingly facilitate an adulterous heterosexual couple in a double room than I would a homosexual couple.If true to the gospel Christians should be witnessing to homosexuals,but try that at next year's Gay Pride March in Belfast and find out who the real intolerant people are.
It's not discriminatory,it's not judgemental,it's quite simply the fact that Christians cannot condone,endorse,or profit from the sins of others.
I still want to know how you would verify the marital status of a man and woman who land at your B&B.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 16, 2015, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 07:02:26 PM
But no one is discriminating against anyone.I would no more knowingly facilitate an adulterous heterosexual couple in a double room than I would a homosexual couple.If true to the gospel Christians should be witnessing to homosexuals,but try that at next year's Gay Pride March in Belfast and find out who the real intolerant people are.
It's not discriminatory,it's not judgemental,it's quite simply the fact that Christians cannot condone,endorse,or profit from the sins of others.
I still want to know how you would verify the marital status of a man and woman who land at your B&B.
Don't forget he tried to skip past this one previously by pointing out that, in Tonyland, a gay couple are far more likely to do the nasty in a hotel then a straight couple.
Sound logic right there.
I used the word " knowingly"
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 08:27:38 PM
I used the word " knowingly"
The question though, is how do you propose to "know"?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 08:27:38 PM
I used the word " knowingly"
Ok, you knowingly booked Citiwest, knowingly it doesn't have a discriminatory policy barring gay and/or unmarried couples. Thus you knowingly endorsed this business and knowingly condoned it's softness on sin.
What are you on about?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 09:08:06 PM
What are you on about?
If you can't have a gay couple under your roof, is it ok to be under someone else's roof, a roof that has gay couples sleeping together under it? Are you not condoning or enforcing such a business?
It is nothing to do with me what goes on under anyone else's roof,I'm not sanctioning it nor profiting from it
Intriguing question, Muppet, one that Tony will wriggle to eel out of. So, if Tony refuses to accommodate gays under his roof, what happens when he books a room at the CityWest, which presumably does not have so stringent a policy. By paying for a room there, isn't he, in effect, underwriting a business that promotes a lifestyle contrary to his belief system. To be true to himself, he should vet every inn in the country to determine its policy re: same sex couples to be dead certain he is not party to sin. 'Unknowingly' does not provide adequate coverage. Due diligence would require that Tony seize the bulls&$t by the horns and discover each B&B's policy.
On the other hand, though, even the Vatican bank is known to have laundered mobsters' money and invested in pharmaceutical companies that produced contraceptives. Perhaps they didn't know, but maybe, like Tony, they had a moral obligation to find out.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 09:26:55 PM
It is nothing to do with me what goes on under anyone else's roof,I'm not sanctioning it nor profiting from it
But you are the one who pontificated:
"it's quite simply the fact that Christians cannot condone,endorse,or profit from the sins of others."You won't allow it under your roof, but you are happy to sleep under someone else's roof while it is going on. Presumably everything is ok if it is someone else going to hell Tony. God would be so impressed.
Edit: Just saw Oraisteach's post. He put it better than me.
I cannot control what happens under someone else's roof so conscience entirely clear
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 09:54:02 PM
I cannot control what happens under someone else's roof so conscience entirely clear
But you choose to be under that sinful roof.
Endorse and condone, that is what you said.
The point is I'm not directly facilitating sinful activity under my roof
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 10:01:44 PM
The point is I'm not directly facilitating sinful activity under my roof
I wonder does Saint Peter accept
plausible deniability as ground for outrageous hypocrisy, discrimination and ignorance? Best of luck with it.
Well, in a way, you are. By paying a business that does allow sinfulness to occur, you are permitting that enterprise to thrive, and are thereby funding acts of sinfulness. In reality, you should be boycotting any business that promotes a lifestyle contrary to your beliefs.
Would you, for example, buy your authentic Jimmy Greaves autographed jersey from a vendor in whose store window were the words: "We Do Not Serve Catholics, those godless antichrists!'
Or, would you wash your hands of the dilemma and just buy the shirt and thus fund sectarianism?
I'd like to think you'd refuse to patronize the establishment, but in the hierarchy of the saintly, I fear that St. James of Greaves ranks more highly than the ethics of St. Anthony of Poyntzpass.
Your personal responsibility ends at the point where you do not exercise control.
But you do have control over whether or not to boycott.
Since you do have control over whether you will stay in any particular hotel, why are you not exercising this control to ensure that you're not endorsing heinous homosexual hanky-panky?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 10:52:01 PM
Your personal responsibility ends at the point where you do not exercise control.
...of your own mind?
I am not endorsing anything only my right to have accommodation and food in return for the going rate.That pure and simply is the extent of my interaction with this hotel.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 17, 2015, 06:13:40 AM
I am not endorsing anything only my right to have accommodation and food in return for the going rate.That pure and simply is the extent of my interaction with this hotel.
Yes, along with the gay couples and the unmarried ones rights to have the same thing as you. We are all agreed then. Hallelujah!
Of course my occupancy of a room in a hotel is potentially preventing the same room being used by a gay couple.There you go,conscience clear!
Quote from: T Fearon on March 17, 2015, 10:32:04 AM
Of course my occupancy of a room in a hotel is potentially preventing the same room being used by a gay couple.There you go,conscience clear!
do you procreate when in the hotel Tony, or is she on the pill?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
Jesus hung out with sinners in a mission to convert them not to facilitate sin.It is not in any way Christian to offer unconditional love.I cannot fathom an intellect that considers an endorsement of sin as an act that has anything to do with being Christian.
"Not in any way Christian to offer unconditional love"...seriously?
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 17, 2015, 10:54:38 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
Jesus hung out with sinners in a mission to convert them not to facilitate sin.It is not in any way Christian to offer unconditional love.I cannot fathom an intellect that considers an endorsement of sin as an act that has anything to do with being Christian.
"Not in any way Christian to offer unconditional love"...seriously?
That means the vast majority of parents can't be Christians.
Quote from: muppet on March 17, 2015, 12:48:35 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on March 17, 2015, 10:54:38 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 16, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
Jesus hung out with sinners in a mission to convert them not to facilitate sin.It is not in any way Christian to offer unconditional love.I cannot fathom an intellect that considers an endorsement of sin as an act that has anything to do with being Christian.
"Not in any way Christian to offer unconditional love"...seriously?
That means the vast majority of parents can't be Christians.
That's probably OK by Jesus, though. He did say you have to hate your parents to follow him
Interestingly, the largest Presbyterian denomination here in the US has amended its definition of marriage from involving a man and a woman to the bolder 'two people, traditionally a man and a woman'
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-referendum-campaigns-ready-for-the-off-1.2171726 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-referendum-campaigns-ready-for-the-off-1.2171726)
"What is happening so far, to my mind, is one-sided propaganda," says the newspaper columnist David Quinn, who is a member of the group and head of the Iona Institute, which campaigns to promote marriage and religion.
...as against the one-sided propaganda that has been thumped from pulpits for over 2000 years?
Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2015, 05:36:43 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-referendum-campaigns-ready-for-the-off-1.2171726 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-referendum-campaigns-ready-for-the-off-1.2171726)
"What is happening so far, to my mind, is one-sided propaganda," says the newspaper columnist David Quinn, who is a member of the group and head of the Iona Institute, which campaigns to promote marriage and religion.
...as against the one-sided propaganda that has been thumped from pulpits for over 2000 years?
Do you think, in general, that bias in the past entitles the opposite bias in the present? If Protestants denied Catholics rights in the past, should Catholics now deny Protestants rights for 800 years to balance things up?
Quote from: armaghniac on April 13, 2015, 05:46:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2015, 05:36:43 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-referendum-campaigns-ready-for-the-off-1.2171726 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-referendum-campaigns-ready-for-the-off-1.2171726)
"What is happening so far, to my mind, is one-sided propaganda," says the newspaper columnist David Quinn, who is a member of the group and head of the Iona Institute, which campaigns to promote marriage and religion.
...as against the one-sided propaganda that has been thumped from pulpits for over 2000 years?
Do you think, in general, that bias in the past entitles the opposite bias in the present? If Protestants denied Catholics rights in the past, should Catholics now deny Protestants rights for 800 years to balance things up?
Where did I suggest anything like that?
Is there a referendum to deny Protestants for 800 years somewhere that I missed?
Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2015, 06:09:10 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 13, 2015, 05:46:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2015, 05:36:43 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-referendum-campaigns-ready-for-the-off-1.2171726 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-referendum-campaigns-ready-for-the-off-1.2171726)
"What is happening so far, to my mind, is one-sided propaganda," says the newspaper columnist David Quinn, who is a member of the group and head of the Iona Institute, which campaigns to promote marriage and religion.
...as against the one-sided propaganda that has been thumped from pulpits for over 2000 years?
Do you think, in general, that bias in the past entitles the opposite bias in the present? If Protestants denied Catholics rights in the past, should Catholics now deny Protestants rights for 800 years to balance things up?
Where did I suggest anything like that?
Is there a referendum to deny Protestants for 800 years somewhere that I missed?
What you said was the David Quinn should not object to bias today because you think there was bias in the past. Whatever analogy you choose, do you think, in general, that bias in the past entitles the opposite bias in the present?
Quote from: armaghniac on April 13, 2015, 06:28:40 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2015, 06:09:10 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 13, 2015, 05:46:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2015, 05:36:43 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-referendum-campaigns-ready-for-the-off-1.2171726 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-referendum-campaigns-ready-for-the-off-1.2171726)
"What is happening so far, to my mind, is one-sided propaganda," says the newspaper columnist David Quinn, who is a member of the group and head of the Iona Institute, which campaigns to promote marriage and religion.
...as against the one-sided propaganda that has been thumped from pulpits for over 2000 years?
Do you think, in general, that bias in the past entitles the opposite bias in the present? If Protestants denied Catholics rights in the past, should Catholics now deny Protestants rights for 800 years to balance things up?
Where did I suggest anything like that?
Is there a referendum to deny Protestants for 800 years somewhere that I missed?
What you said was the David Quinn should not object to bias today because you think there was bias in the past. Whatever analogy you choose, do you think, in general, that bias in the past entitles the opposite bias in the present?
Wrong again, I pointed out the hypocrisy of David Quinn's claim that there is what he perceives as 'one-sided propaganda', while turning a blind eye to 2000 years of one very real one-sided propaganda. Nowhere did I claim that past bias entitles present bias. That was your straw man, not mine.
A referendum by definition is democratic and is the very opposite to 'one-sided'. That I what I believe he is really objecting to.
Muppet, have you stopped beating your wife?
Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2015, 06:35:53 PM
Wrong again, I pointed out the hypocrisy of David Quinn's claim that there is what he perceives as 'one-sided propaganda', while turning a blind eye to 2000 years of one very real one-sided propaganda. Nowhere did I claim that past bias entitles present bias. That was your straw man, not mine.
Simply whataboutery. If Gerry Adams makes an observation about the referendum somebody could likewise point out some married person blown up on Enniskillen and deny him the right to comment.
Quote
A referendum by definition is democratic and is the very opposite to 'one-sided'. That I what I believe he is really objecting to.
Did he say that he objected to a referendum?
There is a lot of this, you "believe" what he really means is "he/she is a homophobe", "he/she objects to democracy" directed at anyone who wants a no vote. Ad hominem attacks which deny the validity of the point of view. If he said that there shouldn't be a referendum then point out where he said that, please. No doubt he didn't say it, and was only objecting to the one sided coverage by much of the media and campaigns on social media like here to object to Quinn even speaking.
Quote from: HardyMuppet, have you stopped beating your wife?
He's attending classes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQdiJoGoTxU
You compared this:
QuoteIf Protestants denied Catholics rights in the past, should Catholics now deny Protestants rights for 800 years to balance things up?
With this:
Quote"What is happening so far, to my mind, is one-sided propaganda," says the newspaper columnist David Quinn, who is a member of the group and head of the Iona Institute, which campaigns to promote marriage and religion.
...as against the one-sided propaganda that has been thumped from pulpits for over 2000 years?
As if somehow the latter was about Gay & Lesbians possibly reversing their historical treatment and denying the pulpit thumping ideologues their rights for the next 2,000 years.
Sophistry.
QuoteSimply whataboutery. If Gerry Adams makes an observation about the referendum somebody could likewise point out some married person blown up on Enniskillen and deny him the right to comment.
If the referendum was about rights specifically denied by Adams then yes they could. But as it isn't, then you are engaging in nothing but your usual sophistry.
And calling it whataboutery! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
My point is that Quinn stated that there was one sided propaganda, and you contended that there was one sided propaganda a thousand years ago, which is neither here nor there and not a useful contribution to the debate. There is also the suggestion that this has something to do with Catholicism , which it doesn't,. All this talk of pulpits and the like is a complete distraction, and a number of contributors to this debate seem to have got a belt of a strap from a Christian Brother and regard every topic in the context of revenge.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 14, 2015, 12:22:39 AM
My point is that Quinn stated that there was one sided propaganda, and you contended that there was one sided propaganda a thousand years ago, which is neither here nor there and not a useful contribution to the debate. There is also the suggestion that this has something to do with Catholicism , which it doesn't,. All this talk of pulpits and the like is a complete distraction, and a number of contributors to this debate seem to have got a belt of a strap from a Christian Brother and regard every topic in the context of revenge.
Do you know who David Quinn is?
The No campaign will be heavily influenced by the Church as far as I can see.
As for your last attempt at victimhood, I don't see reference to the church on threads such as Liverpool, Moviebox, Golf, Red/Green Deisel, Premier League, Death Notices, Holidays, Running, Man Utd, Horse Racing etc. Just to pick a few off the top page of the General Section of the Board. I can't imagine there are too many threads in the GAA section dominated by posters seeking revenge against Christian Brothers, especially those of us who weren't educated by Christian Brothers.
So those who
'regard every topic in the context of revenge' appear to be in your own head.
More sophistry, garnished with absurd straw men.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 14, 2015, 12:22:39 AM
My point is that Quinn stated that there was one sided propaganda
Is this the same David Quinn who has built a very successful media career for himself based on spouting his one-sided propaganda? And he's far from the only one.
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2015, 09:27:12 AM
Do you know who David Quinn is?Quote
ad hominem
[ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]
adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Origin of ad hominem
< Latin: lit, to the man
/æd ˈhɒmɪˌnɛm/
adjective, adverb
1. directed against a person rather than against his arguments
2. based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason
Quote from: armaghniac on April 14, 2015, 05:04:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2015, 09:27:12 AM
Do you know who David Quinn is?
ad hominem
[ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]
adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Origin of ad hominem
< Latin: lit, to the man
/æd ˈhɒmɪˌnɛm/
adjective, adverb
1. directed against a person rather than against his arguments
2. based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason
Hiding again.
You said this:
QuoteThere is also the suggestion that this has something to do with Catholicism , which it doesn't,.
I asked, do you know who David Quinn is?
Clue: Among other activities he writes for
The Irish Catholic.
How on earth is this an ad hominem?
When is this referendum that will initiate the collapse of society?
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2015, 05:13:31 PM
I asked, do you know who David Quinn is?
Clue: Among other activities he writes for The Irish Catholic.
How on earth is this an ad hominem?
So what? He could also in the GAA.
Quote from: J70 on April 14, 2015, 06:18:13 PM
When is this referendum that will initiate the collapse of society?
The referendum will take place on May 22nd with the collapse of society occurring on the evening of May 23rd, which coincidentally is also when the Eurovision Song Contest takes place.
I wouldn't want to be straight that night. You could be lynched.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 14, 2015, 06:29:28 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2015, 05:13:31 PM
I asked, do you know who David Quinn is?
Clue: Among other activities he writes for The Irish Catholic.
How on earth is this an ad hominem?
So what? He could also in the GAA.
And has the GAA preached for 2,000 years of the evils of homosexuality?
Is Mary McAleese to not be allowed comment because she is a Catholic? Or do you only want to muzzle your opponents?
Quote from: armaghniac on April 14, 2015, 06:59:59 PM
Is Mary McAleese to not be allowed comment because she is a Catholic? Or do you only want to muzzle your opponents?
Please show me where I said Mary McAleese is not allowed comment.
Please show me where I said anyone is not allowed comment.
Are you aware that the vast majority of voters and campaigners will be Catholics?
Quote from: armaghniac on April 13, 2015, 05:46:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 13, 2015, 05:36:43 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-referendum-campaigns-ready-for-the-off-1.2171726 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-referendum-campaigns-ready-for-the-off-1.2171726)
"What is happening so far, to my mind, is one-sided propaganda," says the newspaper columnist David Quinn, who is a member of the group and head of the Iona Institute, which campaigns to promote marriage and religion.
...as against the one-sided propaganda that has been thumped from pulpits for over 2000 years?
Do you think, in general, that bias in the past entitles the opposite bias in the present? If Protestants denied Catholics rights in the past, should Catholics now deny Protestants rights for 800 years to balance things up?
But the one-sided propaganda is still coming from the pulpit, is it not? So now we're getting a bit of balance.
And given that this guy is a columnist, he has plenty of opportunities to put forward his case.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 13, 2015, 10:04:16 PM
Quote
A referendum by definition is democratic and is the very opposite to 'one-sided'. That I what I believe he is really objecting to.
Did he say that he objected to a referendum?
Do you think he welcomes it? Given the option, do you think he's happy for the public to make their decision, or would he prefer no referendum and the status quo?
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2015, 06:55:13 PM
And has the GAA preached for 2,000 years of the evils of homosexuality?
I can't think of a more sexually permissive sporting organisation. The "Gaylick Athletic Association" is a bit of a giveaway. Hurling was invented by Cuchullain who liked to knock around in bed with Ferdia. His stick and ball handling were sublime. And sure didn't generations of priests beat the game into youngsters. And if any group among society knew about gay sex, it was priests.
NAILED IT!!!!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCsgqQ6UgAAF_3c.jpg)
I am yet to hear a sound argument against allowing same-sex marriages.
Quote from: Sidney on April 14, 2015, 06:51:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 14, 2015, 06:18:13 PM
When is this referendum that will initiate the collapse of society?
The referendum will take place on May 22nd with the collapse of society occurring on the evening of May 23rd, which coincidentally is also when the Eurovision Song Contest takes place.
I wouldn't want to be straight that night. You could be lynched.
It is OK there is a craft beer festival in Belfast that night.
I can understand people's emotional objections to the idea that marriage could be something other than a union between a woman and a man. It's not as if anyone is going to be forced to get married to a member of their own sex, but just because a person is dismayed at such a development doesn't make them a bigot. And it's not as if voting No means that gay people will remain unfree while a Yes vote completely emancipates them.
Quote from: LeoMc on April 22, 2015, 03:31:20 PM
Quote from: Sidney on April 14, 2015, 06:51:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 14, 2015, 06:18:13 PM
When is this referendum that will initiate the collapse of society?
The referendum will take place on May 22nd with the collapse of society occurring on the evening of May 23rd, which coincidentally is also when the Eurovision Song Contest takes place.
I wouldn't want to be straight that night. You could be lynched.
It is OK there is a craft beer festival in Belfast that night.
So a choice of being lynched or surrounded by a load of hipster cnuts droning on about craft beers is the options?
Hmmmm, I'll take the lynching.
Your lynching will be nutty with floral overtones.
Quote from: deiseach on April 22, 2015, 03:36:59 PM
I can understand people's emotional objections to the idea that marriage could be something other than a union between a woman and a man. It's not as if anyone is going to be forced to get married to a member of their own sex, but just because a person is dismayed at such a development doesn't make them a bigot. And it's not as if voting No means that gay people will remain unfree while a Yes vote completely emancipates them.
You can be dismayed at something and have an emotional initial reaction, but one would hope that most people would be able to think an issue through logically before coming to a decision.
And it is easy to dismiss a rejection of same sex marriage as not being a completely devastating setback for gay people, but it clearly sets them aside, legally, as couplings of lesser dignity and worth in society. I know I wouldn't be too happy being told that my partnership was of lesser value just because I was gay, even if society is, in general, more accepting of my sexuality than it was 15 years ago.
Quote from: J70 on April 22, 2015, 07:24:34 PM
one would hope that most people would be able to think an issue through logically before coming to a decision.
I wouldn't be so hopeful. Most people play the lottery.
Quote from: J70 on April 22, 2015, 07:24:34 PM
You can be dismayed at something and have an emotional initial reaction, but one would hope that most people would be able to think an issue through logically before coming to a decision.
You would, but there isn't much logic here, just simplifications.
QuoteAnd it is easy to dismiss a rejection of same sex marriage as not being a completely devastating setback for gay people, but it clearly sets them aside, legally, as couplings of lesser dignity and worth in society. I know I wouldn't be too happy being told that my partnership was of lesser value just because I was gay, even if society is, in general, more accepting of my sexuality than it was 15 years ago.
But of course same sex relationships not of the same value to society. If nobody had a same sex relationship the rest of society would not notice, if nobody had heterosexual relationships then society would end in a generation. Which is my point, having called for logic in the first sentence you then make an entirely illogical statement in the second, this about describes the level of debate on this issue.
But of course, Armaghniac, no one debates on your level.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 22, 2015, 09:58:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 22, 2015, 07:24:34 PM
You can be dismayed at something and have an emotional initial reaction, but one would hope that most people would be able to think an issue through logically before coming to a decision.
You would, but there isn't much logic here, just simplifications.
QuoteAnd it is easy to dismiss a rejection of same sex marriage as not being a completely devastating setback for gay people, but it clearly sets them aside, legally, as couplings of lesser dignity and worth in society. I know I wouldn't be too happy being told that my partnership was of lesser value just because I was gay, even if society is, in general, more accepting of my sexuality than it was 15 years ago.
But of course same sex relationships not of the same value to society. If nobody had a same sex relationship the rest of society would not notice, if nobody had heterosexual relationships then society would end in a generation. Which is my point, having called for logic in the first sentence you then make an entirely illogical statement in the second, this about describes the level of debate on this issue.
Far be it from me to point out though, that J70 was using the word "partnership" - and you substituted the word "relationship". So, of course, logically, if no one was having heterosexual relatonships our society would end. But that is not what the person quoted was saying - he was talking about the categorising of types of partnerships by and within institutions. Given the context of this vote, which is whether we decide to let same sex partnerships have the same legal rights and status as heterosexual civil marriages are afforded, your conflation of their value with the survival of the human race is completely illogical. There have been gay partnerships since the beginning of our civilisation, and we haven't died out yet - far from it. Now we are arguing about whether to recognise and normalise that within our civil law. Loads to argue about there without misrepresenting the views of another poster and accusing him of arguing an illogical position, especially when your own argument only holds weight on the back of that misrepresentation.
And, Armaghniac, wading into the world of logic, if all heterosexual couples decided to use contraceptives then mankind would die out, but, as in your example, that isn't going to happen so it's an absurd argument, an Hypothesis Contrary to Fact fallacy, I believe.
The question isn't one of value to society, as though, for example, the partnership of a high IQ couple is of greater value than that of a lower IQ couple. It's about whether couples should be accorded equal treatment, rights and protection under the law, isn't it?
Quote from: easytiger95 on April 23, 2015, 12:46:51 AM
But of course, Armaghniac, no one debates on your level.]
What does that mean? Am I a master debater? Or am I objectionable because I don't agree with you?
Quote from: easytiger95
Far be it from me to point out though, that J70 was using the word "partnership" - and you substituted the word "relationship".
Which is neither here nor there.
Quote from: easytiger95
So, of course, logically, if no one was having heterosexual relatonships our society would end. But that is not what the person quoted was saying - he was talking about the categorising of types of partnerships by and within institutions. Given the context of this vote, which is whether we decide to let same sex partnerships have the same legal rights and status as heterosexual civil marriages are afforded, your conflation of their value with the survival of the human race is completely illogical.
On the contrary, all of these legal rights and status accrues to marriage because of the importance of fostering stable relationships between men and women, and that importance arises because of the survival of the human race. if marriage was only about having a day out and shacking up together then the law wouldn't be involved in it at all, or only to a tivial extent.
QuoteThere have been gay partnerships since the beginning of our civilisation, and we haven't died out yet - far from it.
Indeed and for all of this time, society has been clear on what marriage means. Do you think those people didn't notice the gay partnerships?
Quote. Loads to argue about there without misrepresenting the views of another poster and accusing him of arguing an illogical position, especially when your own argument only holds weight on the back of that misrepresentation.
I did not misrepresent the views of any poster, I merely exposed the illogicality in his argument, when he had called for logic. But as always logic is unwelcome when it doesn't suit people agenda.
Quote from: OraisteachThe question isn't one of value to society, as though, for example, the partnership of a high IQ couple is of greater value than that of a lower IQ couple. It's about whether couples should be accorded equal treatment, rights and protection under the law, isn't it?
If a group of people are to be legally privileged then there must be a clear case made that they deserve that privilege. So far all the justification we get is that someone else has it and they want it too, on the basis that both situations involve 2 people. There is a clear case for the legal privilege of marriage, but not for same sex relationships which are not of fundamental value to society.
Armaghniac, I don't understand why you invoke the principle of privilege when the standard ought simply to be one of 'right.' Why, because of an accident of birth, i.e. my being heterosexual, am I afforded more rights and protections in marriage than another couple who by a similar whim of chance are born homosexual and are thereby denied the 'privileges' that I enjoy. We are both adults in loving relationships, so why do I merit special favour?
Is it because that's the way it's always been. That argument was used to defend slavery and to deny women the vote. Or is it that my relationship promotes procreation? And if that's the case, is the sole purpose of marriage, then, procreation? And therefore should the marriages of infertile couples and those who consciously choose not to have children simply be dissolved?
It's about civil rights. Allowing same-sex marriage will not tear the fabric of the family or society, unless, of course, a staggering majority of heterosexual couples are living colossal lies and with the legalization of same-sex marriage will stampede into the arms of their gay lovers. Only then would the family disintegrate and Crossmaglen's unparalleled dominance of Armagh, Ulster and Ireland come to a screeching halt.
Quote from: Oraisteach on April 23, 2015, 04:10:46 AM
Armaghniac, I don't understand why you invoke the principle of privilege when the standard ought simply to be one of 'right.' Why, because of an accident of birth, i.e. my being heterosexual, am I afforded more rights and protections in marriage than another couple who by a similar whim of chance are born homosexual and are thereby denied the 'privileges' that I enjoy. We are both adults in loving relationships, so why do I merit special favour?
You are not afforded the legal privileges because of who you are, but because of what you do. Your sexual orientation merely affects your interest in availing of the privileged arrangement, other people through bad luck, fear of commitment, or other relationship problems do not get this privilege either.
QuoteIs it because that's the way it's always been. That argument was used to defend slavery and to deny women the vote. Or is it that my relationship promotes procreation? And if that's the case, is the sole purpose of marriage, then, procreation? And therefore should the marriages of infertile couples and those who consciously choose not to have children simply be dissolved?
This ridiculous and offensive comment about childless couples again. If you have a problem with childless couples then make that case elsewhere, don't be bringing it into this issue.
Society promotes many things with the value of these being undermined by particular individuals. Society promotes education and this is appropriate even if some educated people do not use their education.
QuoteIt's about civil rights.
It isn't. To claim that someone living in the same relationship, but called civil partnership is a denial of rights is a trivialisation of the real issues of human rights in the world. Being allowed form a relationship might be civil right, having it called one thing or the other or getting a certain tax allowance is not.
QuoteAllowing same-sex marriage will not tear the fabric of the family or society, unless, of course, a staggering majority of heterosexual couples are living colossal lies and with the legalization of same-sex marriage will stampede into the arms of their gay lovers.
So something damaging is OK as long as it doesn't tear the fabric of society? When you undermine foundations, things subside in due course.
QuoteOnly then would the family disintegrate and Crossmaglen's unparalleled dominance of Armagh, Ulster and Ireland come to a screeching halt.
Hardly a relevant point and once again the use of such a trite point illustrates the lack of concern for family disintegration, which characterises those supporting this referendum.
If I understand Armaghniac's defence of the status quo correctly, it's based on the following premises:
1. Marriage is favoured by civil society because of the paramount importance of procreation for the future of society.
2. Only heterosexual couples can procreate.
3. It is reasonable that society should afford privileges to heterosexual couples to promote procreation – hence the development of the institution of marriage.
I think that argument is flawed.
Clearly, the privileges afforded by society to the institution of marriage are not for the promotion of procreation. They are for the promotion of nurture. There is no is no need for an incentive to promote procreation. Nature provides that incentive. In fact, many societies are providing incentives NOT to procreate because of fear of over-population.
Nature does not provide an incentive to nurture in the case of fathers. Hence the evolution of the institution of civil marriage with its material incentives for parents to stay together to nurture their children.
In recent times, all of the material privileges afforded to married couples have been extended to unmarried couples in stable partnerships. Society recognises that there is no difference between married and unmarried couples in their commitment to nurturing their children.
In more recent times still, the material privileges afforded to heterosexual couples, married or not, have been extended to same-sex couples, including their right to adopt and nurture children. Once again, this is society recognising equality of commitment. There is no difference between heterosexual and same-sex couples in their commitment to nurturing their children.
Now there is a proposal to recognise marriage between same-sex couples. If we accept that the purpose of civil marriage is to promote the nurturing of children any objection to same-sex marriage can only be based on a suggestion that there is a difference between heterosexual and same-sex couples in their commitment to nurturing their children.
If that is the objection, then the campaign should be to repeal the same-sex civil partnership legislation, not to oppose the recognition of same-sex marriage, since there is no difference between them as regards the promotion of child nurture.
I'll be voting yes in the referendum but I thought it was outrageous for the MD of Twitter in Ireland to stick his oar in on the matter
Quote from: macdanger2 on April 23, 2015, 01:27:04 PM
I'll be voting yes in the referendum but I thought it was outrageous for the MD of Twitter in Ireland to stick his oar in on the matter
What's this now?
Twas about a week ago
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0416/694562-referendum
Twitter supporting Yes vote in marriage referendum
Thursday 16 April 2015 20.44
The MD of Twitter said there is a good business case to be made for same-sex marriage The MD of Twitter said there is a good business case to be made for same-sex marriage Tasoieach Enda Kenny spoke at the breakfast event, where business leaders called for a Yes vote
The Managing Director of Twitter in Ireland has said the company is supporting a Yes vote in the upcoming same-sex marriage referendum.
Stephen McIntyre has said the company supports same-sex marriage in the US and there is a good business case to be made for it.
He said people do better in the workplace when they can be themselves, adding that it will attract more talent and be positive for Ireland's international reputation.
Mr McIntrye made the comments at an event attended by Taoiseach Enda Kenny where business and tech leaders called for a Yes vote.
The Iona Institute has criticised the call by the social media multinational, saying such corporations should avoid commenting on Irish politics.
Ben Conroy, an Iona spokesperson, said Mr McIntyre's statement that a No vote would be bad for business is "clearly ridiculous" in the context that Germany, "the most powerful economy in Europe". does not have same-sex marriage.
Mr Conroy also questioned whether Mr Kenny "would be so keen about multinationals getting involved in Irish politics if they were endorsing particular political parties?"
The Government's Special rapporteur on children addressed the seminar on the new Children and Family Relationships Act which allows gay couple to adopt for the first time.
He rejected the No side assertion that a Yes vote would bind gay adoption in the constitution.
Separately up to a 100 prominent Catholic and Protestants leaders have endorsed a leaflet arguing for a No vote.
40,000 of the leaflets will be distributed at churches over the coming weeks.
'Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with parental rights' - James Reilly
Meanwhile, Minister for Children James Reilly says he does not want children to be used as pawns in the upcoming referendum.
He said the referendum has nothing to do with adoption and does not change adoption and parental rights.
Speaking at the seminar, Mr Reilly rejected arguments from the No side that passing the referendum would copper-fasten gay adoption rights in the constitution.
He said the referendum will result in equal rights to loving couples and that is all it does. He said the rest of it is "red herrings".
yeah that link isn't working
Quote from: Hardy on April 23, 2015, 10:52:24 AM
If I understand Armaghniac's defence of the status quo correctly, it's based on the following premises:
1. Marriage is favoured by civil society because of the paramount importance of procreation for the future of society.
2. Only heterosexual couples can procreate.
3. It is reasonable that society should afford privileges to heterosexual couples to promote procreation – hence the development of the institution of marriage.
Fair play, Hardy, for a considered response.
QuoteClearly, the privileges afforded by society to the institution of marriage are not for the promotion of procreation. They are for the promotion of nurture. There is no is no need for an incentive to promote procreation. Nature provides that incentive. In fact, many societies are providing incentives NOT to procreate because of fear of over-population.
Nature does not provide an incentive to nurture in the case of fathers. Hence the evolution of the institution of civil marriage with its material incentives for parents to stay together to nurture their children.
Well put, nurture is a good word. Marriage is an institution design for parents to stay together and nurture their children.
QuoteIn recent times, all of the material privileges afforded to married couples have been extended to unmarried couples in stable partnerships. Society recognises that there is no difference between married and unmarried couples in their commitment to nurturing their children.
Not quite. You wouldn't need a referendum if marriage didn't add anything extra. Some legal privileges are (rightly) reserved for those making the ultimate step of signing up for marriage.
Quote
In more recent times still, the material privileges afforded to heterosexual couples, married or not, have been extended to same-sex couples, including their right to adopt and nurture children. Once again, this is society recognising equality of commitment. There is no difference between heterosexual and same-sex couples in their commitment to nurturing their children.
Now there is a proposal to recognise marriage between same-sex couples. If we accept that the purpose of civil marriage is to promote the nurturing of children any objection to same-sex marriage can only be based on a suggestion that there is a difference between heterosexual and same-sex couples in their commitment to nurturing their children.
If that is the objection, then the campaign should be to repeal the same-sex civil partnership legislation, not to oppose the recognition of same-sex marriage, since there is no difference between them as regards the promotion of child nurture.
This is where you haven't followed your own logic. Same sex relationships do not have any children as a consequence of the relationship, they do not nurture
their children. They may have children by other mechanisms like adoption, but so do other sorts of unmarried people and these should be supported through adoption mechanisms and the like and not through confusion with marriage, which is designed (mainly) to couple people who nurture their own children.
Now someone invariably pipes up about people who are infertile or whatever, but this is mere diversion. There is a difference in a group of people who do not have a characteristic you want to support and a group who generally have that characteristic, although certain individuals do not.
It's not a "mere diversion". It's where your whole argument comes crumbling down.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 23, 2015, 11:48:53 PM
It's not a "mere diversion". It's where your whole argument comes crumbling down.
Quite. Just as if I can find one example of wasteful public spending then I can use that to justify further wasteful public spending, or if I can find one example of bad driving that justifies allowing people drive without doing the driving test. You seem to believe that once you have one example from a large number then you can proceed on that basis, oddly enough you don't seem to have adopted that logic in other matters discussed.
There are good reasons for permitting gay marriage. The main reasons being that it would allow gay partners to have 'next of kin' status and would formalise 'relationship property'.
Although gay couples don't conceive offspring with each other, there are people in gay relationships who have children of their own. Allowing gay marriage would provide similar advantages for raising children that straight marriage has.
Allowing gay marriage, wouldn't weaken straight marriage. It would have no effect on the rights or responsibilities of straight marriage, nor would it have any effect on the benefits of straight marriage or the decisions of straight couples to get married.
Haven't checked in on this thread on a while. What's the latest? Are the homophobes still complaining about being victimized every time someone calls them a homophobe?
Quote from: armaghniac on April 24, 2015, 12:50:37 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 23, 2015, 11:48:53 PM
It's not a "mere diversion". It's where your whole argument comes crumbling down.
Quite. Just as if I can find one example of wasteful public spending then I can use that to justify further wasteful public spending, or if I can find one example of bad driving that justifies allowing people drive without doing the driving test. You seem to believe that once you have one example from a large number then you can proceed on that basis, oddly enough you don't seem to have adopted that logic in other matters discussed.
Those comparisons make no sense.
Quote from: Aestrics on April 24, 2015, 01:53:51 AM
There are good reasons for permitting gay marriage. The main reasons being that it would allow gay partners to have 'next of kin' status and would formalise 'relationship property'.
Although gay couples don't conceive offspring with each other, there are people in gay relationships who have children of their own. Allowing gay marriage would provide similar advantages for raising children that straight marriage has.
Allowing gay marriage, wouldn't weaken straight marriage. It would have no effect on the rights or responsibilities of straight marriage, nor would it have any effect on the benefits of straight marriage or the decisions of straight couples to get married.
+1
Quote from: Aestrics on April 24, 2015, 01:53:51 AM
There are good reasons for permitting gay marriage. The main reasons being that it would allow gay partners to have 'next of kin' status and would formalise 'relationship property'.
Although gay couples don't conceive offspring with each other, there are people in gay relationships who have children of their own. Allowing gay marriage would provide similar advantages for raising children that straight marriage has.
Allowing gay marriage, wouldn't weaken straight marriage. It would have no effect on the rights or responsibilities of straight marriage, nor would it have any effect on the benefits of straight marriage or the decisions of straight couples to get married.
This is the reason I will probably vote Yes. I do believe that the best environment for a child's upbringing, as a rule, is a male-female family environment. But just as there are perfectly happy and well adjusted children from single parent families, and really screwed up kids from the 'traditional' family unit, I am in no doubt that a gay couple of either sex could and do raise children very successfully and happily.
I will vote Yes because at the moment, despite the civil partnership agreements etc, a child in a gay couple's family (either the biological child of one partner, or the adopted child of one partner (gay couples cannot adopt as a 'couple') is only legally bound to that partner. In the event of that partner absconding, or dying, the other partner legally has no right to the child.
This is wrong, and is the main reason for me voting yes.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 24, 2015, 09:24:26 AM
Quote from: Aestrics on April 24, 2015, 01:53:51 AM
There are good reasons for permitting gay marriage. The main reasons being that it would allow gay partners to have 'next of kin' status and would formalise 'relationship property'.
Although gay couples don't conceive offspring with each other, there are people in gay relationships who have children of their own. Allowing gay marriage would provide similar advantages for raising children that straight marriage has.
Allowing gay marriage, wouldn't weaken straight marriage. It would have no effect on the rights or responsibilities of straight marriage, nor would it have any effect on the benefits of straight marriage or the decisions of straight couples to get married.
That's pretty much how I feel AZ.
I think the whole campaign has been pretty unpleasant from both sides. I expected it from the No side but the constant use of the word "Equality" by the Yes side is an attempt to guilt people into voting yes.
In my view, it has nothing to do with equality.
This is the reason I will probably vote Yes. I do believe that the best environment for a child's upbringing, as a rule, is a male-female family environment. But just as there are perfectly happy and well adjusted children from single parent families, and really screwed up kids from the 'traditional' family unit, I am in no doubt that a gay couple of either sex could and do raise children very successfully and happily.
I will vote Yes because at the moment, despite the civil partnership agreements etc, a child in a gay couple's family (either the biological child of one partner, or the adopted child of one partner (gay couples cannot adopt as a 'couple') is only legally bound to that partner. In the event of that partner absconding, or dying, the other partner legally has no right to the child.
This is wrong, and is the main reason for me voting yes.
Apropos of nothing, I look at my offspring and the primordial needI have to protect him, and conclude that people who give love and affection to those who are not their own blood are the greatest heroes of them all.
The referendum is a sideshow, a distraction. The gov has thrown a stick and the population has gone bounding after it. Why was there not a referendum on the new taxes and permanent austerity? Why are we not consulted on stuff that matters.
Same sex couples have equal rights. Indeed, should there be an additional referendum following this for mixed sex couples to have civil partnerships plus marriage to make it equal?
Am I the only one who notices an air of intolerance to "No" voters? In my view society has become intolerant to dissent in general.
Same sex couples do not have equal rights. That's the whole point. They have some equal rights, but not full equal rights.
I'd love to know when was this magical time in the past when Ireland was more tolerant of dissent than it is now.
In fairness I do know where he is coming from. Anyone who says they are voting No is instantly shot down in flames. I'd say the internet would break if someone on Facebook started posting Memes about voting No.
There's no doubt that the establishment were worse when they had the power to be, but it's a bit sad they way the chic agendas have their own too school for cool brigade to sneer at anyone that's not comfortable with what they are proposing.
Quote from: paul768 on April 24, 2015, 03:49:55 PM
The referendum is a sideshow, a distraction. The gov has thrown a stick and the population has gone bounding after it. Why was there not a referendum on the new taxes and permanent austerity? Why are we not consulted on stuff that matters.
Same sex couples have equal rights. Indeed, should there be an additional referendum following this for mixed sex couples to have civil partnerships plus marriage to make it equal?
Am I the only one who notices an air of intolerance to "No" voters? In my view society has become intolerant to dissent in general.
You're not and I'm sorely tempted to vote 'No' because of it.
Oh, I have no doubt many a reasonable person will be put off by the attitude of the Yes campaign. The self-righteousness of that stunt outside Pearse St Garda station would make you sick. But there wasn't ever a time where they didn't engage in their we're-the-laughing-stock-of-Europe claptrap. The difference now is the liberal/progressive/permissive (takes your pick) agenda tends to win, so we get the whining from the other side that they're the ones being oppressed. I genuinely don't know which is worse.
Certainly a valid perspective on things
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/head-to-head-a-daughter-of-a-lesbian-mother-argues-against-same-sex-marriage-1.2186608
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 24, 2015, 09:24:26 AM
I will vote Yes because at the moment, despite the civil partnership agreements etc, a child in a gay couple's family (either the biological child of one partner, or the adopted child of one partner (gay couples cannot adopt as a 'couple') is only legally bound to that partner. In the event of that partner absconding, or dying, the other partner legally has no right to the child.
This is wrong, and is the main reason for me voting yes.
As different situations arise where people who are not married have children, this is properly the domain of other legislation, not the changing of marriage. The definition of marriage need not be extended to every combination of people who raise children, expecially as fiddling around with marriage would weaken support for a much larger number of children.
In any case, did the recent Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 not change this?
"
...provides that a step-parent, civil partner or cohabiting partner (of three years or more) will be able to apply to court to become the child's guardian if they have had shared responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child for over two years"
Quote from: paul768 on April 24, 2015, 03:49:55 PM
The referendum is a sideshow, a distraction. The gov has thrown a stick and the population has gone bounding after it. Why was there not a referendum on the new taxes and permanent austerity? Why are we not consulted on stuff that matters.
There is a referendum because this requires a change to the constitution. The others don't. So we elect politicians to take those decisions. It's called democracy. It can be very inconvenient.
And this particular issue may not matter to you, but it's very important to a lot of people.
Quote from: Ulick on April 24, 2015, 05:34:35 PM
Certainly a valid perspective on things
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/head-to-head-a-daughter-of-a-lesbian-mother-argues-against-same-sex-marriage-1.2186608
Will be explained away as one person's opinion. Not valid..Nothing to see here except a woman grinding an axe.... funny how tolerance is so one sided in this discussion..
Iceman, it is valid, but, as you acknowledge, it IS one person's opinion. To be persuaded, I would like to read a whole range of opinions of children raised by same-sex couples. It's the old one snowflake doesn't make a blizzard syndrome, but I'll grant that it's a compelling read. By the same token, I've also read some very sad stories by children who were raised by neglectful or even abusive heterosexual couples.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2015, 08:30:16 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 24, 2015, 05:34:35 PM
Certainly a valid perspective on things
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/head-to-head-a-daughter-of-a-lesbian-mother-argues-against-same-sex-marriage-1.2186608
Will be explained away as one person's opinion. Not valid..Nothing to see here except a woman grinding an axe.... funny how tolerance is so one sided in this discussion..
Well it IS only one person's opinion, but that doesn't mean it's not valid.
But my understanding is that gay couples being able to adopt has nothing to do with this referendum. In that case, bringing the issue of children into this debate is a red herring, is it not?
I also don't recall the fuss with single people being allowed to adopt, with the child clearly being denied a mother or a father in those circumstances. People only seemed to get exercised when it was two men or two women.
Quote from: Oraisteach on April 24, 2015, 08:52:54 PM
Iceman, it is valid, but, as you acknowledge, it IS one person's opinion. To be persuaded, I would like to read a whole range of opinions of children raised by same-sex couples. It's the old one snowflake doesn't make a blizzard syndrome, but I'll grant that it's a compelling read. By the same token, I've also read some very sad stories by children who were raised by neglectful or even abusive heterosexual couples.
There are always cases, although no doubt a certain proportion of same sex couples will breakup, become alcoholics etc and compromise children accordingly as heterosexual couples do. The point is that here the same politicians who are arguing for quotas to ensure gender balance in politics are also campaigning to remove gender balance in marriage.
Quote from: Maguire01
But my understanding is that gay couples being able to adopt has nothing to do with this referendum. In that case, bringing the issue of children into this debate is a red herring, is it not?
Adoption is only one aspect of it. Marriage is a legally privileged arrangement designed to provide a stable father and mother relationship for children, positive encouragement for a good arrangement, and that is the point of this example.
"We should not point to the existence of broken homes and use it as justification to create more broken homes."
I thought this was a very good point she made. But to your point Maguire adoption is not on the table here, just Marriage. However certainly worth taking in to account and nice to have another side to the story. This woman was a huge gay-activist. All for Marriage equality. She didn't change her mind until she experienced the truth of a normal, natural family and then the full weight of what she lost as a child hit her. I found it very compelling.
A similar story my Wife shared with me this week:
http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=38363#more-38363 (http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=38363#more-38363)
Just another snowflake...
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2015, 10:31:22 PM
But to your point Maguire adoption is not on the table here, just Marriage.
Yes, so all stories of children being denied a mother or father, or whether a gay couple can provide an upbringing as well as a straight couple are totally irrelevant here. They're being use, either deliberately or through ignorance of what the referendum is about, as an argument against gay people being allowed to marry.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 24, 2015, 11:38:58 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2015, 10:31:22 PM
But to your point Maguire adoption is not on the table here, just Marriage.
Yes, so all stories of children being denied a mother or father, or whether a gay couple can provide an upbringing as well as a straight couple are totally irrelevant here. They're being use, either deliberately or through ignorance of what the referendum is about, as an argument against gay people being allowed to marry.
I think it is fairly clear who is deliberately ignoring things. The question is whether an institution supported by society because of its role in nurturing children and encouraging men and women come together to have and nurture those children, should be extended to a union not involving both men and women. Clearly, it shouldn't, in any society that hadn't become captive to interest groups.
Quote from: Ulick on April 24, 2015, 04:14:59 PM
Quote from: paul768 on April 24, 2015, 03:49:55 PM
The referendum is a sideshow, a distraction. The gov has thrown a stick and the population has gone bounding after it. Why was there not a referendum on the new taxes and permanent austerity? Why are we not consulted on stuff that matters.
Same sex couples have equal rights. Indeed, should there be an additional referendum following this for mixed sex couples to have civil partnerships plus marriage to make it equal?
Am I the only one who notices an air of intolerance to "No" voters? In my view society has become intolerant to dissent in general.
You're not and I'm sorely tempted to vote 'No' because of it.
do you have a vote being british and all that?
Quote from: Ulick on April 24, 2015, 04:14:59 PM
Quote from: paul768 on April 24, 2015, 03:49:55 PM
The referendum is a sideshow, a distraction. The gov has thrown a stick and the population has gone bounding after it. Why was there not a referendum on the new taxes and permanent austerity? Why are we not consulted on stuff that matters.
Same sex couples have equal rights. Indeed, should there be an additional referendum following this for mixed sex couples to have civil partnerships plus marriage to make it equal?
Am I the only one who notices an air of intolerance to "No" voters? In my view society has become intolerant to dissent in general.
You're not and I'm sorely tempted to vote 'No' because of it.
http://www.joe.ie/news/video-masked-duo-filmed-removing-no-posters-in-dublin/493412
Quote from: armaghniac on April 25, 2015, 12:17:31 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 24, 2015, 11:38:58 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2015, 10:31:22 PM
But to your point Maguire adoption is not on the table here, just Marriage.
Yes, so all stories of children being denied a mother or father, or whether a gay couple can provide an upbringing as well as a straight couple are totally irrelevant here. They're being use, either deliberately or through ignorance of what the referendum is about, as an argument against gay people being allowed to marry.
I think it is fairly clear who is deliberately ignoring things. The question is whether an institution supported by society because of its role in nurturing children and encouraging men and women come together to have and nurture those children, should be extended to a union not involving both men and women. Clearly, it shouldn't, in any society that hadn't become captive to interest groups.
Who is deliberately ignoring things? You happen to have a very narrow understanding of the purpose of marriage. The ability or intention to have children is not a requirement of marriage as it exists. Should marriage be denied to infertile couples? Should it be denied where the woman has reached a certain age? Or maybe just withhold any benefits until a child arrives? If not, why not?
armaghniac unfortunately you can't argue on this issue from a religious perspective. I agree with your points and your understanding of marriage as defined by the Church. Unfortunately the Church gave up any say/rights to the word "Marriage" a long time ago when we didn't stand up against Marriages outside the Church, Marriage of Divorced, Marriage of non Christians. It's gone. There is no fight here on the grounds of re-defining Marriage in society. I don't agree with it, but we took our eyes of the ball a long time ago as a Church.
Maguire aside from the technicalities of it all at least recognize the correlation between same sex marriage and same sex parenting. One opens the door for the other.
I will say the Joe.ie video is very typical of the Gay agenda. There is no tolerance of a no-vote. Democracy?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 25, 2015, 03:34:12 PM
Maguire aside from the technicalities of it all at least recognize the correlation between same sex marriage and same sex parenting. One opens the door for the other.
Same sex parenting will happen regardless of the referendum result, therefore I don't see the correlation.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 25, 2015, 04:59:21 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 25, 2015, 03:34:12 PM
Maguire aside from the technicalities of it all at least recognize the correlation between same sex marriage and same sex parenting. One opens the door for the other.
Same sex parenting will happen regardless of the referendum result, therefore I don't see the correlation.
Maguire will you not just be a normal lad for a half a second and stop conversing with an aim to winning.
Can there not be chit chat on the forums or is everything a "debate" and not a "discussion"?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 25, 2015, 05:06:06 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 25, 2015, 04:59:21 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 25, 2015, 03:34:12 PM
Maguire aside from the technicalities of it all at least recognize the correlation between same sex marriage and same sex parenting. One opens the door for the other.
Same sex parenting will happen regardless of the referendum result, therefore I don't see the correlation.
Maguire will you not just be a normal lad for a half a second and stop conversing with an aim to winning.
Can there not be chit chat on the forums or is everything a "debate" and not a "discussion"?
It's not about "winning" anything. Is it not the case that gay couples will be parents regardless of whether they will be allowed to marry? That being the case, two separate debates are being mixed up here.
And I'm not sure what you want by "discussion" that you're not getting. Do you just want me to agree with you?
Let's hear from David Quinn:
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/04/17/david-quinns-facts-of-life/ (http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/04/17/david-quinns-facts-of-life/)
David Quinn Founder of the Iona Institute, outlines the No Campaign's strategy for May's Marriage Referendum.
A masterclass in them and ussery.
Stay for the call and response.
David Quinn: "The referendum coming up is one of the most important we've ever faced and, actually, it's connected, to my mind, with any possible abortion referendum.
If we lose this badly, I think they will have an abortion referendum in 2017. If we keep this close, or we manage to win, it'll frighten them off an abortion referendum for years to come. So I think, actually, this is connected to protecting the 8th amendment of the constitution which is a pro-life amendment.
So the two issues are linked. If they can beat us badly on marriage, they'll feel they can beat us on the abortion issue. So this is really, really an important battle – not for just what marriage and what the family is all about but for the pro-life section of the constitution, too."
"Now what's at stake here? An awful lot of people around the country, at the moment, who are inclined to vote Yes are asking themselves, 'well, sure what's the harm? If two nice fellahs who love each other get married, how does that affect me, what's the harm? what else does it affect?' And they can't think of what else it affects, so they're inclined to vote Yes.
Now that Yes support is actually quite soft. A lot of the opinion polling is showing it's soft. So there is still a battle to be fought and it's a battle we can win if we can persuade enough people, actually, there are consequences that haven't been thought of yet, that haven't been flagged to people because, as we know, our media are just, almost completely on the side of the Yes campaign.
And we're essentially hearing propaganda all the time. Marriage equality, yes to equality, yes to love, equal love, all these sort of mantras and soundbites the whole time.
And I mean I go on a few programmes here and there but it doesn't compare to very soft interviews with gay rights campaigners on the Late Late Show or the Saturday Night Show or the John Murray Show or the Ray D'Arcy Show or whatever the case may be so there's been almost uninterrupted propaganda for years.
And it's intensifying at the moment because they're trying to get as big a lead as they possibly can before the referendum properly begins towards the end of this month."
"Now, I'll get into the substance of the issue in a moment but I mean there's a lot of heart to be taken from this fact: there's been many referendum campaigns in which the position favoured by what we call official Ireland and Dublin has started out way ahead and has lost, so there's been EU treaty referendums, where the pro-EU side has started off massively in front and it's lost.
There was the recent Seanad referendum, started out way in front and lost, the Oireachtas inquiry referendum started way in front and lost and the children's rights referendum of 2012, I think it was, the end of 2012, with four weeks to go, the Yes side and it was on 74% and the No side was on 4%. There was practically no No side.
There was John Waters and Kathy Sinnott and a few other people. The No side and the children's rights campaign spent something like €18,000, the Yes side spent over €1million and all the media on their side and yet, on the day itself, within a space of four weeks, the No side went from 4% to 42%.
Now if that can we done, we can do it in this referendum but do, we can do better because a lot more people are energised to support a No side this time than last time. So don't be depressed by opinion polls."
[Later]
David Quinn: "The right to marry in our constitution comes with the right to found a family and that means the right to have children. When you give someone the right to marry, now you can't stop people having children if they want to, and they're not married and they want to have children, they're going to have children.
But there's a legally recognised right to have children when you marry under our constitution. So when you're giving a right to marry, you're giving a right to have children also. So when you're giving a right to men to marry you're also giving them the right to have children, you're giving two women the right to have children. Now when you give two men the right to have a child, what is missing from the child's life?"
Audience: "A mother."
Quinn: "Precisely. And the converse, if you give two women the right to have a child what's missing from that child's life?"
Audience: "A father."
Quinn: "A father. Now this is simply the most basic facts of life. It's literally baby stuff in every possible sense of that word because it is completely simple to understand and it is literally about babies. And it's about mothers and fathers. And it's about the birds and the bees. So, when we talk about giving people rights, you've got to consider, would anybody else's rights be affected. And conversely, by that, would anybody else's rights be harmed and taken away?
You see people often say, 'this is like giving the right of a black person to marry a white person because, in certain American states and in South Africa inter-racial marriage is banned and they try to compare this to that, or they try to say it's like the American south where they had segregation or South Africa where they had apartheid but when blacks were given equal rights, nobody else's rights were affected. So it was completely fair and acceptable and defensible.
There was nobody...when a black person could sit anywhere they liked on a bus or use any drink fountain or go to any school or get married to whom they liked, nobody else's rights were affected – least of all the rights of children. But if you give two men the right to have a child, this comes with the right to marriage, or two women the right to have a child, which comes with the right to marriage, it affects the rights of children.
Because if we believe a child is going to have a mother and father, we cannot possibly countenance same-sex marriage, just can't do it. And the Government knows perfectly well that this is what's going on.
The Government knows perfectly well that the change in the article involves the family – we are redefining the family. We are kicking out of the law the notion that a child ought to have a mother and a father because what is recognised by our constitution at the moment is the family of man, woman and child.
And we know that not all married couples have children. But we also know that every child has a mother and father and that's much more fundamental. And even if every man and woman can't have a child, if they adopt let's say, they'll still give the child a mother and father.
So what we're really saying in our constitution right now is the family is founded on a union of a man and a woman and if a man and a woman got married, and they have a child, that child will have a married mother and father who're committed to their welfare – that's what we're saying.
It is simply a recognition of basic facts of life. Now I believe in calling different things by different names. The union of a man and a woman is clearly different from the union of a man and a man and should be given a different name. I mean a bike and a car are two modes of transport but you give them different names to give them so you know, you can distinguish between the two different things.
So even if we did allow same sex marriage, it will remain a fact that the union of a man and a woman will still be different and should be called something different. So, what's going on here actually is, we are being asked to pretend that two different things are the same.
We're being asked to pretend that the union of two men and two women is the same as the union of a man and a woman when they're clearly not the same and this is why using words like 'equality' is completely misleading."
Poor David has been suffering at the hands of this pro-gay propaganda for 'years'. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, he has no difficulty whatsoever with the 2,000 years of anti-gay propaganda and the terrible treatment of gays that it led to.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 24, 2015, 07:47:32 PM
Quote from: paul768 on April 24, 2015, 03:49:55 PM
The referendum is a sideshow, a distraction. The gov has thrown a stick and the population has gone bounding after it. Why was there not a referendum on the new taxes and permanent austerity? Why are we not consulted on stuff that matters.
There is a referendum because this requires a change to the constitution. The others don't. So we elect politicians to take those decisions. It's called democracy. It can be very inconvenient.
And this particular issue may not matter to you, but it's very important to a lot of people.
It's directly important (perhaps), to one fifth of one per cent of the population.
I agree, Representative Democracy certainly is very inconvenient. Our political "representatives" have committed us all to €390,969 each to reimburse international finance. Who does this represent?
Direct Democracy was was in our 1st constitution and should be reinstated.
Quote from: paul768 on April 25, 2015, 06:11:45 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 24, 2015, 07:47:32 PM
Quote from: paul768 on April 24, 2015, 03:49:55 PM
The referendum is a sideshow, a distraction. The gov has thrown a stick and the population has gone bounding after it. Why was there not a referendum on the new taxes and permanent austerity? Why are we not consulted on stuff that matters.
There is a referendum because this requires a change to the constitution. The others don't. So we elect politicians to take those decisions. It's called democracy. It can be very inconvenient.
And this particular issue may not matter to you, but it's very important to a lot of people.
It's directly important (perhaps), to one fifth of one per cent of the population.
I agree, Representative Democracy certainly is very inconvenient. Our political "representatives" have committed us all to €390,969 each to reimburse international finance. Who does this represent?
Direct Democracy was was in our 1st constitution and should be reinstated.
Our banks created the debt, the ECB put the gun to our heads and the Government of the day committed is to paying it off. After that there was no going back. Our politicians were merely hopelessly out of their depth, then and now.
The real democratic deficit was in the actions of the ECB.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 25, 2015, 05:46:43 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 25, 2015, 05:06:06 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 25, 2015, 04:59:21 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 25, 2015, 03:34:12 PM
Maguire aside from the technicalities of it all at least recognize the correlation between same sex marriage and same sex parenting. One opens the door for the other.
Same sex parenting will happen regardless of the referendum result, therefore I don't see the correlation.
Maguire will you not just be a normal lad for a half a second and stop conversing with an aim to winning.
Can there not be chit chat on the forums or is everything a "debate" and not a "discussion"?
It's not about "winning" anything. Is it not the case that gay couples will be parents regardless of whether they will be allowed to marry? That being the case, two separate debates are being mixed up here.
And I'm not sure what you want by "discussion" that you're not getting. Do you just want me to agree with you?
No I don't want/need you to agree with me. But this is a discussion board. Everything doesn't have to be a debate and you respond to "conversation" like a debate master with a matter of fact tone and unfriendly air. It wouldnt hurt you surely just to have a bit of manners or treat people like you maybe care. OR is that care only reserved for homosexuals? or whatever cause you choose to champion.... hard luck in the football by the way.
Pleased to see the number of Vote No posters in Dublin yesterday.As they quite rightly say,"Every child deserves a mother and a father" who could take issue with that?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 25, 2015, 09:07:56 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 25, 2015, 05:46:43 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 25, 2015, 05:06:06 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 25, 2015, 04:59:21 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 25, 2015, 03:34:12 PM
Maguire aside from the technicalities of it all at least recognize the correlation between same sex marriage and same sex parenting. One opens the door for the other.
Same sex parenting will happen regardless of the referendum result, therefore I don't see the correlation.
Maguire will you not just be a normal lad for a half a second and stop conversing with an aim to winning.
Can there not be chit chat on the forums or is everything a "debate" and not a "discussion"?
It's not about "winning" anything. Is it not the case that gay couples will be parents regardless of whether they will be allowed to marry? That being the case, two separate debates are being mixed up here.
And I'm not sure what you want by "discussion" that you're not getting. Do you just want me to agree with you?
No I don't want/need you to agree with me. But this is a discussion board. Everything doesn't have to be a debate and you respond to "conversation" like a debate master with a matter of fact tone and unfriendly air. It wouldnt hurt you surely just to have a bit of manners or treat people like you maybe care. OR is that care only reserved for homosexuals? or whatever cause you choose to champion.... hard luck in the football by the way.
I don't know what prompted you to "play the man". I don't know how to communicate a friendly air when typing brief replies on my phone. Smilies? I don't know where my 'bad manners' are. Have I insulted you?
As for the "matter of fact tone", some things are matter of fact. Like on this topic, where some are presenting the referendum as leading to gay people raising children, whereas they'll be able to raise children anyway.
I don't know what you mean or what you're implying by asking me if my 'care' is "only reserved for homosexuals".
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 08:49:15 AM
Pleased to see the number of Vote No posters in Dublin yesterday.As they quite rightly say,"Every child deserves a mother and a father" who could take issue with that?
You!
You blame the father and mothers for child sex abuse by the clergy. Remember?
Quote from: muppet on April 26, 2015, 11:02:12 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 08:49:15 AM
Pleased to see the number of Vote No posters in Dublin yesterday.As they quite rightly say,"Every child deserves a mother and a father" who could take issue with that?
You!
You blame the father and mothers for child sex abuse by the clergy. Remember?
Can we please not ruin another thread with this debate. There's numerous dedicated to it.
Quote from: Franko on April 26, 2015, 11:44:03 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 26, 2015, 11:02:12 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 08:49:15 AM
Pleased to see the number of Vote No posters in Dublin yesterday.As they quite rightly say,"Every child deserves a mother and a father" who could take issue with that?
You!
You blame the father and mothers for child sex abuse by the clergy. Remember?
Can we please not ruin another thread with this debate. There's numerous dedicated to it.
It is perfectly valid to expose the hypocrisy of Fearon. Here he is pontificating saying 'every child deserves a mother and father', while on the others thread he shamelessly blames them for the callous abuse of their own children.
On top of this, can anyone point out how the legislation will deny any child a mother and father?
Read the David Quinn argument I posed earlier and you will see that he claims this debate is really about abortion. I haven't heard any No campaigners asking him to return to this planet and remain on topic.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 08:49:15 AM
Pleased to see the number of Vote No posters in Dublin yesterday.As they quite rightly say,"Every child deserves a mother and a father" who could take issue with that?
Where were all these people protesting about single people being allowed to adopt? Did that not deny a child? What did you do to challenge that?
Every child deserves to have a mother and father and to be reared in that environment.I'm sure every child would prefer that option (if at the age of reason) and every adult who has grown up in that environment (the vast majority) appreciates and is thankful for it.
Muppet what has an instance of failure by parents got to do with this debate?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 03:15:53 PM
Every child deserves to have a mother and father and to be reared in that environment.I'm sure every child would prefer that option (if at the age of reason) and every adult who has grown up in that environment (the vast majority) appreciates and is thankful for it.
So where was your opposition to single people being allowed to adopt?
A single parent is ok.Many children lose a biological parent to death early in their lives and therefore being raised by a single parent is not unnatural
And being raised by two fathers or two mothers is unnatural?
Brian O'Driscoll lines up with Gay Byrne to support same-sex marriage in Ireland
I'm waiting on Johnny Logan's stance before I know what to think. FFS Johnny. Get yer finger out.
Being raised by two fathers or two mothers is a bizarre proposition
Quote from: deiseach on April 24, 2015, 03:58:53 PM
I'd love to know when was this magical time in the past when Ireland was more tolerant of dissent than it is now.
Intolerance of dissent:
https://youtu.be/HRMTRwdXEFE
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 03:41:19 PM
A single parent is ok.Many children lose a biological parent to death early in their lives and therefore being raised by a single parent is not unnatural
The No side argue that child needs a mother and a father. Allowing a single person to adopt is therefore inconsistent with that - it must be denying the child at least as much as allowing two same sex couples to adopt.
Also, the argument that "We should not point to the existence of broken homes and use it as justification to create more broken homes" has been made on this very thread from the No side. Following that logic, no single person should be allowed to adopt.
Your argument shows that your problem is not with a child not having a mother and a father, but with a child being raised by a same sex couple.
Many children for generations have been successfully raised in one parent families,this is normal.
Raising children in same sex relationships is not natural and there is no evidence that it will be successful
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 04:37:33 PM
Many children for generations have been successfully raised in one parent families,this is normal.
Raising children in same sex relationships is not natural and there is no evidence that it will be successful
My point is that your argument is at odds with the claim that children need a mother and a father.
That is the ideal,however very often due to unforeseen circumstances (untimely death) many children are deprived of a parent and are successfully reared by one parent.Not unnatural.
In terms of adoption I assume the authorities give preference to two opposite sex people in a relationship over a single parent?
Quote from: paul768 on April 26, 2015, 04:19:08 PM
Quote from: deiseach on April 24, 2015, 03:58:53 PM
I'd love to know when was this magical time in the past when Ireland was more tolerant of dissent than it is now.
Intolerance of dissent:
https://youtu.be/HRMTRwdXEFE
It isn't really intolerance, it is total ignorance.
No campaigners should be allowed to conduct their campaigns. Just like anyone else.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 04:44:38 PM
That is the ideal,however very often due to unforeseen circumstances (untimely death) many children are deprived of a parent and are successfully reared by one parent.Not unnatural.
In terms of adoption I assume the authorities give preference to two opposite sex people in a relationship over a single parent?
This is the same old shite, rehashed over and over again. Decade after decade.
Anyone remember the 1995 No divorce campaign?
Does this ring a bell?
"Hello divorce, goodbye daddy"How come our society didn't collapse with this actual direct change of status of the family in Ireland, rather than the vague link being poorly articulated today?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 04:44:38 PM
That is the ideal,however very often due to unforeseen circumstances (untimely death) many children are deprived of a parent and are successfully reared by one parent.Not unnatural.
In terms of adoption I assume the authorities give preference to two opposite sex people in a relationship over a single parent?
I don't honestly know, but have heard numerous times the claim that there are enough heterosexual couples to adopt as an argument against allowing same sex couples to adopt. If this is really the case, would you ever allow single people to adopt?
Usually detest the Sindo, and never buy it, but I read it for lack of anything else at lunch in work today - Gene Kerrigan had a very good article on the difference between honest debate and campaigning - Hello Divorce, Goodbye Daddy came up a lot.
What does a child call its "surrogate" same sex "parents?" Daddy 1 and Daddy 2? How will such a child be treated by its peers in the schoolyard? Inevitably it will lead to taunting,bullying,abuse,and quite possibly suicide.
Also how will a child reared in such a relationship feel when he or she grows up? Bringing home a partner (opposite sex?) to meet the "parents?". Having mummy 1 and mummy 2 come along and watch the child in School plays,in the school football team?
The whole scenario is bizarre,and personally I would much prefer the orphanage.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 07:30:49 PM
What does a child call its "surrogate" same sex "parents?" Daddy 1 and Daddy 2? How will such a child be treated by its peers in the schoolyard? Inevitably it will lead to taunting,bullying,abuse,and quite possibly suicide.
Also how will a child reared in such a relationship feel when he or she grows up? Bringing home a partner (opposite sex?) to meet the "parents?". Having mummy 1 and mummy 2 come along and watch the child in School plays,in the school football team?
The whole scenario is bizarre,and personally I would much prefer the orphanage.
Or the end of the Universe?
Are you aware that many children already have two Dads? Or two mothers?
People have re-married in the past you know?
Step-mothers and step-fathers aren't banned in Genesis or Exodus are they?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 07:30:49 PM
What does a child call its "surrogate" same sex "parents?" Daddy 1 and Daddy 2? How will such a child be treated by its peers in the schoolyard? Inevitably it will lead to taunting,bullying,abuse,and quite possibly suicide.
Also how will a child reared in such a relationship feel when he or she grows up? Bringing home a partner (opposite sex?) to meet the "parents?". Having mummy 1 and mummy 2 come along and watch the child in School plays,in the school football team?
The whole scenario is bizarre,and personally I would much prefer the orphanage.
I'm not sure the other orphans would be best pleased.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 07:30:49 PM
What does a child call its "surrogate" same sex "parents?" Daddy 1 and Daddy 2? How will such a child be treated by its peers in the schoolyard? Inevitably it will lead to taunting,bullying,abuse,and quite possibly suicide.
Also how will a child reared in such a relationship feel when he or she grows up? Bringing home a partner (opposite sex?) to meet the "parents?". Having mummy 1 and mummy 2 come along and watch the child in School plays,in the school football team?
The whole scenario is bizarre,and personally I would much prefer the orphanage.
You've gone low plenty of times on this board. That's down there with the worst of them you complete troll.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 07:30:49 PM
What does a child call its "surrogate" same sex "parents?" Daddy 1 and Daddy 2? How will such a child be treated by its peers in the schoolyard? Inevitably it will lead to taunting,bullying,abuse,and quite possibly suicide.
Also how will a child reared in such a relationship feel when he or she grows up? Bringing home a partner (opposite sex?) to meet the "parents?". Having mummy 1 and mummy 2 come along and watch the child in School plays,in the school football team?
The whole scenario is bizarre,and personally I would much prefer the orphanage.
I can't see too many willing to adopt you, so don't stress.
As for the rest of your post, the number of people with your attitude is ever decreasing, therefore the likelihood of bullying, abuse etc. should be ever decreasing. If there is bullying and abuse, then focus on the parents of the children doing the bullying.
And children who grow up in a same sex home are unlikely to consider it bizarre (it will be their 'normal'), so they're unlikely to be any more anxious about bring a partner home than the rest of us.
Your concern for children in this situation is quite "bizarre", given your lack of concern for them in more grave situations of abuse.
Just a vile post, Tony.
It is not trolling or being vile,merely stating an obvious fact
If I favored the No position, I'd be embarrassed to be associated with your statement and that of David Quinn.
There is no evidence or study that concludes that children being raised by same sex couples are more prone to suicide. If you have it, produce it. The only obvious fact to be gleaned from your post is that, as a self-professed "Christian", you have no idea of how to behave like one.
I know you are only doing it for your own pleasure Tony, but activities like that should be kept to yourself. Or did the priests not tell you that?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 04:00:29 PM
Being raised by two fathers or two mothers is a bizarre proposition
This is either yet more disgusting homophobia from an ignormant mind or Tony is going to produce evidence that 2 men have never successfully brought up a child, anywhere in the world, ever.
Good luck tony
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 04:37:33 PM
Many children for generations have been successfully raised in one parent families,this is normal.
Raising children in same sex relationships is not natural and there is no evidence that it will be successful
Tony
Please state your evidence that same sex couples cannot successfully rasie a child.
If you cannot produce any evidence (you know real facts that prove a point) then at least have the decemcy to state that you accept that there is no evidence.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 07:30:49 PM
What does a child call its "surrogate" same sex "parents?" Daddy 1 and Daddy 2?
Relevance? I call my parents Tom/Tommy & Pat.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 07:30:49 PM
How will such a child be treated by its peers in the schoolyard?
Depends on how well the other kids have been brought up
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 07:30:49 PM
Inevitably it will lead to taunting,bullying,abuse,and quite possibly suicide.
See above
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 07:30:49 PM
Also how will a child reared in such a relationship feel when he or she grows up? Bringing home a partner (opposite sex?) to meet the "parents?"
Probably the usual range of experiences. What is evidence to the contrary?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 07:30:49 PM
Having mummy 1 and mummy 2 come along and watch the child in School plays,in the school football team?
If you focus too much on the misogyny your homophobia might suffer.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 07:30:49 PM
The whole scenario is bizarre,and personally I would much prefer the orphanage.
You are a horror of a human being
Has bullying at school not tragically led to suicides? Will the children being raised in same sex relationships not inevitably be taunted ,ribbed and bullied at school on account of this? What about the children themselves who will have no say in who they're placed with and might well resent this even violently (as has been the case with victims of clerical child abuse) when they grow up/reach the age of reason?
Simply not natural,not normal not needed.
At least we know Tony F and the DUP share the same prehistoric views on some things.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 09:58:39 PM
Has bullying at school not tragically led to suicides? Will the children being raised in same sex relationships not inevitably be taunted ,ribbed and bullied at school on account of this? What about the children themselves who will have no say in who they're placed with and might well resent this even violently (as has been the case with victims of clerical child abuse) when they grow up/reach the age of reason?
Simply not natural,not normal not needed.
Wow. Your main issue with victims of clerical child abuse, is that they might well become violent as adults.
Come to think of it, considering you post under your real name, I can see why you are concerned.
Tomorrow in the US, the supreme court hears the closing arguments in the case for the right to marriage. The gist according to the legal community, is that in order to rule against the right to gay marriage, the Supreme court would need to
rule against the right to marriage in any case.
QuoteIn order to rule against the gay couples and their children bringing the challenge, a majority of the justices would have to conclude that marriage is not a fundamental right with respect to straight couples, according to University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone.
The judges would also have to decide that there is no legal animus to state laws that limit who can get married – and that laws disadvantaging LGBT citizens are not suspect under the equal protection clause of the US constitution's 14th amendment.
I consider myself lucky to live in a town, and on a street where there are many same sex couples bringing up children. To be perfectly honest the effort and dedication they put in to their children's lives make me and most "straight" couples look like we're doing a half ass job.
On another note I come from a pretty big family, and I'm pleased to say that two of my cousins have had same sex marriages to their long term partners and are all the happier for it.
On the flip side of the blossoming tolerance for difference in Ireland, one of my relatives has had significant gender identity issues and is struggling badly both psychologically within themselves, and also with having abuse hurled at them when out in public. Its a long road but its good to see some steps forward are occurring...
heganboy, with all due respect, is this really the case?
QuoteTo be perfectly honest the effort and dedication they put in to their children's lives make me and most "straight" couples look like we're doing a half ass job.
Do you really think that gay couples, or even the gay couples on your street are such great parents that they make straight parents look bad in comparison? I accuse you of gilding the lily sir :)
Why can't we just say gay couples are as good and as bad as everyone else at trying to be a parent. It's a tough job, and who you sleep with doesn't make you better or worse at it.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 26, 2015, 09:58:39 PM
Has bullying at school not tragically led to suicides? Will the children being raised in same sex relationships not inevitably be taunted ,ribbed and bullied at school on account of this? What about the children themselves who will have no say in who they're placed with and might well resent this even violently (as has been the case with victims of clerical child abuse) when they grow up/reach the age of reason?
Simply not natural,not normal not needed.
I fail to see the logic of your bullying argument Tony.
Kids bully anyone who is different or doesn't conform. We've all been or seen friends and aquaintances bullied for a myriad of reasons. Bullies, being the type of people that they are, will seize any on any perceived chink in the armour to do their damage. If its not the kid with the gay parents, it will be the one with the cross eyes, the lisp, the threatening good looks, the academic success/failure, the wealthy/poor family, the different accent, the different race etc. etc. The black kids in the US south in the 50s and 60s faced serious, criminal and terrorist-level threats when blazing the trail in ending segregated schools, including from their would-be class mates. That hatred was learned, passed down from parent to child and from community to child. But the civil rights people faced it down, and eventually society evolved. If there are still neandertals out there who will teach their kids that homosexuality and gay marriage is something to be feared and suitable fodder for bullying behavior, then those people need to be faced down and ostracized. You don't respond to and beat threats and bullying by backing down. You fight it head on with courage and logic and reason, and if necessary in the case of child, maybe with fists too. Bullies are generally cowards, picking on the (perceived) weak and the vulnerable. It might be rough for some kids at first when it comes to gay parents, but the bullies will lose in the end.
The threatening good looks? I was never bullied! Oh, wait.
By the way, has it been proven that bullies are generally cowards? In my experience the bullies are the big tough ignorant hoors. Cowardice doesn't really come into it except in American TV programs.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 27, 2015, 03:40:08 PM
heganboy, with all due respect, is this really the case?
QuoteTo be perfectly honest the effort and dedication they put in to their children's lives make me and most "straight" couples look like we're doing a half ass job.
Do you really think that gay couples, or even the gay couples on your street are such great parents that they make straight parents look bad in comparison? I accuse you of gilding the lily sir :)
Why can't we just say gay couples are as good and as bad as everyone else at trying to be a parent. It's a tough job, and who you sleep with doesn't make you better or worse at it.
AZ, not making the case that anyone is or is not a better parent, the point I was trying to make is that their effort and dedication is unreal- kids never miss a practice, always on time for games, organizing fund raisers, thank you coach at the end of any session etc. (admittedly based on a sample size that statistically holds no water whatsoever). I would not say that effort and dedication is the barometer for good parenting. And I will admit to some lily gilding...
Quote from: heganboy on April 27, 2015, 04:01:09 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 27, 2015, 03:40:08 PM
heganboy, with all due respect, is this really the case?
QuoteTo be perfectly honest the effort and dedication they put in to their children's lives make me and most "straight" couples look like we're doing a half ass job.
Do you really think that gay couples, or even the gay couples on your street are such great parents that they make straight parents look bad in comparison? I accuse you of gilding the lily sir :)
Why can't we just say gay couples are as good and as bad as everyone else at trying to be a parent. It's a tough job, and who you sleep with doesn't make you better or worse at it.
AZ, not making the case that anyone is or is not a better parent, the point I was trying to make is that their effort and dedication is unreal- kids never miss a practice, always on time for games, organizing fund raisers, thank you coach at the end of any session etc. (admittedly based on a sample size that statistically holds no water whatsoever). I would not say that effort and dedication is the barometer for good parenting. And I will admit to some lily gilding...
It may also be the case that because of the stigma attached to them, they feel they have to try harder than everyone else.
Quote from: muppet on April 27, 2015, 04:14:04 PM
Quote from: heganboy on April 27, 2015, 04:01:09 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 27, 2015, 03:40:08 PM
heganboy, with all due respect, is this really the case?
QuoteTo be perfectly honest the effort and dedication they put in to their children's lives make me and most "straight" couples look like we're doing a half ass job.
Do you really think that gay couples, or even the gay couples on your street are such great parents that they make straight parents look bad in comparison? I accuse you of gilding the lily sir :)
Why can't we just say gay couples are as good and as bad as everyone else at trying to be a parent. It's a tough job, and who you sleep with doesn't make you better or worse at it.
AZ, not making the case that anyone is or is not a better parent, the point I was trying to make is that their effort and dedication is unreal- kids never miss a practice, always on time for games, organizing fund raisers, thank you coach at the end of any session etc. (admittedly based on a sample size that statistically holds no water whatsoever). I would not say that effort and dedication is the barometer for good parenting. And I will admit to some lily gilding...
It may also be the case that because of the stigma attached to them, they feel they have to try harder than everyone else.
Or else they are mad about sports :)
(https://i.imgflip.com/kq6ui.jpg)
But the children placed in gay relationships for their upbringing have no say in where they're placed.That is unfair and a potential source of resentment in later life.
How are children brought up in an abnormal situation going to grow up to be normal,which is the basic right of every child?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 27, 2015, 06:22:03 PM
But the children placed in gay relationships for their upbringing have no say in where they're placed.That is unfair and a potential source of resentment in later life.
How are children brought up in an abnormal situation going to grow up to be normal,which is the basic right of every child?
When I was a kid, I sometimes wished I was from a rich American family rather than growing up on a rural Donegal farm smelling of cow dung and silage and spending evenings in the bog. I didn't have a say in having to work since the age of 7 or 8.
What about poor inner city kids from single parent homes. Or kids who are abused? Or live in a place ravaged by war or disease?
A child in western society is in no way compromised just on account of having same sex parents.
So would you prefer to have been raised by two mammies only or two daddies only?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 27, 2015, 06:46:16 PM
So would you prefer to have been raised by two mammies only or two daddies only?
I had loving parents, luckily enough, so I wouldn't swap any of it. But I have neither seen nor heard anything to suggest that same sex parents could not have given me a similarly loving and effective upbringing. Engagement and love are the keys.
Guys this is a complete red herring, and I apologise for my part in steering the trawler this way. To use another nautical metaphor this ship has already sailed....
From the Irish Times Q and A on the referendum -
If I vote Yes, am I voting to allow same-sex couples adopt children?
Up until recently, only a married couple or a single person (regardless of sexuality) could adopt a child. Some children in Ireland have been and are being raised by same-sex couples, though in such cases only one of the two individuals, in the eyes of the law, was the child's parent. In recent weeks, however, the Oireachtas passed the Children and Family Relationships Bill. This major reform of family law allows civil partners and cohabiting couples who have lived together for three years to adopt. That will remain the case irrespective of the outcome of the referendum.
Same sex couple are already allowed to adopt by law. The only difference the referendum will make is that they will be married if and when they do so. Anyone continuing to argue this line either a. genuinely has a problem with a child being reared by gays but is ignorant of the referendum's wording and purpose or b. is fighting the last battle in a cynical attempt to win the next one. Hello emotive posters when they damn well know Aughrim is already lost on that score.
Quote from: easytiger95 on April 27, 2015, 07:14:34 PM
Guys this is a complete red herring, and I apologise for my part in steering the trawler this way. To use another nautical metaphor this ship has already sailed....
From the Irish Times Q and A on the referendum -
If I vote Yes, am I voting to allow same-sex couples adopt children?
Up until recently, only a married couple or a single person (regardless of sexuality) could adopt a child. Some children in Ireland have been and are being raised by same-sex couples, though in such cases only one of the two individuals, in the eyes of the law, was the child's parent. In recent weeks, however, the Oireachtas passed the Children and Family Relationships Bill. This major reform of family law allows civil partners and cohabiting couples who have lived together for three years to adopt. That will remain the case irrespective of the outcome of the referendum.
Same sex couple are already allowed to adopt by law. The only difference the referendum will make is that they will be married if and when they do so. Anyone continuing to argue this line either a. genuinely has a problem with a child being reared by gays but is ignorant of the referendum's wording and purpose or b. is fighting the last battle in a cynical attempt to win the next one. Hello emotive posters when they damn well know Aughrim is already lost on that score.
Yep, i've made this point already. Those on the No side using the argument about children are either ignorant or disingenuous. If i'm not mistaken, the Children & Families Bill was passed ahead of the referendum precisely so that the two issues would not be confused. It hasn't worked (and it suits some people that it hasn't).
The marriage referendum is about marriage and nothing more.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 27, 2015, 06:46:16 PM
So would you prefer to have been raised by two mammies only or two daddies only?
really Tony? this is where you're at?
Can I ask what relevance this has to the thread? Would you rather have been raised by Tyrone Protestant Rangers and Arsenal fans? And as for asking this
QuoteHow are children brought up in an abnormal situation going to grow up to be normal,which is the basic right of every child?
would you saying being brought up in the "Troubles" was normal? was that an affront to your basic human rights?
What child ever has a say in where they are "placed" ? were you consulted in the womb?
how did that go?
"So unnamed fetus who may or may not survive to term- you're heading for a white catholic mother and father and other kids in Portadown in a time of civil unrest- are you ok with that? Any special requests?"
Quote from: easytiger95 on April 27, 2015, 07:14:34 PM
Guys this is a complete red herring, and I apologise for my part in steering the trawler this way. To use another nautical metaphor this ship has already sailed....
From the Irish Times Q and A on the referendum -
If I vote Yes, am I voting to allow same-sex couples adopt children?
Up until recently, only a married couple or a single person (regardless of sexuality) could adopt a child. Some children in Ireland have been and are being raised by same-sex couples, though in such cases only one of the two individuals, in the eyes of the law, was the child's parent. In recent weeks, however, the Oireachtas passed the Children and Family Relationships Bill. This major reform of family law allows civil partners and cohabiting couples who have lived together for three years to adopt. That will remain the case irrespective of the outcome of the referendum.
Same sex couple are already allowed to adopt by law. The only difference the referendum will make is that they will be married if and when they do so. Anyone continuing to argue this line either a. genuinely has a problem with a child being reared by gays but is ignorant of the referendum's wording and purpose or b. is fighting the last battle in a cynical attempt to win the next one. Hello emotive posters when they damn well know Aughrim is already lost on that score.
I did not know that legislation had been passed. Thanks. And you're right.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 27, 2015, 06:22:03 PM
But the children placed in gay relationships for their upbringing have no say in where they're placed.That is unfair and a potential source of resentment in later life.
How are children brought up in an abnormal situation going to grow up to be normal,which is the basic right of every child?
This is similar with children of rapists, pedophiles and serial kilers, to name a few. But our prejudices don't prevent them from having children. Indeed, even if they are serving a sentence we allow conjugal visits.
We don't choose our parents, and we have no right to.
This is a ridiculously spurious argument, as usual.
So would you prefer to be reared by two mummies or two daddies?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 27, 2015, 08:21:45 PM
So would you prefer to be reared by two mummies or two daddies?
No problem with either.
You have no problem with serial killers and rapists having children?
I didn't know that either. Thanks guys. So what rights are still lacking for gay couples that allowing them to marry will rectify? The website I used earlier on in the referendum debate, posted here earlier on, was obviously out of date with regard to that law.
tony describes describes a child being raised by a same sex couple as a bizzare proposition. Yet when asked for evidence that it cannot work he falls silent. I never thought there was any link between faith and decency but i understood that spiritualists would make that claim. Tony's willingness to deal in ignorance and hatred and not to have the decency to address the argument and come up with some evidence (or to admit that his arguments are baseless in fact) shows that spiritualists have given up on even the appearance of decency.
Tony has no evidence that a same sex couples cannot raise a child successfully.
The basic tenet of decency that would stop a reasonable person spreading a message of hatred when the know they have no evidence to support same is missing in Tony (and his conditioning).
The fact that Tony resorts to silly games like what would a child call their parents - Daddy 1 and Daddy 2? serves only to illustrate the entire absence of any substance to his stance.
His bullying references are the ramblings of a diseased and somewhat limited mind. Basic intelligence wouldbe enough to conclude that if child A bullying child B gives rise to the parenting of a child being questioned that the focus must fall on child A, not child B. If Tony is in possession of basic intelligence it has become addled by, inter alia some religious fog.
Tony seems to fail to understand that adopted children might resent the parents they ended up for any number of reasons. I would feel that if I had been landed with a shortish straw if I had been adopted by 2 spiritualists. If Tony agrees with his own argument then he would take that as evidence enough to stop people of faith being legally allowed to adopt.
Tony repeats time and time again that homosexuality is not normal. Where does it come from then?
Tony has failed to make a single valid point in this entire debate (and all related debates). I only humour him because it would be a great tragedy if even one person were you read his repugnant ramblings and antediluvian moralising and not see it for the f#ckwittery that it is.
Here's the entire article AZ - I found it quite helpful - there are 21 legal differences civil partnership and marriage, some of them fairly fundamental.
What are we voting on?
On Friday, May 22nd, voters will be asked whether the Constitution should be changed so as to extend civil marriage rights to same-sex couples. The proposed amendment to Article 41 is the insertion of the line: "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex." The Irish version, which takes precedence, reads: "Féadfaidh beirt, gan beann ar a ngnéas, conradh pósta a dhéanamh de réir dlí." If the proposal is passed, a marriage between two people of the same sex will have the same status under the Constitution as a marriage between a man and a woman. Married couples of the opposite sex or the same sex would be recognised as a family and be entitled to the Constitutional protection for families.
Why are we voting on this now?
Before the 2011 election, the Labour Party said it favoured a referendum on same-sex marriage. Fine Gael was non committal. When the two parties formed a coalition, their compromise was to send the issue to the Constitutional Convention, a deliberative forum compromising 33 politicians and 66 members of the public. The convention's overwhelming support for the idea (79 per cent were in favour) gave momentum to advocates, who were pushing for a referendum. In November 2013, the cabinet formally agreed to put the question to the people and Taoiseach Enda Kenny made his first public declaration of support for the campaign.
Where do the political parties stand?
Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin are all calling for a Yes vote. Beyond Leinster House, the key force on the side of reform is Yes Equality, an umbrella group incorporating the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, Marriage Equality and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. It plans to co-ordinate with LGBT Noise, a grassroots organisation that specialises in street demonstrations. The Yes side also has the support of the trade union movement.
So who is against the proposal?
The most prominent opponents to date have been the Iona Institute, a religious think-tank, and Independent Senator Rónán Mullen. The organisational focal point for the No side is expected to be Mothers and Fathers Matter, a group set up to challenge parts of the Children and Family Relationships Bill, which was recently passed by the Oireachtas. By far the most influential voice on the No side, however, will be the Catholic Church. A bishops' pastoral letter, The Meaning of Marriage, has been circulated to 1,360 parishes nationwide, and the church's ability to reach and mobilise people will be vital to the No side's chances. A lot depends on how actively the hierarchy decides to make its case.
If we vote Yes, will there be legal consequences for religious marriage ceremonies?
No. The proposal is to extend civil marriage rights. Any church retains its right to marry whoever it wishes. The Marriage Bill 2015, which will be enacted in the event that the referendum is passed, explicitly states that priests or any other solemnisers will not be obliged to perform same-sex marriages. However, the Catholic hierarchy has recently suggested that if the referendum is passed, the church could itself opt no longer to perform the civil aspects of weddings. At present, the signing of the Marriage Registration Form, a document required by the State in order to recognise a marriage, is normally done after a wedding Mass. If the church decides not to allow this in future, on the basis that the State's view of marriage differs so fundamentally from its own, couples would have to go elsewhere to have their union legally recognised by the State.
We already have civil partnerships. What's different about civil marriage?
Civil partnership was introduced in Ireland in 2010 to give same-sex couples similar legal protection to married couples. More than 1,000 same-sex couples have availed of it. They enjoy extensive rights that are similar or identical to those of married couples in areas such as property, tax, social welfare, maintenance, immigration and pensions.
Some of the differences between partnership and marriage have been eliminated by the Children and Family Relationships Bill, notably those relating to adoption and guardianship. But Dr Fergus Ryan, lecturer in law at NUI Maynooth, identifies 21 differences that remain. For example, civil partners do not enjoy the protection the Constitution gives to the family. Nor are they entitled to a judicial separation and it's not clear whether next of kin rules apply to civil partners. The most obvious difference is the name. Same-sex couples who formalise their union must go through a different process to opposite-sex couples; the State is saying that it regards them differently. Supporters of the referendum proposal say this is a chance to show generosity of spirit and secure equality for same-sex couples. Opponents say there's nothing wrong with treating two types of union differently.
Will civil partnership still exist if the referendum is passed?
There will be no new civil partnerships after the Marriage Act comes into effect. Existing civil partners will retain that status and the rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities associated with it unless they choose to marry. Whether they marry is up to them. If they do, their civil partnership will be dissolved.
Are we voting to change the definition of marriage?
The Constitution does not define marriage. Nor does it specify who is entitled to marry and who is not. So a Yes vote would not change the Constitutional status of marriage. In the absence of a constitutional definition, the Referendum Commission explains, the generally accepted common law definition of marriage is "the voluntary union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others". This definition has been adopted by the Irish courts on a number of occasions.
If I vote Yes, am I voting to allow same-sex couples adopt children?
Up until recently, only a married couple or a single person (regardless of sexuality) could adopt a child. Some children in Ireland have been and are being raised by same-sex couples, though in such cases only one of the two individuals, in the eyes of the law, was the child's parent. In recent weeks, however, the Oireachtas passed the Children and Family Relationships Bill. This major reform of family law allows civil partners and cohabiting couples who have lived together for three years to adopt. That will remain the case irrespective of the outcome of the referendum.
Have other countries introduced same-sex marriage?
If the referendum passes, Ireland will become the first country in the world to approve a national referendum expressly guaranteeing same-sex marriage in its constitution. A number of other countries have introduced it via the courts or by parliamentary vote. At present, 17 countries (including France, Argentina, Denmark, Norway and Spain), as well as a number of US states, allow same-sex couples to marry.
What do the opinion polls suggest?
All polls to date have put the Yes side ahead. An Ipsos MRBI survey for The Irish Times last month found that, when undecided voters were excluded, support for a Yes vote stood at 74 per cent, while support for the No side was at 26 per cent. Urban voters, women and young people are most likely to vote for change.
The Yes side has been more active and organised so far. A huge registration drive among young people will help push up turnout among one of its key demographics, while its recent tone and strategy suggest it is tacking towards the middle-ground where the referendum will be won or lost. If the political parties actively campaign, their ground operations will be important to the Yes side.
So it's a done deal?
Far from it. That same Ipsos MRBI poll showed the Yes vote was declining: support for same-sex marriage was down six points since the previous poll in December. The No side was up by six points. And that's before the campaign proper has kicked into life. The Yes campaign has set the pace, but the No side also has reasons to be confident. Ireland's is a conservative electorate, and one that has shown itself slow to change the Constitution. It's quite possible that some people are reluctant to admit their reservations to pollsters. In relatively secular France in 2013, a campaign against the government's plan to introduce same-sex marriage and adoption by gay couples by way of parliamentary vote led to some of the biggest conservative protests in decades. Moreover, recent Irish history offers cautionary lessons. In 2012, polls at one stage showed 80 per cent in favour of the children's referendum. But despite a poorly funded No campaign whose most prominent faces were a former MEP and a newspaper columnist, the Yes vote on polling day was only 58 per cent. Finally, the age group where support for same-sex marriage is strongest (18-24 year olds) is also the one that tends to be least inclined to vote. The result is unpredictable.
If the proposal were rejected, what would happen?
Nothing. The Constitution would remain unchanged and civil marriage would be open only to opposite-sex couples. The issue would fade from the political agenda in the short-term. There's an outside possibility that a government could test the view, held by some lawyers, that a constitutional amendment is not necessary to allow same-sex marriage. It's more likely that another referendum would be held in a few years' time.
Why do same sex couples want children? If they did really,wouldn't they opt for a conventional relationship which would produce them without any undue controversy?
Could the answer be they simply want to surf the current tide of gay supremacy and further annoy religiously minded people (who have no wish other than to save their souls) by making a mockery of the sacrament of marriage by crassly seeking to redefine it. It is laughable too the number of theophobes who "support" gay marriage but wouldn't be seen dead in a gay bar or would recoil in horror should anyone even joke that they may be gay.
Civil partnerships for gay couples are more than sufficient.
Left handedness isn't "normal" in the same sense as homosexuality isn't i.e. a small minority of the population fall under the category. Indeed, it used to be beaten out of kids years ago. An aunt of mine was beaten into writing right handed by some fine Mayo nuns! The word "sinister" has the same Latin root.
Yet, here we are half a century later and no one even bats an eyelid at us ciotoigs.
Keep digging Tone
Quote from: T Fearon on April 27, 2015, 09:44:54 PM
Why do same sex couples want children? If they did really,wouldn't they opt for a conventional relationship which would produce them without any undue controversy?
Could the answer be they simply want to surf the current tide of gay supremacy and further annoy religiously minded people (who have no wish other than to save their souls) by making a mockery of the sacrament of marriage by crassly seeking to redefine it. It is laughable too the number of theophobes who "support" gay marriage but wouldn't be seen dead in a gay bar or would recoil in horror should anyone even joke that they may be gay.
Civil partnerships for gay couples are more than sufficient.
This has no impact on the sacrament of marriage. It's about civil marriage. If you haven't even grasped the basics at this stage...
Quote from: T Fearon on April 27, 2015, 09:44:54 PM
Why do same sex couples want children? If they did really,wouldn't they opt for a conventional relationship which would produce them without any undue controversy?
Could the answer be they simply want to surf the current tide of gay supremacy and further annoy religiously minded people (who have no wish other than to save their souls) by making a mockery of the sacrament of marriage by crassly seeking to redefine it. It is laughable too the number of theophobes who "support" gay marriage but wouldn't be seen dead in a gay bar or would recoil in horror should anyone even joke that they may be gay.
Civil partnerships for gay couples are more than sufficient.
So it's all about you and your fellow religious travellers, even though it will have zero impact on you in reality? I'm sure gay people will be happy that your real motivation is saving their souls though!
Seriously though, this smacks of Paisleyite not - an - inch unionism. Any gain by gay people is automatically interpreted as a loss for religious people, even though gay people are merely seeking equality. Your "supremacy" comment is laughable.
As for kids and "opting" for a relationship, did you "opt" for yours? Did you choose to be attracted to a woman or was it instinctual? Or is your point that you would prefer that they went back in the closet and lived lives in denial in heterosexual relationships?
Regarding your "theophobes" and gay bars comment, so what? I wouldn't usually go to mass either, as that scene doesn't interest me. And while I would deny being English if so questioned, that doesn't mean I don't like the English or wish harm upon them or think they shouldn't have rights the rest of us have.
Marriage is rooted in religious belief,even the term has religious inferences.
Every culture has had some form of marriage, though it has taken various dfferent guises depending on the tradition - interestingly though, if you're talking about the eternal nature of the Catholic sacrament, it actually was not consecrated as a sacrament until the 13th century. So the concept you're talking about Tony is essentially a man-made construct.
Of course, that doesn't stop religious people having misgivings about gay marriage, but as this referendum will seek to change civil procedures, in my opinion, in any democracy the extension of civil liberties to all the population should take precedence over those misgivings, especially since their freedom to practice their religion is also guaranteed under the constitution.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 27, 2015, 09:44:54 PM
Why do same sex couples want children? If they did really,wouldn't they opt for a conventional relationship which would produce them without any undue controversy?
Are you contending that people opt for hetrosexual relationships not out of love for their partner but purely in order to have children and that this is a good thing? Such a shocking condemnation of the very institution of marriage that you pretend to define. Yet more utter crap.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 27, 2015, 09:44:54 PM
Could the answer be they simply want to surf the current tide of gay supremacy
Sorry , surf the wah??????
Quote from: T Fearon on April 27, 2015, 09:44:54 PM
and further annoy religiously minded people (who have no wish other than to save their souls) by making a mockery of the sacrament of marriage by crassly seeking to redefine it.
Very easily these people. If people are annoyed about what consenting adults do in their own home its going fairly difficult not tp annoy them
Quote from: T Fearon on April 27, 2015, 09:44:54 PM
It is laughable too the number of theophobes who "support" gay marriage but wouldn't be seen dead in a gay bar or would recoil in horror should anyone even joke that they may be gay.
Who are these people? Name one?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 27, 2015, 09:44:54 PM
Civil partnerships for gay couples are more than sufficient.
You are entitled to that view. But if you are going to publically state it then be prepared to be asked to provide some supporting evidence. That would appear to be something you have completely failed to do
Evidence? How about I believe gay marriage is morally wrong and contrary to God's word?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 27, 2015, 10:31:56 PM
Marriage is rooted in religious belief,even the term has religious inferences.
Lads and lasses,
Don't feed the troll(s)
Tony, I have this image of you giggling uncontrollably in your Poyntzpass B & B, like a shaken bowl of jelly, deriving great joy at people's reactions to your postings, which veer from the outrageous to the offensive.
You ask, "why wouldn't they opt for a conventional relationship which would produce them [children] without any undue controversy." Really? How about because they're gay and thus are attracted to people of the same sex. They can't choose to be straight any more than you can choose to be gay. And I apologise that their God-created sexuality is such an undue inconvenience to you and society. And while they're at it, especially since choice is so easy, maybe those annoying blacks could opt for a more agreeable hue, one less offensive to us palefaces.
And building on that, you state that their primary motivation is to "annoy religiously minded people", not unlike those annoying Civil Rights marchers who in times past took to the streets just to irritate god-fearing Unionists. Of course, you've hit the nail on the head. They don't want mere civil rights and equal treatment under the law, they just want to test the Christianity of Christians. As an earlier poster noted, a cunning plan, very Baldrickian.
And these gays are making a mockery of the sacrament of marriage. Of course they are. In a world in which divorce is ever more prevalent and couples opt to forgo the ceremony and simply shack up with each other, you mock a section of society that actually wants to pursue marriage. Far from mocking it, they are embracing it, thereby showing it the highest respect.
And what brings you back to your pet noir—theophobia? I am not a theophobe, but I do defend the right of same-sex couples to marry. And what's this odd reference to gay bars? Tony, I imagine that you'd defend a Jew's right to practice his or her religion, but does that mean that you have to be seen at a temple or synagogue?
The sad thing about this is that various zealots bait each other and call each other "homophobe" or "theophobe" and talk about children without any real interest in their welfare, but rather as ammunition to get at the other guy. So we get statements like "children are better off in an orphanage" or "I consider myself lucky to live in a town, and on a street where there are many same sex couples bringing up children". While not doubt subject to same variation as every other part of the human race, same sex couples are certainly capable of providing better care to children than an orphanage, and many do. However, any child in such a situation is cut off from at least one parent, and has an less equal exposure to the human race than a regular upbringing provides, so an same sex couples bringing up children is the making the best of bad job, the mitigation of damage, but not something to be welcomed as a trend by any responsible person.
The adoption law regulates such thing, as I pointed out pages back. The success of individual same sex couples in bringing up children is no more a reason to vote to devalue marriage than the success of someone who left school when they were 16 is a reason to stop investing in further education.
Ah c'mon Armaghniac - you're better than that. Seriously.....
QuoteHowever, any child in such a situation is cut off from at least one parent, and has an less equal exposure to the human race than a regular upbringing provides
Face palm.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 27, 2015, 11:54:23 PM
The sad thing about this is that various zealots bait each other and call each other "homophobe" or "theophobe" and talk about children without any real interest in their welfare, but rather as ammunition to get at the other guy. So we get statements like "children are better off in an orphanage" or "I consider myself lucky to live in a town, and on a street where there are many same sex couples bringing up children". While not doubt subject to same variation as every other part of the human race, same sex couples are certainly capable of providing better care to children than an orphanage, and many do. However, any child in such a situation is cut off from at least one parent, and has an less equal exposure to the human race than a regular upbringing provides, so an same sex couples bringing up children is the making the best of bad job, the mitigation of damage, but not something to be welcomed as a trend by any responsible person.
The adoption law regulates such thing, as I pointed out pages back. The success of individual same sex couples in bringing up children is no more a reason to vote to devalue marriage than the success of someone who left school when they were 16 is a reason to stop investing in further education.
Those two statements are not opposites, nor comparable as weapons from opposite sides, nowhere near it.
The first is an idiotic generalisation while the latter is simply a personal preference. Saying that you see the latter as 'ammunition' shows how far you are willing to travel to get offended.
Regarding the orphanage, read Paul McGrath's book and see how he felt everytime his mother and sister left after visiting him in the orphanage. Religious intolerance of inter-racial extra-marital children, drilled into his mother's family by the Church, put him there. The same religious intolerance we see from the usual suspect on this thread.
The rest of your argument is the old No Divorce argument rehashed. Many children are cut off from one parent. Broken marriages, prison and even work ffs can deny a child seeing a parent. Gay marriage doesn't cause any of this.
The core point here is children being placed in the setting of a non normal upbringing,before they reach the age of consent or reason.
How if one is reared in a non normal environment is one going to grow up to be normal,and how will anyone feel and react to this non normal upbringing when they reach the age of reason.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 05:54:34 AM
The core point here is children being placed in the setting of a non normal upbringing,before they reach the age of consent or reason.
How if one is reared in a non normal environment is one going to grow up to be normal,and how will anyone feel and react to this non normal upbringing when they reach the age of reason.
Do you get that this vote has got nothing to do with gay people being allowed to raise children since they are already allowed to? And that if it passes the church still wont be obliged to marry them? The core point as I see it is all they want is to be allowed to be married rather than have a civil partnership and personally I see no problem with that.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 05:54:34 AM
The core point here is children being placed in the setting of a non normal upbringing,before they reach the age of consent or reason.
How if one is reared in a non normal environment is one going to grow up to be normal,and how will anyone feel and react to this non normal upbringing when they reach the age of reason.
How do children grow up to be abnormal* when brought up in a normal environment?
* I assume this is your term for someone who is gay.
Apologies for feeding the troll.
Quote from: LCohen on April 27, 2015, 09:22:13 PM
tony describes describes a child being raised by a same sex couple as a bizzare proposition. Yet when asked for evidence that it cannot work he falls silent. I never thought there was any link between faith and decency but i understood that spiritualists would make that claim. Tony's willingness to deal in ignorance and hatred and not to have the decency to address the argument and come up with some evidence (or to admit that his arguments are baseless in fact) shows that spiritualists have given up on even the appearance of decency.
That is some claim, using one person's viewpoint for all the people of one grouping.
Tony is also a member of the GAA (I persume), would this sound right "shows that GAA have given up on even the appearance of decency"
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 05:54:34 AM
The core point here is children being placed in the setting of a non normal upbringing,before they reach the age of consent or reason.
How if one is reared in a non normal environment is one going to grow up to be normal,and how will anyone feel and react to this non normal upbringing when they reach the age of reason.
Are you talking about children of divorced parents, separated parents or jailed parents?
Are you talking about children reared by nannies, as well as mammies or even grannies.
Or is it just another weak disguise for your prejudices in your crusade to dictate how everyone else lives?
My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 03:40:05 PM
My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?
I'll tell you what is abnormal, a supposedly grown man posting/trolling the same old shite over and over again on an internet forum for his own twisted satisfaction.
Quote from: Bingo on April 28, 2015, 03:47:16 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 03:40:05 PM
My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?
I'll tell you what is abnormal, a supposedly grown man posting/trolling the same old shite over and over again on an internet forum for his own twisted satisfaction.
*applause*
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 03:40:05 PM
My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?
Do priests not marry God, is that not a bit abnormal?
Quote from: topcuppla on April 28, 2015, 03:48:47 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 03:40:05 PM
My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?
Do priests not marry God, is that not a bit abnormal?
Nuns too.
Come to think of it.......
Quote from: Bingo on April 28, 2015, 03:47:16 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 03:40:05 PM
My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?
I'll tell you what is abnormal, a supposedly grown man posting/trolling the same old shite over and over again on an internet forum for his own twisted satisfaction.
The old newspaper competitions must have dried up the last few months
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 03:40:05 PM
My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?
You compare homosexuals to dogs?
Their relationships are abnormal? The relationship as a whole or specific parts are abnormal?
Yes, their sexual intercourse cannot produce offspring, but by your logic that implies that the only aspect of a relationship is sex to produce offspring. (This by extension would move infertile heterosexuals into the same abnormal category).
I would contend that there is more to a relationship than sex to produce offspring; things like love and companionship to begin with.
Poor Tony, so much hatred for one man.
Must be down to the way he was brought up.
Truly a man to be pitied.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 27, 2015, 11:03:05 PM
Evidence? How about I believe gay marriage is morally wrong and contrary to God's word?
Sentences beginning with "I believe ......" are unlikely to amount to evidence.
I believe that Tony Fearon is a bigamist and my evidence is that I believe he is a bigamist. How would play out in a court of law or even in a rational mind?
So I'm still waiting on your evidence
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 05:54:34 AM
The core point here is children being placed in the setting of a non normal upbringing,before they reach the age of consent or reason.
How if one is reared in a non normal environment is one going to grow up to be normal,and how will anyone feel and react to this non normal upbringing when they reach the age of reason.
children are normally placed in their new families before the age of consent. Some will resent their placement. There will be many reasons for this. Homophobia seems to the rationale for you focusing on one potential cause.
Your repeated use of "normal"/"abnormal" needs to be explained with something a bit more substantial than "I believe ...."
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on April 28, 2015, 09:55:14 AM
Quote from: LCohen on April 27, 2015, 09:22:13 PM
tony describes describes a child being raised by a same sex couple as a bizzare proposition. Yet when asked for evidence that it cannot work he falls silent. I never thought there was any link between faith and decency but i understood that spiritualists would make that claim. Tony's willingness to deal in ignorance and hatred and not to have the decency to address the argument and come up with some evidence (or to admit that his arguments are baseless in fact) shows that spiritualists have given up on even the appearance of decency.
That is some claim, using one person's viewpoint for all the people of one grouping.
Tony is also a member of the GAA (I persume), would this sound right "shows that GAA have given up on even the appearance of decency"
Tony roots his outrageous statements/claims in his spirtualism. I would welcome a host of spiritualist who pointed out the disgusting nature of Tony's contributions to this and other debates
Tony is not rooting his outrages in his GAA fandom or membership
Tony is from my own county. I am ashamed of him
Tony is from my own species. I am ashamed of him on that level also
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 03:40:05 PM
My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?
Now that is shameful trolling
Any not sure anybody is advocating ,arriage between anything other than consenting adult humans. The dog analogy is idiotic as well as shameful
I think it's got to the point where you can't say anything against gay "marriage" or adoption without being regarded as homophobic or anti-gay. Yer man Wells at least has the balls to speak out about it, (unfortunately he went a bit far) unlike the rest of the cowardly political leaders out there. Gaining a few votes is obviously more important to them.
Quote from: BennyCake on April 28, 2015, 07:50:39 PM
I think it's got to the point where you can't say anything against gay "marriage" or adoption without being regarded as homophobic or anti-gay. Yer man Wells at least has the balls to speak out about it, (unfortunately he went a bit far) unlike the rest of the cowardly political leaders out there. Gaining a few votes is obviously more important to them.
Maybe you need better facts and arguments?
Quote from: BennyCake on April 28, 2015, 07:50:39 PM
I think it's got to the point where you can't say anything against gay "marriage" or adoption without being regarded as homophobic or anti-gay. Yer man Wells at least has the balls to speak out about it, (unfortunately he went a bit far) unlike the rest of the cowardly political leaders out there. Gaining a few votes is obviously more important to them.
Wells didn't just go too far, he made no sense whatsoever. Put forward a good case and it can be debated on its merits.
Quote from: BennyCake on April 28, 2015, 07:50:39 PM
I think it's got to the point where you can't say anything against gay "marriage" or adoption without being regarded as homophobic or anti-gay. Yer man Wells at least has the balls to speak out about it, (unfortunately he went a bit far) unlike the rest of the cowardly political leaders out there. Gaining a few votes is obviously more important to them.
Went abit far or came out with an outrageous statement based on no fact or statistic?
Quote from: BennyCake on April 28, 2015, 07:50:39 PM
I think it's got to the point where you can't say anything against gay "marriage" or adoption without being regarded as homophobic or anti-gay. Yer man Wells at least has the balls to speak out about it, (unfortunately he went a bit far) unlike the rest of the cowardly political leaders out there. Gaining a few votes is obviously more important to them.
In fairness, it is a good question whether you can do the former and not be the latter.
If you take the Tony approach, then there are very few who will regard you as anything but rabidly homophobic. But what about the reasonable person who treats everyone they meet respectfully and equally, but deep down just can't agree with the concept? Their personal objection will only manifest itself in the referendum by voting NO.
Is conscientious objection in this case homophobic? It would seem very harsh if yes was the answer.
Marry their dogs, Tony? Are you just trying to say the most outlandish thing possible to see how people react? You are now aligning yourself with that American crackpot Ben Carson, who equates homosexuality with bestiality. You do acknowledge a difference between an animal and a consenting adult, or don't you? Are you secretly seeking to land a position teaching at Bob Jones University. You're in great shape if you are. You are also doing a very good job of making the DUP seem like a moderate left-leaning outfit. And you're undoubtedly making people with reservations about same-sex marriage plead, "For God's sake, Fearon, stay off our side."
Well let's hear the non-homophobic or pro-gay argument against gay marriage.
Fearon you share the same opinion as jamie bryson on this. (I saw his view years ago on twitter as he gladly has disappeared now). That is the kind of person you share rationale with so be proud of yourself ::)
As per most debates you again illustrate a basic lack of understanding of key english words.
Look this one up...
Consent
If two people consent to kill a third person is that ok? I am not homophobic,and don't disrespect anyone.I object to gay marriage simply on religious and moral grounds, like many others I might add.I genuinely pity any child who is reared in such a relationship,as if it is "normal".It is not and never will be.What chance has a child brought up by two men,denied the unique love of a mother,for example?
I pity you
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
If two people consent to kill a third person is that ok? I am not homophobic,and don't disrespect anyone.I object to gay marriage simply on religious and moral grounds, like many others I might add.I genuinely pity any child who is reared in such a relationship,as if it is "normal".It is not and never will be.What chance has a child brought up by two men,denied the unique love of a mother,for example?
Hmm. Another spectacular comparison.
I think you should probably add the word homophobic to the list of words you don't understand.
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 28, 2015, 10:07:15 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
If two people consent to kill a third person is that ok? I am not homophobic,and don't disrespect anyone.I object to gay marriage simply on religious and moral grounds, like many others I might add.I genuinely pity any child who is reared in such a relationship,as if it is "normal".It is not and never will be.What chance has a child brought up by two men,denied the unique love of a mother,for example?
Hmm. Another spectacular comparison.
I think you should probably add the word homophobic to the list of words you don't understand.
Two people 'consenting' to deny a third person their freedom is never ok.
Good comparison.
Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.
50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 10:29:16 PM
Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.
50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?
50 years ago we were living in the dark ages. Now we've come into the 21st century and everyone deserves equal rights.
Tony you know the difference between a human being and a dog right?
Quote from: thebuzz on April 28, 2015, 10:39:58 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 10:29:16 PM
Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.
50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?
50 years ago we were living in the dark ages. Now we've come into the 21st century and everyone deserves equal rights.
That's bollix. Just because a law was passed permitting homosexuality suddenly our ancestors were Neanderthals. This crap about we are such a more tolerant society blah blah, that's bollix. THe reason society accepts things like this is because society is told to by those in power. You are no better than people of 50 years ago just because you think gays should be able to get "married", so get off your high horse.
Exactly.Society was a hell of a lot better 50 years ago,before wealth,greed and anything goes took over.Politicians were generally motivated by public service and conviction and not in the back pocket of corporates.People looked out for each other,and there was a definite sense and distinction between right and wrong, underpinned by a strong moral compass.
Quote from: BennyCake on April 28, 2015, 10:55:20 PM
Quote from: thebuzz on April 28, 2015, 10:39:58 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 10:29:16 PM
Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.
50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?
50 years ago we were living in the dark ages. Now we've come into the 21st century and everyone deserves equal rights.
That's bollix. Just because a law was passed permitting homosexuality suddenly our ancestors were Neanderthals. This crap about we are such a more tolerant society blah blah, that's bollix. THe reason society accepts things like this is because society is told to by those in power. You are no better than people of 50 years ago just because you think gays should be able to get "married", so get off your high horse.
I don't have a high horse and I don't give a shit about those in power. I've always held the view 'Live and let live' and always will.
Yes, Tony, bring back those glorious days of yesteryear, when gay simply meant happy, when Catholics had a cornucopia of civil rights, those halcyon days of unchecked clerical sexual abuse. Gosh darn it, I surely miss them.
Quote from: thebuzz on April 28, 2015, 11:09:05 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 28, 2015, 10:55:20 PM
Quote from: thebuzz on April 28, 2015, 10:39:58 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 10:29:16 PM
Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.
50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?
50 years ago we were living in the dark ages. Now we've come into the 21st century and everyone deserves equal rights.
That's bollix. Just because a law was passed permitting homosexuality suddenly our ancestors were Neanderthals. This crap about we are such a more tolerant society blah blah, that's bollix. THe reason society accepts things like this is because society is told to by those in power. You are no better than people of 50 years ago just because you think gays should be able to get "married", so get off your high horse.
I don't have a high horse and I don't give a shit about those in power. I've always held the view 'Live and let live' and always will.
I couldn't give a shite what gays get up to in their own time. I just don't agree with same sex "marriage". It doesn't mean I'm anti-gay, nor anyone else who thinks likewise, but that's how it's portrayed.
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on April 28, 2015, 10:41:54 PM
Tony you know the difference between a human being and a dog right?
Well he certainly knows how to wind up both and make them bark.
Quote from: BennyCake on April 28, 2015, 10:55:20 PM
Quote from: thebuzz on April 28, 2015, 10:39:58 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 10:29:16 PM
Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.
50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?
50 years ago we were living in the dark ages. Now we've come into the 21st century and everyone deserves equal rights.
That's bollix. Just because a law was passed permitting homosexuality suddenly our ancestors were Neanderthals. This crap about we are such a more tolerant society blah blah, that's bollix. THe reason society accepts things like this is because society is told to by those in power. You are no better than people of 50 years ago just because you think gays should be able to get "married", so get off your high horse.
Or maybe people now are better educated, more worldly and can think for themselves a bit more than those of 50 years ago cowering in fear of what John Charles McQuaid, the local priest in his Sunday sermon and the Catholic Church might say.
If we're all just parroting what our "betters" are saying in terms of gay equality, then why don't you, original thinker that you are, tell us why we are wrong?
Quote from: armaghniac on April 28, 2015, 11:50:41 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on April 28, 2015, 10:41:54 PM
Tony you know the difference between a human being and a dog right?
Well he certainly knows how to wind up both and make them bark.
Given the progression in his "arguments" I think you are right!
I certainly hope so!
Quote from: J70 on April 29, 2015, 12:20:07 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 28, 2015, 10:55:20 PM
Quote from: thebuzz on April 28, 2015, 10:39:58 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 10:29:16 PM
Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.
50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?
50 years ago we were living in the dark ages. Now we've come into the 21st century and everyone deserves equal rights.
That's bollix. Just because a law was passed permitting homosexuality suddenly our ancestors were Neanderthals. This crap about we are such a more tolerant society blah blah, that's bollix. THe reason society accepts things like this is because society is told to by those in power. You are no better than people of 50 years ago just because you think gays should be able to get "married", so get off your high horse.
Or maybe people now are better educated, more worldly and can think for themselves a bit more than those of 50 years ago cowering in fear of what John Charles McQuaid, the local priest in his Sunday sermon and the Catholic Church might say.
If we're all just parroting what our "betters" are saying in terms of gay equality, then why don't you, original thinker that you are, tell us why we are wrong?
I didn't say anyone was wrong. It's the abuse directed towards those in opposition to same sex "marriage" that is ridiculous. But that's social conditioning for you.
Quote from: BennyCake on April 29, 2015, 12:51:45 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 29, 2015, 12:20:07 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 28, 2015, 10:55:20 PM
Quote from: thebuzz on April 28, 2015, 10:39:58 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 10:29:16 PM
Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.
50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?
50 years ago we were living in the dark ages. Now we've come into the 21st century and everyone deserves equal rights.
That's bollix. Just because a law was passed permitting homosexuality suddenly our ancestors were Neanderthals. This crap about we are such a more tolerant society blah blah, that's bollix. THe reason society accepts things like this is because society is told to by those in power. You are no better than people of 50 years ago just because you think gays should be able to get "married", so get off your high horse.
Or maybe people now are better educated, more worldly and can think for themselves a bit more than those of 50 years ago cowering in fear of what John Charles McQuaid, the local priest in his Sunday sermon and the Catholic Church might say.
If we're all just parroting what our "betters" are saying in terms of gay equality, then why don't you, original thinker that you are, tell us why we are wrong?
I didn't say anyone was wrong. It's the abuse directed towards those in opposition to same sex "marriage" that is ridiculous. But that's social conditioning for you.
OK, I get you now, albeit I don't agree with the social conditioning bit, at least not in terms of influence over the outcome (yeah, there will always be those who go with the tide, but that can just as easily be applied to those who go to mass every Sunday, listen to the priest and are voting no).
But back to Tony's point about tradition - gay marriage is the right thing for society to do on its own merits. That homosexuality itself was illegal until just over two decades ago was a reflection of a society still under the undue influence of religion and prejudice and is in no way a positive argument for keeping gays from marrying. Christ, haven't societies moved on from enough prejudice and repression at this point to render the "tradition" argument irrelevant?
As for the alleged abuse, sorry, but I don't have much sympathy, especially when the opposition case is framed in terms of morality. This is an emotional issue, with freedom to marry at stake for a lot of people. Those who oppose stand to lose nothing (in fact, they'll be gaining the right to gay marry too!). And honestly, I don't get how opposition to this can be really, truly motivated by anything other than some degree of homophobia. Why would anyone who has no problem with gay people care if they are allowed to marry? If I am wrong, please show me how.
Here's some arguments for you J70 just for some light reading. I'm happy enough with all the points and I'll stand by my original point from the article I first posted a few pages back. Broken homes aren't cause to create more broken homes.
Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage
By Family Research Council
A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, the work of scholars David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth has contributed to this conclusion.
This statement from Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative:
If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.
Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1994) 38.
The following are ten science-based arguments against same-sex "marriage":
1. Children hunger for their biological parents.
Homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following:"Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?" "Can I write him a letter?" "Has he ever seen me?" "Didn't you like him? Didn't he like me?" Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father.
Kyle Pruett, Fatherneed (Broadway Books, 2001) 204.
Elizabeth Marquardt, The Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce. Forthcoming.
2. Children need fathers.
If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, most same-sex couples with children would be lesbian couples. This would mean that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.
What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe's work, suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends.
* Ellis, Bruce J., et al., "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?" Child Development, 74:801-821.
* David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1999).
3. Children need mothers.
Although homosexual men are less likely to have children than lesbians, homosexual men are and will be raising children. There will be even more if homosexual civil marriage is legalized. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. Stanford psychologist Eleanor MacCoby summarizes much of this literature in her book, The Two Sexes. See also Steven Rhoads' book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously.
Eleanor MacCoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together (Boston: Harvard, 1998).
Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).
4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.
A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of same-sex civil marriage:
Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.
This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment.
Steven Nock, affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department (2001).
5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.
Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, it does suggest that children raised by lesbians or homosexual men are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Judith Stacey-- a sociologist and an advocate for same-sex civil marriage--reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following: "lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions." Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine.
She also found that a "significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers ... reported having a homoerotic relationship." Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions.
Her review must be viewed judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, theses studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of homosexual parenting.
Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66: 159-183. See especially 168-171.
6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.
One of the biggest threats that same-sex "marriage" poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of same-sex marriage, Virtually Normal, homosexual commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote: "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." Of course, this line of thinking--were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms, magazines, and other mass media--would do enormous harm to the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage.
One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity.
Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology, 2003.
David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple (Prentice Hall, 1984) 252.
7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.
Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms.
Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters an anti-natalist mindset that fuels population decline, which in turn puts tremendous social, political, and economic strains on the larger society. Same-sex marriage would only further undercut the procreative norm long associated with marriage insofar as it establishes that there is no necessary link between procreation and marriage.
This was spelled out in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, where the majority opinion dismissed the procreative meaning of marriage. It is no accident that the countries that have legalized or are considering legalizing same-sex marriage have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. For instance, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada have birthrates that hover around 1.6 children per woman--well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1.
For national fertility rates, see: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html
For more on the growing disconnect between marriage and procreation, see: http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2003.pdf
8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.
The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades have seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children. Political scientist James Q. Wilson reports that the introduction of no-fault divorce further destabilized marriage by weakening the legal and cultural meaning of the marriage contract. George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate and an economist, found that the widespread availability of contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s, and the sexual revolution they enabled, made it easier for men to abandon women they got pregnant, since they could always blame their girlfriends for not using contraception or procuring an abortion.
It is plausible to suspect that legal recognition of homosexual civil marriage would have similar consequences for the institution of marriage; that is, it would further destabilize the norm that adults should sacrifice to get and stay married for the sake of their children. Why? Same-sex civil marriage would institutionalize the idea that children do not need both their mother and their father.
This would be particularly important for men, who are more likely to abandon their children. Homosexual civil marriage would make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. After all, they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children.
James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem. (Perennial, 2003) 175-177.
George A. Akerlof, Janet L. Yellen, and Michael L. Katz, "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States." Quarterly Journal of Economics CXI: 277-317.
9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.
If same-sex civil marriage is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would be more use of gender-neutral language like "partners" and--more importantly--more social and cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage.
But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion's share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits.
E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, For Better or For Worse. (W.W. Norton and Co., 2002) 31.
Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).
10. Women and marriage domesticate men.
Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home.
If the distinctive sexual patterns of "committed" gay couples are any indication (see above), it is unlikely that homosexual marriage would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does. It is also extremely unlikely that the biological effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in homosexual marriage. Thus, gay activists who argue that same-sex civil marriage will domesticate gay men are, in all likelihood, clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage.
Steve Nock, Marriage in Men's Lives (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Hardwired to Connect: The New Scientific Case for Authoritative Communities (Institute for American Values, 2003) 17.
This paper is reprinted with permission of the Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, New Jersey, on whose website a version of it first appeared at www.winst.org/index2.html.
Iceman, the Witherspoon who publish this debate are about as far from a science institute as you can get, the witherspoon is a right wing political think tank funded by another bunch of right wing organizations including publicly the Bradley Foundation, John Olin (the arms dealers') foundation, templeton's intelligent design fund and others public and private...
Quote from: The Iceman on April 29, 2015, 01:50:56 AM
Here's some arguments for you J70 just for some light reading. I'm happy enough with all the points and I'll stand by my original point from the article I first posted a few pages back. Broken homes aren't cause to create more broken homes.
This paper is reprinted with permission of the Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, New Jersey, on whose website a version of it first appeared at www.winst.org/index2.html.
From our buddies at wikipedia:
QuoteThe Witherspoon Institute was founded in 2003 by, among others, Princeton University professor and noted conservative Robert P. George,Luis Tellez, and others involved with the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Named after John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the United States Declaration of Independence, the institute's fellows include Chen Guangcheng, Harold James, John Joseph Haldane, and James R. Stoner, Jr.
The Witherspoon Institute opposes abortion, same-sex marriage and deals with embryonic stem cell research, constitutional law, and globalization. In 2003, it organized a conference on religion in modern societies. In 2006, Republican Senator Sam Brownback cited a Witherspoon document called Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles in a debate over a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage. It held a conference about pornography named The Social Costs of Pornography at Princeton University in December 2008.
Financially independent from Princeton University, its donors have included the Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, and the Lee and Ramona Bass Foundation.
The Family Research Council?
James Dobson?
I don't trust them for a second based on other "scientific" positions they take, but I will look through their claims.
The point about the correlation between declining birth rates and same sex marriage in western countries, as if it was causitive, is ludicrous. Lots of western countries have had declining birth rates for years, well before legalizing same-sex marriage. Both are a symptom of an advanced, well educated population where numerous kids are just not financially viable and society moves, across the board, towards greater inclusion and equality. The low birth rates would be there with or without same-sex marriage.
Points 4 and 5 are ironic - on the one hand, studies touting the normality of kids raised in homosexual households are flawed, biased and preliminary, but the one study they quote showing deviation from gender norms better be cause for concern!
Point 1 - why is adoption left out of the scenarios where children "hunger" for their biological parents?
Wouldn't fit the religious agenda I guess.
And asking about an absent parent does not mean a child is damaged.
Point 9 - the little woman should be at home and man the hunter should be out earning the bulk of the income. Couples less likely to divorce, allegedly.
What kind of pathetic idiot resents his wife earning more?
And in this day and age, how is this a relevant argument against gay marriage? Homes need two incomes. Get over it!
On the domestication/fidelity point - I like how they lump the heterosexual men and women together to give an overall 79% valuing fidelity, they decline to give the (acknowledge high) figure for lesbians, which is probably in the 90s, and then give the 50% figure for gay men in civil unions.
Of course, the value for heterosexual men is probably well below the 79%, with the average being raised by the female score.
But, assuming male gay couples will stray more often, is this a calid argument for prohibiting marriage. Infidelity is never used to suggest heterosexual couples should not be entitled to the benefits of marriage. At what rate does it cease to be an issue?
J70 are you feeling alright? There's no one replying to your posts you know.... its just voices in your head
Quote from: J70 on April 29, 2015, 12:20:07 AM
Or maybe people now are better educated, more worldly and can think for themselves a bit more than those of 50 years ago cowering in fear of what John Charles McQuaid, the local priest in his Sunday sermon and the Catholic Church might say.
This process has all the characteristics of groupthink, John Charles McQuaid would surely admire the Yes campaign for their efforts to restrict debate on the issue. Perhaps people can think for themselves, but any nuanced arguments is characterised as "confusing the issue". Risible simplicities like "marriage has nothing to do with children" are repeated like a mantra. In the classic strategies of groupthink, others are characterised as being invalid to comment, because they are "homophobes", because of something that happened 1000 years ago or even because they are also opposed to abortion or pornography. The entire development of human society can be discarded, because that was the "dark ages", so there is no need to reflect on why societies evolved this way.
The whole thing is indicative of how zealots can invoke cries of "he who is not with us is against us" when reality lies somewhere in between.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 10:29:16 PM
Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.
50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 10:29:16 PM
Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.
50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?
Well to pick holes in your analogy then... did the third person consent to be killed? So you have went from two consensual adults to one adult and one dog or two adults conspiring against one. Hardly the analogies of someone with a rational point.
It's not that it's far fetched - it's that it doesn't make any sense. The comparison illustrates, and reeks of, homophobia.
I guess two out of three in your analogy is a democracy though. Though what people like you would do in case a democratic decision goes against them is to raise a petition of concern first just in case it doesn't suit you so I guess the third person could do that and be safe anyway!
Reading between the lines it seems like you wouldn't be against homosexuality being criminalised either. Is that the case?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 11:08:54 PM
Exactly.Society was a hell of a lot better 50 years ago,before wealth,greed and anything goes took over.Politicians were generally motivated by public service and conviction and not in the back pocket of corporates.People looked out for each other,and there was a definite sense and distinction between right and wrong, underpinned by a strong moral compass.
Is that 50 years ago when children could be passed around priests to be raped and abused without any fear of retribution?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 29, 2015, 01:50:56 AM
10. Women and marriage domesticate men.
Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home.
That has to be the biggest bullshit statement ever, the divorce rate is nearly 50% in UK and America, and that's not because the men or women are going to mass, drinking hot chocolate and settling for the odd ride on their birthday!
Quote from: topcuppla on April 29, 2015, 08:49:30 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 11:08:54 PM
Exactly.Society was a hell of a lot better 50 years ago,before wealth,greed and anything goes took over.Politicians were generally motivated by public service and conviction and not in the back pocket of corporates.People looked out for each other,and there was a definite sense and distinction between right and wrong, underpinned by a strong moral compass.
Is that 50 years ago when children could be passed around priests to be raped and abused without any fear of retribution?
Oh don't get Tony started on the Church and sexual abuse. In his eyes, only individuals, not the church as an institution, have a case to answer there.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 29, 2015, 01:50:56 AM
Here's some arguments for you J70 just for some light reading. I'm happy enough with all the points and I'll stand by my original point from the article I first posted a few pages back. Broken homes aren't cause to create more broken homes.
Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage
By Family Research Council
A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, the work of scholars David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth has contributed to this conclusion.
This statement from Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative:
If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.
Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1994) 38.
The following are ten science-based arguments against same-sex "marriage":
1. Children hunger for their biological parents.
Homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following:"Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?" "Can I write him a letter?" "Has he ever seen me?" "Didn't you like him? Didn't he like me?" Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father.
Kyle Pruett, Fatherneed (Broadway Books, 2001) 204.
Elizabeth Marquardt, The Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce. Forthcoming.
I stopped reading after this. It deliberately muddles single-mothers, IVF, surrogates and same-sex couples all into one religious pariah and says
'will someone think of the children?' again, while firmly pointing the finger at same-sex marriages. If the rest is anything like that it is not worth wasting time over.
Iceman, no one from the No side has addressed the 'right' of children not to be born to serial killers, rapists and oh say fathers who work abroad. How about parents who work in the military? Not a dickie bird about being a child of a Dad in Afghanistan. Life sucks sometimes, but the above is pretending that every straight person lives a wonderful idyllic childhood with two loving parents always on hand to guide and nurture.
Quote from: BennyCake on April 28, 2015, 11:25:14 PM
I couldn't give a shite what gays get up to in their own time. I just don't agree with same sex "marriage". It doesn't mean I'm anti-gay, nor anyone else who thinks likewise, but that's how it's portrayed.
If you don't care what they get up to on their own time why do you care if they do things as a married couple rather than a civil partnership? Genuine question as I can't see why anybody who has no issue with gay people living their lives would have an issue with them being married.
http://daneohiggins.com/2015/04/24/5-reasons-to-vote-no/ (http://daneohiggins.com/2015/04/24/5-reasons-to-vote-no/)
5 REASONS TO VOTE NO
APRIL 24, 2015 DAN HIGGINS
There's a referendum coming up, just in case you didn't know. The referendum concerns two issues:
Should the age of a Presidential Candidate be lowered from 35 to 21 years of age and;
Should marriage be extended equally to all persons regardless of sex.
The second one, as you would imagine, is gathering more interest. What with it concerning all people having equal rights and all. Here are 5 reasons you should vote No on number 2, maybe even number 1.
1. You like things just the way they are: Change, why would you change anything at all? You like things the way they are. Everything in its place. Change is scary after all. The fact is that if this passes and we as a country vote Yes then Ireland will slip off the shelf and plunge into the Atlantic...FACT!
2. Standards of Weddings: If we allow everyone to have equal rights and marry who they love then the fact is that the LGBT community will probably set the standard for Weddings impossibly high. There will be colours and themes that the average Irish man could never dream of or indeed live up to. Look at Panti Bliss for example. That chick knows how to throw a party. Imagine that. Shindigs like the country has never seen before.
3. Increase in Tourism: Ireland voting No in this referendum will send a clear signal to the world that we are still that country which likes to segregate people, push people to the fringes of society and deny equality to all. We could see an increase in visitors from groups such as the Neo-Nazis, the KKK and perhaps even The Westboro Baptist Church.
4. Parenting: Voting yes in this referendum might give LGBT people more power to have, raise, adopt and love children of their very own. Two people of the same sex raising a child couldn't possibly do a good job of that. Never before in human history have we seen two people of the same sex raising a child. Nope, never. It would be a disaster. Like a Mother helping her Daughter raise her child or a Father giving advice to his Son. Imagine a child having two loving Mothers or two adoring Fathers? Awful stuff altogether.
5. You're a moron: That's right. You should definitely vote No if you are a moron. If you believe it is absolutely paramount to deny equality to all people then you should vote no. If you believe that not all people deserve happiness then vote no. If you believe you have the right to interfere in other peoples decisions and who they can marry then vote no.
Ireland is on the verge of change right now. We have some very draconian traditions and laws which quite simply have no place in the modern world. Love is one of those things you don't choose, it just happens. To live in a country where you are made to feel like a second class citizen because you are denied a basic right afforded to others must be heart breaking and utterly demoralising.
I became a father recently. My little girl is on the verge of turning 6 months old. I want nothing but happiness for her in her future. If she grows up and decides that she would like to marry the love of her life then I hope she can do so without impediment. It shouldn't matter if that person is a male or a female, it should only matter that she loves them and that they love her.
I'll be voting Yes in this election. My generation and the generations before me still refer to people as straight people, gay people, lesbian people, transgender people and bisexual people. Maybe a yes vote will take us one step closer to my Daughters generation just having people. One big group of happy people.
Bloody hell. If I were undecided, I'd definitely vote No after reading that.
Quote from: muppet on April 29, 2015, 09:55:49 AM
[2. Standards of Weddings: If we allow everyone to have equal rights and marry who they love then the fact is that the LGBT community will probably set the standard for Weddings impossibly high. There will be colours and themes that the average Irish man could never dream of or indeed live up to. Look at Panti Bliss for example. That chick knows how to throw a party. Imagine that. Shindigs like the country has never seen before.
Farrandeelin will definitely be voting No so, a Yes vote will cost him a(nother) bomb in the wedding ;D
Why does this Gay Couple parenting thing keep rearing its head in this debate both in here and on posters all over Dublin about surrogacy.
The referendum is about Gay marriage can we not just debate the actual issue.
My own view is I think it'll pass as our Country has moved out of the dark ages of being supressed by the Church telling us what's wrong and what's right. The No campaign have their reasons and while many are homophobic I don't think that all are.
Ignorant yes but I don't think inherently homophobic they have been brought up in a certain way that the Church is too important and they can't seem to think for themselves outside of it to form their own opinions. This is changing though and I think within the next 100 years Ireland including the North will be free from that nonsense and not have a draconian Catholic Church dictating how we should live our lives.
We are definitely progressing!!
Marriage has been for defined for centuries as being between a man and a woman, therefore I don't see how two women or two men being united can be deemed to be 'marriage'. Why try and redefine something? The union of two people of the same sex should be something that is available to anybody who wants it, but it should have its own identity.
Quote from: nrico2006 on April 29, 2015, 12:07:15 PM
Marriage has been for defined for centuries as being between a man and a woman, therefore I don't see how two women or two men being united can be deemed to be 'marriage'. Why try and redefine something? The union of two people of the same sex should be something that is available to anybody who wants it, but it should have its own identity.
Orangemen have marched the streets of Northern Ireland traditionally for hundreds of years... why are we trying to change it? If it's tradition we should just let them keep at it!
Slavery as well. It's allowed in the bible and has been a tradition for thousands of years before it was abolished we should go back to that!!
Quote from: muppet on April 29, 2015, 09:55:49 AM
http://daneohiggins.com/2015/04/24/5-reasons-to-vote-no/ (http://daneohiggins.com/2015/04/24/5-reasons-to-vote-no/)
5 REASONS TO VOTE NO
APRIL 24, 2015 DAN HIGGINS
There's a referendum coming up, just in case you didn't know. The referendum concerns two issues:
Should the age of a Presidential Candidate be lowered from 35 to 21 years of age and;
Should marriage be extended equally to all persons regardless of sex.
The second one, as you would imagine, is gathering more interest. What with it concerning all people having equal rights and all. Here are 5 reasons you should vote No on number 2, maybe even number 1.
1. You like things just the way they are: Change, why would you change anything at all? You like things the way they are. Everything in its place. Change is scary after all. The fact is that if this passes and we as a country vote Yes then Ireland will slip off the shelf and plunge into the Atlantic...FACT!
2. Standards of Weddings: If we allow everyone to have equal rights and marry who they love then the fact is that the LGBT community will probably set the standard for Weddings impossibly high. There will be colours and themes that the average Irish man could never dream of or indeed live up to. Look at Panti Bliss for example. That chick knows how to throw a party. Imagine that. Shindigs like the country has never seen before.
3. Increase in Tourism: Ireland voting No in this referendum will send a clear signal to the world that we are still that country which likes to segregate people, push people to the fringes of society and deny equality to all. We could see an increase in visitors from groups such as the Neo-Nazis, the KKK and perhaps even The Westboro Baptist Church.
4. Parenting: Voting yes in this referendum might give LGBT people more power to have, raise, adopt and love children of their very own. Two people of the same sex raising a child couldn't possibly do a good job of that. Never before in human history have we seen two people of the same sex raising a child. Nope, never. It would be a disaster. Like a Mother helping her Daughter raise her child or a Father giving advice to his Son. Imagine a child having two loving Mothers or two adoring Fathers? Awful stuff altogether.
5. You're a moron: That's right. You should definitely vote No if you are a moron. If you believe it is absolutely paramount to deny equality to all people then you should vote no. If you believe that not all people deserve happiness then vote no. If you believe you have the right to interfere in other peoples decisions and who they can marry then vote no.
Ireland is on the verge of change right now. We have some very draconian traditions and laws which quite simply have no place in the modern world. Love is one of those things you don't choose, it just happens. To live in a country where you are made to feel like a second class citizen because you are denied a basic right afforded to others must be heart breaking and utterly demoralising.
I became a father recently. My little girl is on the verge of turning 6 months old. I want nothing but happiness for her in her future. If she grows up and decides that she would like to marry the love of her life then I hope she can do so without impediment. It shouldn't matter if that person is a male or a female, it should only matter that she loves them and that they love her.
I'll be voting Yes in this election. My generation and the generations before me still refer to people as straight people, gay people, lesbian people, transgender people and bisexual people. Maybe a yes vote will take us one step closer to my Daughters generation just having people. One big group of happy people.
Ah, the moron card has been played. That's right, if you don't vote Yes, you're a moron. Regardless of your opinion, religion, beliefs, morals, you're a moron.
This is what I was referring to.
Quote from: andoireabu on April 29, 2015, 09:47:26 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 28, 2015, 11:25:14 PM
I couldn't give a shite what gays get up to in their own time. I just don't agree with same sex "marriage". It doesn't mean I'm anti-gay, nor anyone else who thinks likewise, but that's how it's portrayed.
If you don't care what they get up to on their own time why do you care if they do things as a married couple rather than a civil partnership? Genuine question as I can't see why anybody who has no issue with gay people living their lives would have an issue with them being married.
Like nrico said, it's not marriage. If gays want to sign a form stating their pension goes to the other, that's fair enough. It's their pension to do as they please. But there should be no "marriage" ceremony. No adoption or ivf either.
The next thing they'll want is gay "marriages" in churches. I'm not religious but that is a massive no no. But of course they'll get this vote and the church will be under pressure to give in to it. And if they decline, it'll be the old draconian church response again.
Quote from: screenexile on April 29, 2015, 12:13:44 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on April 29, 2015, 12:07:15 PM
Marriage has been for defined for centuries as being between a man and a woman, therefore I don't see how two women or two men being united can be deemed to be 'marriage'. Why try and redefine something? The union of two people of the same sex should be something that is available to anybody who wants it, but it should have its own identity.
Orangemen have marched the streets of Northern Ireland traditionally for hundreds of years... why are we trying to change it? If it's tradition we should just let them keep at it!
Slavery as well. It's allowed in the bible and has been a tradition for thousands of years before it was abolished we should go back to that!!
Bif of a difference. Nobody is trying to redefine marching or slavery. They are what they are.
Quote from: BennyCake on April 29, 2015, 12:17:16 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 29, 2015, 09:55:49 AM
http://daneohiggins.com/2015/04/24/5-reasons-to-vote-no/ (http://daneohiggins.com/2015/04/24/5-reasons-to-vote-no/)
5 REASONS TO VOTE NO
APRIL 24, 2015 DAN HIGGINS
There's a referendum coming up, just in case you didn't know. The referendum concerns two issues:
Should the age of a Presidential Candidate be lowered from 35 to 21 years of age and;
Should marriage be extended equally to all persons regardless of sex.
The second one, as you would imagine, is gathering more interest. What with it concerning all people having equal rights and all. Here are 5 reasons you should vote No on number 2, maybe even number 1.
1. You like things just the way they are: Change, why would you change anything at all? You like things the way they are. Everything in its place. Change is scary after all. The fact is that if this passes and we as a country vote Yes then Ireland will slip off the shelf and plunge into the Atlantic...FACT!
2. Standards of Weddings: If we allow everyone to have equal rights and marry who they love then the fact is that the LGBT community will probably set the standard for Weddings impossibly high. There will be colours and themes that the average Irish man could never dream of or indeed live up to. Look at Panti Bliss for example. That chick knows how to throw a party. Imagine that. Shindigs like the country has never seen before.
3. Increase in Tourism: Ireland voting No in this referendum will send a clear signal to the world that we are still that country which likes to segregate people, push people to the fringes of society and deny equality to all. We could see an increase in visitors from groups such as the Neo-Nazis, the KKK and perhaps even The Westboro Baptist Church.
4. Parenting: Voting yes in this referendum might give LGBT people more power to have, raise, adopt and love children of their very own. Two people of the same sex raising a child couldn't possibly do a good job of that. Never before in human history have we seen two people of the same sex raising a child. Nope, never. It would be a disaster. Like a Mother helping her Daughter raise her child or a Father giving advice to his Son. Imagine a child having two loving Mothers or two adoring Fathers? Awful stuff altogether.
5. You're a moron: That's right. You should definitely vote No if you are a moron. If you believe it is absolutely paramount to deny equality to all people then you should vote no. If you believe that not all people deserve happiness then vote no. If you believe you have the right to interfere in other peoples decisions and who they can marry then vote no.
Ireland is on the verge of change right now. We have some very draconian traditions and laws which quite simply have no place in the modern world. Love is one of those things you don't choose, it just happens. To live in a country where you are made to feel like a second class citizen because you are denied a basic right afforded to others must be heart breaking and utterly demoralising.
I became a father recently. My little girl is on the verge of turning 6 months old. I want nothing but happiness for her in her future. If she grows up and decides that she would like to marry the love of her life then I hope she can do so without impediment. It shouldn't matter if that person is a male or a female, it should only matter that she loves them and that they love her.
I'll be voting Yes in this election. My generation and the generations before me still refer to people as straight people, gay people, lesbian people, transgender people and bisexual people. Maybe a yes vote will take us one step closer to my Daughters generation just having people. One big group of happy people.
Ah, the moron card has been played. That's right, if you don't vote Yes, you're a moron. Regardless of your opinion, religion, beliefs, morals, you're a moron.
This is what I was referring to.
I posted this not because I agree with it, but because it reminded me of the style used by much of the religious right in the US, albeit the other way round.
Quote from: BennyCake on April 29, 2015, 12:25:55 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on April 29, 2015, 09:47:26 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 28, 2015, 11:25:14 PM
I couldn't give a shite what gays get up to in their own time. I just don't agree with same sex "marriage". It doesn't mean I'm anti-gay, nor anyone else who thinks likewise, but that's how it's portrayed.
If you don't care what they get up to on their own time why do you care if they do things as a married couple rather than a civil partnership? Genuine question as I can't see why anybody who has no issue with gay people living their lives would have an issue with them being married.
Like nrico said, it's not marriage. If gays want to sign a form stating their pension goes to the other, that's fair enough. It's their pension to do as they please. But there should be no "marriage" ceremony. No adoption or ivf either.
The next thing they'll want is gay "marriages" in churches. I'm not religious but that is a massive no no. But of course they'll get this vote and the church will be under pressure to give in to it. And if they decline, it'll be the old draconian church response again.
I also don't see the big push from homosexual couples to be allowed to marry. Was the civic partnership not created to allow them to legally unite? Why the push for a church 'wedding'? Surely they can't be that religious considering the church stance on homosexual marriage etc.
Quote from: nrico2006 on April 29, 2015, 12:31:55 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 29, 2015, 12:25:55 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on April 29, 2015, 09:47:26 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on April 28, 2015, 11:25:14 PM
I couldn't give a shite what gays get up to in their own time. I just don't agree with same sex "marriage". It doesn't mean I'm anti-gay, nor anyone else who thinks likewise, but that's how it's portrayed.
If you don't care what they get up to on their own time why do you care if they do things as a married couple rather than a civil partnership? Genuine question as I can't see why anybody who has no issue with gay people living their lives would have an issue with them being married.
Like nrico said, it's not marriage. If gays want to sign a form stating their pension goes to the other, that's fair enough. It's their pension to do as they please. But there should be no "marriage" ceremony. No adoption or ivf either.
The next thing they'll want is gay "marriages" in churches. I'm not religious but that is a massive no no. But of course they'll get this vote and the church will be under pressure to give in to it. And if they decline, it'll be the old draconian church response again.
I also don't see the big push from homosexual couples to be allowed to marry. Was the civic partnership not created to allow them to legally unite? Why the push for a church 'wedding'? Surely they can't be that religious considering the church stance on homosexual marriage etc.
There aren't seeking that. The Church can opt to refuse anyone a church marriage. In fact the Catholic Church is threatening to refuse to carry out the civil registration of marriages if this vote is carried.
This vote is about equality.
Sorry, should have provided a link: http://www.catholicregister.org/home/international/item/20095-irish-bishops-consider-options-if-same-sex-referendum-passes (http://www.catholicregister.org/home/international/item/20095-irish-bishops-consider-options-if-same-sex-referendum-passes)
April 21, 2015
DUBLIN - Catholic bishops have not made any decision on whether priests should decline to perform civil aspects of weddings if a May 22 referendum on same-sex marriage is passed.
A spokesman for the Irish bishops' conference said the church might no longer perform the civil aspect of weddings, meaning couples wanting to get married in the church would have to attend a separate civil ceremony.
Quote from: muppet on April 29, 2015, 12:30:26 PM
I posted this not because I agree with it, but because it reminded me of the style used by much of the religious right in the US, albeit the other way round.
So you posted something that is likely to persuade undecided people to vote No?
I think the inevitable logic of the referendum is a complete separation of church and civil weddings. You'll have the lads who in the Ashers bakery case asking to get married in Free Presbyterian churches. I don't see such a separation as a bad thing, it's the way things work in France (for example) and no one bats an eyelid.
Quote from: deiseach on April 29, 2015, 12:40:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 29, 2015, 12:30:26 PM
I posted this not because I agree with it, but because it reminded me of the style used by much of the religious right in the US, albeit the other way round.
So you posted something that is likely to persuade undecided people to vote No?
I couldn't care less how people vote.
If that blog by whoever danohiggins is, upsets someone into voting no fine. But presumably you are also fine with Tony Fearon's arguments then?
If you vote No, it is hardly because of some never heard of blogger. If it is, then the political spin doctors are either a complete waste of money, or geniuses, considering they may actually be secretly behind the blog (and Tony Fearon!).
Quote from: deiseach on April 29, 2015, 12:43:24 PM
I think the inevitable logic of the referendum is a complete separation of church and civil weddings. You'll have the lads who in the Ashers bakery case asking to get married in Free Presbyterian churches. I don't see such a separation as a bad thing, it's the way things work in France (for example) and no one bats an eyelid.
Really, so good Catholics will have to have two ceremonies now, because the Church is threatening to throw its toys out of the pram?
Personally, I think there is a 0% chance of the Church here risking such a lucrative business.
Quote from: muppet on April 29, 2015, 12:46:11 PM
I couldn't care less how people vote.
If that blog by whoever danohiggins is, upsets someone into voting no fine. But presumably you are also fine with Tony Fearon's arguments then?
If you vote No, it is hardly because of some never heard of blogger. If it is, then the political spin doctors are either a complete waste of money, or geniuses, considering they may actually be secretly behind the blog (and Tony Fearon!).
You don't care how people vote? You had me fooled.
Quote from: muppet on April 29, 2015, 12:48:03 PM
Quote from: deiseach on April 29, 2015, 12:43:24 PM
I think the inevitable logic of the referendum is a complete separation of church and civil weddings. You'll have the lads who in the Ashers bakery case asking to get married in Free Presbyterian churches. I don't see such a separation as a bad thing, it's the way things work in France (for example) and no one bats an eyelid.
Really, so good Catholics will have to have two ceremonies now, because the Church is threatening to throw its toys out of the pram?
Personally, I think there is a 0% chance of the Church here risking such a lucrative business.
That's the way it works in France. 'Good Catholics' have no problem with it, I was at such a wedding a few years back. The civil service took five minutes - you could barely call it a 'service' at all - then everyone piled off to the church. I am certain that the Catholic Church would prefer that system rather than countenance the possibility of having to play host to gay ceremonies.
Quote from: BennyCake on April 29, 2015, 12:25:55 PMLike nrico said, it's not marriage. If gays want to sign a form stating their pension goes to the other, that's fair enough. It's their pension to do as they please. But there should be no "marriage" ceremony. No adoption or ivf either.
For everyone or just "the gays"?
Quote from: deiseach on April 29, 2015, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 29, 2015, 12:46:11 PM
I couldn't care less how people vote.
If that blog by whoever danohiggins is, upsets someone into voting no fine. But presumably you are also fine with Tony Fearon's arguments then?
If you vote No, it is hardly because of some never heard of blogger. If it is, then the political spin doctors are either a complete waste of money, or geniuses, considering they may actually be secretly behind the blog (and Tony Fearon!).
You don't care how people vote? You had me fooled.
I love cut and thrust of the debate. :D
Voting is a personal issue.
That Dan Higgins post was a poor contribution to the debate. And that's including the idea that it was meant to be a poor contribution to the debate.
Quote from: muppet on April 29, 2015, 09:55:49 AM
http://daneohiggins.com/2015/04/24/5-reasons-to-vote-no/ (http://daneohiggins.com/2015/04/24/5-reasons-to-vote-no/)
5 REASONS TO VOTE NO
APRIL 24, 2015 DAN HIGGINS
There's a referendum coming up, just in case you didn't know. The referendum concerns two issues:
Should the age of a Presidential Candidate be lowered from 35 to 21 years of age and;
Should marriage be extended equally to all persons regardless of sex.
The second one, as you would imagine, is gathering more interest. What with it concerning all people having equal rights and all. Here are 5 reasons you should vote No on number 2, maybe even number 1.
1. You like things just the way they are: Change, why would you change anything at all? You like things the way they are. Everything in its place. Change is scary after all. The fact is that if this passes and we as a country vote Yes then Ireland will slip off the shelf and plunge into the Atlantic...FACT!
2. Standards of Weddings: If we allow everyone to have equal rights and marry who they love then the fact is that the LGBT community will probably set the standard for Weddings impossibly high. There will be colours and themes that the average Irish man could never dream of or indeed live up to. Look at Panti Bliss for example. That chick knows how to throw a party. Imagine that. Shindigs like the country has never seen before.
3. Increase in Tourism: Ireland voting No in this referendum will send a clear signal to the world that we are still that country which likes to segregate people, push people to the fringes of society and deny equality to all. We could see an increase in visitors from groups such as the Neo-Nazis, the KKK and perhaps even The Westboro Baptist Church.
4. Parenting: Voting yes in this referendum might give LGBT people more power to have, raise, adopt and love children of their very own. Two people of the same sex raising a child couldn't possibly do a good job of that. Never before in human history have we seen two people of the same sex raising a child. Nope, never. It would be a disaster. Like a Mother helping her Daughter raise her child or a Father giving advice to his Son. Imagine a child having two loving Mothers or two adoring Fathers? Awful stuff altogether.
5. You're a moron: That's right. You should definitely vote No if you are a moron. If you believe it is absolutely paramount to deny equality to all people then you should vote no. If you believe that not all people deserve happiness then vote no. If you believe you have the right to interfere in other peoples decisions and who they can marry then vote no.
Ireland is on the verge of change right now. We have some very draconian traditions and laws which quite simply have no place in the modern world. Love is one of those things you don't choose, it just happens. To live in a country where you are made to feel like a second class citizen because you are denied a basic right afforded to others must be heart breaking and utterly demoralising.
I became a father recently. My little girl is on the verge of turning 6 months old. I want nothing but happiness for her in her future. If she grows up and decides that she would like to marry the love of her life then I hope she can do so without impediment. It shouldn't matter if that person is a male or a female, it should only matter that she loves them and that they love her.
I'll be voting Yes in this election. My generation and the generations before me still refer to people as straight people, gay people, lesbian people, transgender people and bisexual people. Maybe a yes vote will take us one step closer to my Daughters generation just having people. One big group of happy people.
This sort of shite does my head in. It would make me vote no to shove the self righteousness up his hole. Good job I don't believe the average gay person is represented by such smart arse stuff as that.
QuoteIt would make me vote no to shove the self righteousness up his hole.
Jaysus, I thought you were a more 'considered' voter than that.
You left out the rest of the quote.
In fairness to you maybe I should have said 'It would nearly make me want to vote no to shove .....'
There's an element, a large element, of that sort of sneery shite creeping into this debate as the Yes side is very convinced they are going to win. I think it demeans their very just cause. But they have to understand that some people disagree, and will vote no, because of myriad reasons from religious to moral to economic or whatever. Just because they disagree doesn't make them 'morons'.
Quote from: deiseach on April 29, 2015, 01:10:19 PM
That Dan Higgins post was a poor contribution to the debate. And that's including the idea that it was meant to be a poor contribution to the debate.
Hang on a second.
Go back a bit on the thread where BennyCake reasonably asked if one can be against Gay-Marriage and not be a homophobe. I picked up on that and saw it as a fair question. Benny alluded to the sort of abuse a potential No voter is getting.
Part of the problem here is that we all react to the completely insane Fearon arguments (see the marrying a dog post) while not necessarily noticing the more moderate posts.
I thought about what BennyCake wrote and found the above. I posted it for balance. The
'You're a moron' line is exactly what he was talking about. I went further and compared it to the religious right rhetoric in the States, only the opposite.
Just because I am inclined to vote yes, doesn't mean I can't try to get into the heads of reasonable No voters.
Everything isn't black and white.
Fearon is the equivalent. If you were minded to vote 'No', I'm sure he'd make you think twice about voting 'Yes'. Marrying dogs FFS.
Does this Fearon fella even have a vote?
Nope, nor do a lot of other contributors on this forum. Having said that, they are Irish, and I think it's useful to hear their perspective as Irish people. When we reunite, they'll have to put up with all this too :)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/p480x480/13718_10153225432752418_9169916594392914096_n.png?oh=31b5fc44d0025db318bac15b2f25b096&oe=559CCB8B&__gda__=1440933861_0dceced0313c04f5b8e3a6d35660e01e)
But priests do. Why even go there? The Church is registered as a non-profit charity I think (no sniggering down the back). LGBT ireland might be an equivalent I suppose in that it provides services for Gay people in Ireland. Are they tax exempt?
Then you could say, the Church doesn't pay taxes, neither does LGBT (or maybe it does).
But Gay people pay taxes, and so do priests.
(http://www.vh1.com/celebrity/bwe/images/2010/12/dog_3.jpg)
They seem very happy.
muppet, if you really posted that as an example of a off-the-wall Yes supporter, then fair enough. No doubt you thought, and still think, this was obvious. It wasn't.
What in legal / practical terms will be the difference between the current civil partnership and the new marriages?
Will civil partnerships be no longer required once this is passed?
Quote from: screenexile on April 29, 2015, 01:53:58 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/p480x480/13718_10153225432752418_9169916594392914096_n.png?oh=31b5fc44d0025db318bac15b2f25b096&oe=559CCB8B&__gda__=1440933861_0dceced0313c04f5b8e3a6d35660e01e)
Speaking of things that would make you change your vote just for spite ....
Quote from: deiseach on April 29, 2015, 02:08:17 PM
muppet, if you really posted that as an example of a off-the-wall Yes supporter, then fair enough. No doubt you thought, and still think, this was obvious. It wasn't.
I deliberately decided to post it without a comment, in hindsight that was a mistake. Apologies.
There's a straight couple in Britain taking a case to be allowed access to having a civil partnership. It seems they didn't want "the social expectations, pressures and traditions surrounding marriage (//http://)". They reminded me of a certain comic couple...
(http://www.ybig.ie/forum/uploads/20091005_161143_viz.jpg)
Quote from: macdanger2 on April 29, 2015, 02:10:40 PM
What in legal / practical terms will be the difference between the current civil partnership and the new marriages?
Will civil partnerships be no longer required once this is passed?
Under civil partnership, gays have inheritance rights, joint assessment for tax, etc.
Under gay marriage, they will have the right to abuse children, marry dogs, force good Catholics to commit sodomy, get condoms on the medical card, adopt piglets, dance naked in churches, make lewd suggestions to old ladies, evict married pensioners and take over their houses. Oh - and hold hands on buses.
Last night I was at the West Tyrone Decides debate in Omagh. In West Tyrone, we have 9 candidates standing for election, but Tom Buchanan of the DUP was a no-show.
The question came around to marriage equality and of course all eyes turned towards the Independent Susan-Anne White. She claimed that gay parents were 40% more likely to abuse their children. Of course there was outrage from the rest of the panel and the audience, people asking her to proves the states she was claiming. Instead, she named two gay people that allegedly abused children. They live internet feed was immediately cut due to legal reasons.
There was outcrys from everyone saying that two people do not amount to 40% increase within the gay community. When asked by Conor Keys, the chair of the debate, did she look into heterosexual child abuse cases. Susan-Anne just replied no, that doesn't matter. She said she was only concerned with gay child abuse cases.
Says it all really. Child abuse is child abuse. It does not matter what section of the community you belong to.
Quote from: nrico2006 on April 29, 2015, 12:07:15 PM
Marriage has been for defined for centuries as being between a man and a woman, therefore I don't see how two women or two men being united can be deemed to be 'marriage'. Why try and redefine something? The union of two people of the same sex should be something that is available to anybody who wants it, but it should have its own identity.
So the name is your only objection?
Quote from: ziggysego on April 29, 2015, 02:21:06 PM
Last night I was at the West Tyrone Decides debate in Omagh. In West Tyrone, we have 9 candidates standing for election, but Tom Buchanan of the DUP was a no-show.
The question came around to marriage equality and of course all eyes turned towards the Independent Susan-Anne White. She claimed that gay parents were 40% more likely to abuse their children. Of course there was outrage from the rest of the panel and the audience, people asking her to proves the states she was claiming. Instead, she named two gay people that allegedly abused children. They live internet feed was immediately cut due to legal reasons.
There was outcrys from everyone saying that two people do not amount to 40% increase within the gay community. When asked by Conor Keys, the chair of the debate, did she look into heterosexual child abuse cases. Susan-Anne just replied no, that doesn't matter. She said she was only concerned with gay child abuse cases.
Says it all really. Child abuse is child abuse. It does not matter what section of the community you belong to.
Holy shit!!!
Is this not exactly what Jim Wells lost his job over? Is she mental?
It is very rare any politician is held to account for anything up here AZ. I think that Wells went more due to an altercation or two at the weekend when he was out canvassing. (To be honest I have no evidence of this but more what I believe).
These guys say what they want.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 29, 2015, 04:05:10 PM
Is this not exactly what Jim Wells lost his job over? Is she mental?
1) She's an independent, so has no 'job'
2) Clearly is
3) Her blog https://thetruthshallsetyoufreeblog.wordpress.com/ (https://thetruthshallsetyoufreeblog.wordpress.com/)
That Dan Higgins lad was in my Masters. An insufferable gobshite.
Quote from: gallsman on April 29, 2015, 04:26:29 PM
That Dan Higgins lad was in my Masters. An insufferable gobshite.
No kidding.
What a complete whackjob . . .
QuoteMy Election Manifesto
Apr
28
Below is the full text of my election manifesto. Some newspapers have misrepresented some of my principles, either unintentionally or by design. They have left out some words, and misspelled another. I draw your attention in particular to their misspelling of the word "protect", with they have spelt as "protest". The papers concerned (and there could be others) are The Mirror (UK edition), The Huffington Post UK, and The Evening Times, a Glasgow-based newspaper.
I pledge to...
Close Marie Stopes Abortion clinic
Oppose the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland
Remove State-sponsored amoral sex education from schools
Restore corporal punishment to schools
Uphold parental rights to discipline children, including the right to smack
Raise the age of consent for sexual intercourse to 18 and enforce the new law
Make it an offence for doctors to give contraceptives to underage children
Oppose the LGBT agenda, whilst showing compassion to those who struggle with gender confusion
Oppose the redefinition of marriage and uphold Biblical man/woman marriage
Ban gay pride parades and recriminalise homosexuality
Stop the State funding of LGBT organisations
Make adultery a punishable offence
Abolish the Equality Commission NI and the Human Rights Commission NI and give the money they receive to the NHS
Oppose feminism
Restore dignity to the role of the stay-at-home mother
Restore the concept of a family wage with the father as the bread-winner
Oppose the legalisation of dangerous drugs
Protect the NHS and increase funding by abolishing unnecessary and money-wasting bureaucrats and quangos
Withdraw from money-wasting and decadent Europe
Oppose the global warming fanatics and their pseudo-science
Imprison those found guilty of animal cruelty, including those involved in dog fights
Install CCTV in all abattoirs
Ban halal slaughter
Oppose the Islamisation of British culture – no more mosques and no more mosque extensions
Restore capital punishment for murder, including terrorist murders
This entry was posted on April 28, 2015.
Quote from: ziggysego on April 29, 2015, 04:21:01 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 29, 2015, 04:05:10 PM
Is this not exactly what Jim Wells lost his job over? Is she mental?
1) She's an independent, so has no 'job'
2) Clearly is
3) Her blog https://thetruthshallsetyoufreeblog.wordpress.com/ (https://thetruthshallsetyoufreeblog.wordpress.com/)
I meant did she not see the outcry after Wells' remarks. Therefore 2).
Quote from: screenexile on April 29, 2015, 04:28:11 PM
What a complete whackjob . . .
QuoteMy Election Manifesto
Apr
28
Below is the full text of my election manifesto. Some newspapers have misrepresented some of my principles, either unintentionally or by design. They have left out some words, and misspelled another. I draw your attention in particular to their misspelling of the word "protect", with they have spelt as "protest". The papers concerned (and there could be others) are The Mirror (UK edition), The Huffington Post UK, and The Evening Times, a Glasgow-based newspaper.
I pledge to...
Close Marie Stopes Abortion clinic
Oppose the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland
Remove State-sponsored amoral sex education from schools
Restore corporal punishment to schools
Uphold parental rights to discipline children, including the right to smack
Raise the age of consent for sexual intercourse to 18 and enforce the new law
Make it an offence for doctors to give contraceptives to underage children
Oppose the LGBT agenda, whilst showing compassion to those who struggle with gender confusion
Oppose the redefinition of marriage and uphold Biblical man/woman marriage
Ban gay pride parades and recriminalise homosexuality
Stop the State funding of LGBT organisations
Make adultery a punishable offence
Abolish the Equality Commission NI and the Human Rights Commission NI and give the money they receive to the NHS
Oppose feminism
Restore dignity to the role of the stay-at-home mother
Restore the concept of a family wage with the father as the bread-winner
Oppose the legalisation of dangerous drugs
Protect the NHS and increase funding by abolishing unnecessary and money-wasting bureaucrats and quangos
Withdraw from money-wasting and decadent Europe
Oppose the global warming fanatics and their pseudo-science
Imprison those found guilty of animal cruelty, including those involved in dog fights
Install CCTV in all abattoirs
Ban halal slaughter
Oppose the Islamisation of British culture – no more mosques and no more mosque extensions
Restore capital punishment for murder, including terrorist murders
This entry was posted on April 28, 2015.
As for Halal slaughter ban, she stated last night she wants CCTV cameras installed in all butchers to watch over this....
Sensible policies for a happier Britain!
Not much let off her "list" but I'd be interested to hear her policies on environmental issues. :P
Quote from: deiseach on April 29, 2015, 04:27:27 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 29, 2015, 04:26:29 PM
That Dan Higgins lad was in my Masters. An insufferable gobshite.
No kidding.
In an mildly interesting aside, in no way related to this or any other debate whatsoever, his wife went into labour at their wedding reception. He used to bizarrely march around with a big 2l bottle of volvic all the time.
Quote from: deiseach on April 29, 2015, 04:35:28 PM
Sensible policies for a happier Britain!
She sounds like your ideal UKIP candidate... that'll be the next move after this election. I'd be intrigued to see how many actually vote for her.
Quote from: screenexile on April 29, 2015, 04:46:00 PM
Quote from: deiseach on April 29, 2015, 04:35:28 PM
Sensible policies for a happier Britain!
She sounds like your ideal UKIP candidate... that'll be the next move after this election. I'd be intrigued to see how many actually vote for her.
In the Fermanagh and Omagh District Council elections last year - 67.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 29, 2015, 01:50:56 AM
Here's some arguments for you J70 just for some light reading. I'm happy enough with all the points and I'll stand by my original point from the article I first posted a few pages back. Broken homes aren't cause to create more broken homes.
Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage
By Family Research Council
A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, the work of scholars David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth has contributed to this conclusion.
This statement from Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative:
If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.
Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1994) 38.
The following are ten science-based arguments against same-sex "marriage":
1. Children hunger for their biological parents.
Homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following:"Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?" "Can I write him a letter?" "Has he ever seen me?" "Didn't you like him? Didn't he like me?" Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father.
Kyle Pruett, Fatherneed (Broadway Books, 2001) 204.
Elizabeth Marquardt, The Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce. Forthcoming.
2. Children need fathers.
If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, most same-sex couples with children would be lesbian couples. This would mean that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.
What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe's work, suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends.
* Ellis, Bruce J., et al., "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?" Child Development, 74:801-821.
* David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1999).
3. Children need mothers.
Although homosexual men are less likely to have children than lesbians, homosexual men are and will be raising children. There will be even more if homosexual civil marriage is legalized. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. Stanford psychologist Eleanor MacCoby summarizes much of this literature in her book, The Two Sexes. See also Steven Rhoads' book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously.
Eleanor MacCoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together (Boston: Harvard, 1998).
Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).
4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.
A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of same-sex civil marriage:
Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.
This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment.
Steven Nock, affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department (2001).
5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.
Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, it does suggest that children raised by lesbians or homosexual men are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Judith Stacey-- a sociologist and an advocate for same-sex civil marriage--reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following: "lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions." Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine.
She also found that a "significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers ... reported having a homoerotic relationship." Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions.
Her review must be viewed judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, theses studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of homosexual parenting.
Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66: 159-183. See especially 168-171.
6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.
One of the biggest threats that same-sex "marriage" poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of same-sex marriage, Virtually Normal, homosexual commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote: "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." Of course, this line of thinking--were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms, magazines, and other mass media--would do enormous harm to the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage.
One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity.
Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology, 2003.
David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple (Prentice Hall, 1984) 252.
7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.
Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms.
Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters an anti-natalist mindset that fuels population decline, which in turn puts tremendous social, political, and economic strains on the larger society. Same-sex marriage would only further undercut the procreative norm long associated with marriage insofar as it establishes that there is no necessary link between procreation and marriage.
This was spelled out in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, where the majority opinion dismissed the procreative meaning of marriage. It is no accident that the countries that have legalized or are considering legalizing same-sex marriage have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. For instance, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada have birthrates that hover around 1.6 children per woman--well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1.
For national fertility rates, see: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html
For more on the growing disconnect between marriage and procreation, see: http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2003.pdf
8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.
The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades have seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children. Political scientist James Q. Wilson reports that the introduction of no-fault divorce further destabilized marriage by weakening the legal and cultural meaning of the marriage contract. George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate and an economist, found that the widespread availability of contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s, and the sexual revolution they enabled, made it easier for men to abandon women they got pregnant, since they could always blame their girlfriends for not using contraception or procuring an abortion.
It is plausible to suspect that legal recognition of homosexual civil marriage would have similar consequences for the institution of marriage; that is, it would further destabilize the norm that adults should sacrifice to get and stay married for the sake of their children. Why? Same-sex civil marriage would institutionalize the idea that children do not need both their mother and their father.
This would be particularly important for men, who are more likely to abandon their children. Homosexual civil marriage would make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. After all, they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children.
James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem. (Perennial, 2003) 175-177.
George A. Akerlof, Janet L. Yellen, and Michael L. Katz, "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States." Quarterly Journal of Economics CXI: 277-317.
9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.
If same-sex civil marriage is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would be more use of gender-neutral language like "partners" and--more importantly--more social and cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage.
But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion's share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits.
E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, For Better or For Worse. (W.W. Norton and Co., 2002) 31.
Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).
10. Women and marriage domesticate men.
Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home.
If the distinctive sexual patterns of "committed" gay couples are any indication (see above), it is unlikely that homosexual marriage would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does. It is also extremely unlikely that the biological effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in homosexual marriage. Thus, gay activists who argue that same-sex civil marriage will domesticate gay men are, in all likelihood, clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage.
Steve Nock, Marriage in Men's Lives (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Hardwired to Connect: The New Scientific Case for Authoritative Communities (Institute for American Values, 2003) 17.
This paper is reprinted with permission of the Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, New Jersey, on whose website a version of it first appeared at www.winst.org/index2.html.
7 out of 10 of those reasons relate to parenting and are therefore totally irrelevant to this referendum. The other 3, even assuming they have any basis, don't seem like things wider society would get too exercised about. But that's probably why the No side persist with the parenting arguments.
Interesting also how old most of those references are, with many more that 10 years old. You'd think there'd be more modern research to quote at this stage, given that same sex parenting has grown from a low base in that period.
Quote from: macdanger2 on April 29, 2015, 02:10:40 PM
What in legal / practical terms will be the difference between the current civil partnership and the new marriages?
Will civil partnerships be no longer required once this is passed?
There will be no new civil partnerships if the referendum is passed.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
If two people consent to kill a third person is that ok?
I can't see what point in this debate you think this is relevant to?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
I am not homophobic,and don't disrespect anyone.
Please confirm your support for equality?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
I object to gay marriage simply on religious and moral grounds
Please outline your morals and any convincing reason why you think anyone else should adhere to these morals?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
I genuinely pity any child who is reared in such a relationship
Why? Is there evidence that they will be disadvantaged in some way and therefore deserving of sympathy? (if there is no evidence at least have the decency to admit that)
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
as if it is "normal".It is not and never will be.
Evidence please? Its a big statement and you can't just keep repeating it without any evidence.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
What chance has a child brought up by two men,denied the unique love of a mother,for example?
You tell us? Back it up with this evidence of yours
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 10:29:16 PM
Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.
50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?
Are you arguing that a dog can consent to sex with a human or are your arguing consent is irrelevant to sexual relations?
Your continuing analogy of homosexuality with sex between a human and a dog seems to run contrary to your claim to respect all. I can only conclude that you do not understand the meaning of the word "respect".
Quote from: armaghniac on April 29, 2015, 07:14:57 AM
Quote from: J70 on April 29, 2015, 12:20:07 AM
Or maybe people now are better educated, more worldly and can think for themselves a bit more than those of 50 years ago cowering in fear of what John Charles McQuaid, the local priest in his Sunday sermon and the Catholic Church might say.
This process has all the characteristics of groupthink, John Charles McQuaid would surely admire the Yes campaign for their efforts to restrict debate on the issue. Perhaps people can think for themselves, but any nuanced arguments is characterised as "confusing the issue". Risible simplicities like "marriage has nothing to do with children" are repeated like a mantra. In the classic strategies of groupthink, others are characterised as being invalid to comment, because they are "homophobes", because of something that happened 1000 years ago or even because they are also opposed to abortion or pornography. The entire development of human society can be discarded, because that was the "dark ages", so there is no need to reflect on why societies evolved this way.
The whole thing is indicative of how zealots can invoke cries of "he who is not with us is against us" when reality lies somewhere in between.
Who in the yes campaign is trying to restrict debate?
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2015, 08:39:15 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
If two people consent to kill a third person is that ok?
I can't see what point in this debate you think this is relevant to?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
I am not homophobic,and don't disrespect anyone.
Please confirm your support for equality?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
I object to gay marriage simply on religious and moral grounds
Please outline your morals and any convincing reason why you think anyone else should adhere to these morals?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
I genuinely pity any child who is reared in such a relationship
Why? Is there evidence that they will be disadvantaged in some way and therefore deserving of sympathy? (if there is no evidence at least have the decency to admit that)
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
as if it is "normal".It is not and never will be.
Evidence please? Its a big statement and you can't just keep repeating it without any evidence.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
What chance has a child brought up by two men,denied the unique love of a mother,for example?
You tell us? Back it up with this evidence of yours
I've read back this whole thread and not once have I actually seen this Fearon fella answer a question that someone has asked him like you have done above.
I don't know why people bother the guy is obviously a moron.
Quote from: ziggysego on April 29, 2015, 04:48:31 PM
Quote from: screenexile on April 29, 2015, 04:46:00 PM
Quote from: deiseach on April 29, 2015, 04:35:28 PM
Sensible policies for a happier Britain!
She sounds like your ideal UKIP candidate... that'll be the next move after this election. I'd be intrigued to see how many actually vote for her.
In the Fermanagh and Omagh District Council elections last year - 67.
I reckon that cold snap in the winter might have reduced that 67
Quote from: annapr on April 29, 2015, 08:54:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2015, 08:39:15 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
If two people consent to kill a third person is that ok?
I can't see what point in this debate you think this is relevant to?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
I am not homophobic,and don't disrespect anyone.
Please confirm your support for equality?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
I object to gay marriage simply on religious and moral grounds
Please outline your morals and any convincing reason why you think anyone else should adhere to these morals?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
I genuinely pity any child who is reared in such a relationship
Why? Is there evidence that they will be disadvantaged in some way and therefore deserving of sympathy? (if there is no evidence at least have the decency to admit that)
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
as if it is "normal".It is not and never will be.
Evidence please? Its a big statement and you can't just keep repeating it without any evidence.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 28, 2015, 09:54:09 PM
What chance has a child brought up by two men,denied the unique love of a mother,for example?
You tell us? Back it up with this evidence of yours
I've read back this whole thread and not once have I actually seen this Fearon fella answer a question that someone has asked him like you have done above.
I don't know why people bother the guy is obviously a moron.
To expose his bitter little myopic and on occasion moronic hatred for what it is.
In reply to annapr, let me assure you that Tony is no moron. I base this on my experiences of reading his posts on this forum for over eight years and having met him on a few occasions. Certainly he can rub people the wrong way at times,as we all can, and I think he's to be admired for posting on here using his own name.
The punctuation in his posts is pretty good as well!
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2015, 08:48:14 PM
Who in the yes campaign is trying to restrict debate?
There are lots of examples.
But just taking you, on this forum, you have called several people homophobes, called one person a moron and a horror of human being and described another as unhinged. Not the conduct of a person engaging in respectful debate with others he feels entitled to hold their opinion. Remembering that this is not about some sort of genocide or violence of any sort, but about the legal point of whether same sex relationships should be called civil partnerships or marriage.
All fine and good, in principle, Armaghniac, but when someone writes that they would prefer to be in an orphanage than be raised by a loving same-sex couple and then continues by equating same-sex marriage to bestiality, then the threshold for reasoned and civil discourse has definitely been lowered. And in the spirit of serious debate, I was hoping that No supporters like yourself would distance yourself from such sentiments by way of keeping the discussion dignified.
Er could someone point out where I even tenuously equated gay sex with sex with animals? I used the comparison to show that in future,the way this world is going,it is not entirely inconceivable that bestiality will be defined as a human right and such relationships granted the same status as that of human relationships,on the basis that homosexuality, in the space of my short lifetime has travelled from a status of criminality to marriage endorsement in law.
On a lighter note I struggled to control my urine flow when I saw the Paddy Power billboard ad (featuring two hooded blokes kissing) and the Tiocfaidh Ar La caption,offering odds on the referendum outcome ;D. Not often anyone successfully takes the piss out of Sinn Fein!
Quote from: Oraisteach on April 30, 2015, 05:39:22 AM
All fine and good, in principle, Armaghniac, but when someone writes that they would prefer to be in an orphanage than be raised by a loving same-sex couple and then continues by equating same-sex marriage to bestiality, then the threshold for reasoned and civil discourse has definitely been lowered. And in the spirit of serious debate, I was hoping that No supporters like yourself would distance yourself from such sentiments by way of keeping the discussion dignified.
I disagreed with the orphanage comments and suggested that Fearon was trying to wind people up, it wouldn't be the first time. When another poster was described as unhinged, did you distance yourself from that comment?
Gawd, homophobes seem to hate being called homophobes even more than free staters hate being called free staters!
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 06:36:01 AM
Er could someone point out where I even tenuously equated gay sex with sex with animals? I used the comparison to show that in future,the way this world is going,it is not entirely inconceivable that bestiality will be defined as a human right and such relationships granted the same status as that of human relationships,on the basis that homosexuality, in the space of my short lifetime has travelled from a status of criminality to marriage endorsement in law.
On a lighter note I struggled to control my urine flow when I saw the Paddy Power billboard ad (featuring two hooded blokes kissing) and the Tiocfaidh Ar La caption,offering odds on the referendum outcome ;D. Not often anyone successfully takes the piss out of Sinn Fein!
Tell me this... Would you be in favour of making homosexuality a crime again? (Yes or no please)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 30, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
Gawd, homophobes seem to hate being called homophobes even more than free staters hate being called free staters!
Just to be clear, who are you calling homophobe here?
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 30, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
Gawd, homophobes seem to hate being called homophobes even more than free staters hate being called free staters!
Just to be clear, who are you calling homophobe here?
You will find that most play the homophobic card when anyone doesn't openly embrace all things gay, it truly is quite pathetic really. I bet most defending homosexuality to the max would have a wobble or two if their son / daughter told them they were gay.
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 30, 2015, 07:56:23 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 06:36:01 AM
Er could someone point out where I even tenuously equated gay sex with sex with animals? I used the comparison to show that in future,the way this world is going,it is not entirely inconceivable that bestiality will be defined as a human right and such relationships granted the same status as that of human relationships,on the basis that homosexuality, in the space of my short lifetime has travelled from a status of criminality to marriage endorsement in law.
On a lighter note I struggled to control my urine flow when I saw the Paddy Power billboard ad (featuring two hooded blokes kissing) and the Tiocfaidh Ar La caption,offering odds on the referendum outcome ;D. Not often anyone successfully takes the piss out of Sinn Fein!
Tell me this... Would you be in favour of making homosexuality a crime again? (Yes or no please)
He won't answer you, he never does.
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 08:28:47 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 30, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
Gawd, homophobes seem to hate being called homophobes even more than free staters hate being called free staters!
Just to be clear, who are you calling homophobe here?
You will find that most play the homophobic card when anyone doesn't openly embrace all things gay, it truly is quite pathetic really. I bet most defending homosexuality to the max would have a wobble or two if their son / daughter told them they were gay.
Yes, that's it. People who criticise those who wish deny equality are the ones with the real issue here. ::)
Was just reading up there on my own question about what the difference is between marriage and civil partnership. Full details are here:
http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html
It seems like many of the changes are from a financial / legal point of view around property, etc. But it lists what appear to be the three main changes are:
• does not permit children to have a legally recognised relationship with their parents - only the biological one. This causes all sorts of practical problems for hundreds of families with schools and hospitals as well as around guardianship, access and custody. In the worst case, it could mean that a child is taken away from a parent and put into care on the death of the biological parent.
• does not recognise same sex couples' rights to many social supports that may be needed in hardship situations and may literally leave a loved one out in the cold.
• defines the home of civil partners as a "shared home", rather than a "family home" , as is the case for married couples. This has implications for the protection of dependent children living in this home and also means a lack of protection for civil partners who are deserted.
And in that, it seems like the first one is probably the most debated.
My reading of it is, that the change will allow gay couples to adopt where currently only one of a gay couple can be the parent while the other essentially has no rights / obligations.
Post updated on foot of armaghniacs response as this issue seems to have been resolved under the Children and Family Relationships Bill:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/cabinet-approves-bill-allowing-adoption-by-same-sex-couples-1.2106843
At that rate of going, in real terms, the referendum seems to be about very little other than legal & financial issues. Still seems like a no-brainer though
The previous post is written as if the recent adoption act had never been passed, maybe you should extend your reading to that.
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 08:28:47 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 30, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
Gawd, homophobes seem to hate being called homophobes even more than free staters hate being called free staters!
Just to be clear, who are you calling homophobe here?
You will find that most play the homophobic card when anyone doesn't openly embrace all things gay, it truly is quite pathetic really. I bet most defending homosexuality to the max would have a wobble or two if their son / daughter told them they were gay.
The only reason I would have a wobble is because I'm disgusted there are still people in the world like Fearon and a few others and I'd be worried my kids would be bullied for being perceived different or not normal by a few idiots.
I'd like to know what these people would do if they had a son or daughter whom came to them and told them they were Gay?
I don't expect an answer.
Quote from: gallsman on April 30, 2015, 09:19:46 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 08:28:47 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 30, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
Gawd, homophobes seem to hate being called homophobes even more than free staters hate being called free staters!
Just to be clear, who are you calling homophobe here?
You will find that most play the homophobic card when anyone doesn't openly embrace all things gay, it truly is quite pathetic really. I bet most defending homosexuality to the max would have a wobble or two if their son / daughter told them they were gay.
Yes, that's it. People who criticise those who wish deny equality are the ones with the real issue here. ::)
An emoticon rolling the eyes does not distract from the fact that the gay rights campaigners here would wobble if their child told them they were gay. It amazes me that a debate on issues concerning homosexuality always pan out the same way - those who say anything negative are homophobic, the rest are civil right campaigners fighting for the equality across society and shouldn't be questioned.
Quote from: annapr on April 30, 2015, 09:28:53 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 08:28:47 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 30, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
Gawd, homophobes seem to hate being called homophobes even more than free staters hate being called free staters!
Just to be clear, who are you calling homophobe here?
You will find that most play the homophobic card when anyone doesn't openly embrace all things gay, it truly is quite pathetic really. I bet most defending homosexuality to the max would have a wobble or two if their son / daughter told them they were gay.
The only reason I would have a wobble is because I'm disgusted there are still people in the world like Fearon and a few others and I'd be worried my kids would be bullied for being perceived different or not normal by a few idiots.
I'd like to know what these people would do if they had a son or daughter whom came to them and told them they were Gay?
I don't expect an answer.
A nice post on an internet form, unless you have kids and one told you they were gay all comments relating to how you know you would feel are irrelevant.
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 09:36:19 AM
Quote from: annapr on April 30, 2015, 09:28:53 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 08:28:47 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 30, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
Gawd, homophobes seem to hate being called homophobes even more than free staters hate being called free staters!
Just to be clear, who are you calling homophobe here?
You will find that most play the homophobic card when anyone doesn't openly embrace all things gay, it truly is quite pathetic really. I bet most defending homosexuality to the max would have a wobble or two if their son / daughter told them they were gay.
The only reason I would have a wobble is because I'm disgusted there are still people in the world like Fearon and a few others and I'd be worried my kids would be bullied for being perceived different or not normal by a few idiots.
I'd like to know what these people would do if they had a son or daughter whom came to them and told them they were Gay?
I don't expect an answer.
A nice post on an internet form, unless you have kids and one told you they were gay all comments relating to how you know you would feel are irrelevant.
So you are telling me I can't possibly know how I would feel yet you are able to tell me I would have a wobble? So you think you know me better than I know myself?
My brother is Gay. I'm actually pretty sure I know how I would react if one of my kids told me he/she was Gay.
So what would you do? Disown them? Try to cure them?
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 09:32:26 AM
Quote from: gallsman on April 30, 2015, 09:19:46 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 08:28:47 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 30, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
Gawd, homophobes seem to hate being called homophobes even more than free staters hate being called free staters!
Just to be clear, who are you calling homophobe here?
You will find that most play the homophobic card when anyone doesn't openly embrace all things gay, it truly is quite pathetic really. I bet most defending homosexuality to the max would have a wobble or two if their son / daughter told them they were gay.
Yes, that's it. People who criticise those who wish deny equality are the ones with the real issue here. ::)
An emoticon rolling the eyes does not distract from the fact that the gay rights campaigners here would wobble if their child told them they were gay. It amazes me that a debate on issues concerning homosexuality always pan out the same way - those who say anything negative are homophobic, the rest are civil right campaigners fighting for the equality across society and shouldn't be questioned.
You base this on what? Do you personally know any gay people? Do any of the other, yes, homophobes on this forum?
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 08:28:47 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 30, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
Gawd, homophobes seem to hate being called homophobes even more than free staters hate being called free staters!
Just to be clear, who are you calling homophobe here?
You will find that most play the homophobic card when anyone doesn't openly embrace all things gay, it truly is quite pathetic really. I bet most defending homosexuality to the max would have a wobble or two if their son / daughter told them they were gay.
Many people 'would have a wobble or two' if their son/daughter were marrying someone from the neighbouring parish/county/country/race etc. That doesn't mean they would want to stop anyone from those places legally marrying.
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 09:36:19 AM
Quote from: annapr on April 30, 2015, 09:28:53 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 08:28:47 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 30, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
Gawd, homophobes seem to hate being called homophobes even more than free staters hate being called free staters!
Just to be clear, who are you calling homophobe here?
You will find that most play the homophobic card when anyone doesn't openly embrace all things gay, it truly is quite pathetic really. I bet most defending homosexuality to the max would have a wobble or two if their son / daughter told them they were gay.
The only reason I would have a wobble is because I'm disgusted there are still people in the world like Fearon and a few others and I'd be worried my kids would be bullied for being perceived different or not normal by a few idiots.
I'd like to know what these people would do if they had a son or daughter whom came to them and told them they were Gay?
I don't expect an answer.
A nice post on an internet form, unless you have kids and one told you they were gay all comments relating to how you know you would feel are irrelevant.
I don't understand what the problem would be if I had a 'wobble' should my son/daughter be gay. I'm all for Gay rights and equality but that doesn't mean I comprehend why people are that way or that I wouldn't be uncomfortable around someone and their partner. I don't see what relevance that has to the debate. While I wouldn't be thrilled if one of my family is gay why would I want to deny them their rights as a human being??
RESPECT is what it's about folks!
No I wouldn't be in favour of recriminalising homosexuality,but I am vehemently opposed to the normalisation of homosexuality and the debasement of the holy sacrament of marriage.
Quote from: gallsman on April 30, 2015, 10:11:26 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 09:32:26 AM
Quote from: gallsman on April 30, 2015, 09:19:46 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 08:28:47 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 30, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
Gawd, homophobes seem to hate being called homophobes even more than free staters hate being called free staters!
Just to be clear, who are you calling homophobe here?
You will find that most play the homophobic card when anyone doesn't openly embrace all things gay, it truly is quite pathetic really. I bet most defending homosexuality to the max would have a wobble or two if their son / daughter told them they were gay.
Yes, that's it. People who criticise those who wish deny equality are the ones with the real issue here. ::)
An emoticon rolling the eyes does not distract from the fact that the gay rights campaigners here would wobble if their child told them they were gay. It amazes me that a debate on issues concerning homosexuality always pan out the same way - those who say anything negative are homophobic, the rest are civil right campaigners fighting for the equality across society and shouldn't be questioned.
You base this on what? Do you personally know any gay people? Do any of the other, yes, homophobes on this forum?
So anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the gay agenda is homophobic in your eyes?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 11:37:03 AM
No I wouldn't be in favour of recriminalising homosexuality,but I am vehemently opposed to the normalisation of homosexuality and the debasement of the holy sacrament of marriage.
So just outcast gay people but don't prosecute them?
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 12:23:22 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 30, 2015, 10:11:26 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 09:32:26 AM
Quote from: gallsman on April 30, 2015, 09:19:46 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 08:28:47 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 30, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
Gawd, homophobes seem to hate being called homophobes even more than free staters hate being called free staters!
Just to be clear, who are you calling homophobe here?
You will find that most play the homophobic card when anyone doesn't openly embrace all things gay, it truly is quite pathetic really. I bet most defending homosexuality to the max would have a wobble or two if their son / daughter told them they were gay.
Yes, that's it. People who criticise those who wish deny equality are the ones with the real issue here. ::)
An emoticon rolling the eyes does not distract from the fact that the gay rights campaigners here would wobble if their child told them they were gay. It amazes me that a debate on issues concerning homosexuality always pan out the same way - those who say anything negative are homophobic, the rest are civil right campaigners fighting for the equality across society and shouldn't be questioned.
You base this on what? Do you personally know any gay people? Do any of the other, yes, homophobes on this forum?
So anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the gay agenda is homophobic in your eyes?
What in the name of christ is the "gay agenda"?
No, but anyone who can't explain their opposition to it without hiding behind, "it's abnormal" or "it's against my religion" etc (i.e. everyone in the no camp here), would seriously struggle to find another reason to explain their thoughts on the matter.
Tony, you have repeatedly been told that this has nothing to do with the church and the "holy sacrament of marriage". Francis and all those paedo priests and administrators you love to defend aren't the only ones who get to define marriage. Thankfully.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 11:37:03 AM
No I wouldn't be in favour of recriminalising homosexuality,but I am vehemently opposed to the normalisation of homosexuality and the debasement of the holy sacrament of marriage.
The 'normalisation of homosexuality'? What exactly does that mean. As a society we should look down on homosexuals and tell them they are not normal?
Also you're getting confused there about what the referendum is about. It has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage that is a Catholic thing while we are talking about legal marriage. The legalising of same sex marriage has pretty much zero to do with the Church!!
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Quote"All of the incentives, all of the benefits that marriage affords would still be available, so you're not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now."
Civil marriages are conceptual replications of the divine sacrament of marriage.Gay marriage is not normal,not necessary
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 02:07:15 PM
Civil marriages are conceptual replications of the divine sacrament of marriage.Gay marriage is not normal,not necessary
Finally Tony, glad to hear civil gay marriage is fine, pretty sure that's what the thread is about. No one is asking a church to change their policy and you get to keep your divine sacrament. Delighted to hear it. Thanks Tony
Quote from: heganboy on April 30, 2015, 02:06:14 PM
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Quote"All of the incentives, all of the benefits that marriage affords would still be available, so you're not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now."
In fact they'll be gaining the right to gay marry too!
Win, win for everyone!
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 02:07:15 PM
Civil marriages are conceptual replications of the divine sacrament of marriage.Gay marriage is not normal,not necessary
How do you know it is not necessary?
Have you tried it?
Well we've lived for aeons without it.So why is it necessary now?
Fearon what would you do if you had a son or daughter who came to you and told you they were Gay?
We lived for aeons without many things in this world. Women couldn't vote - ah sure we lived with it. Black people had no rights - ah sure we lived with it. The list goes on. Also maybe you should be reminded about the lack of rights catholic people had for a long time in NI. Ah but sure we lived for aeons with it.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 02:07:15 PM
Civil marriages are conceptual replications of the divine sacrament of marriage.Gay marriage is not normal,not necessary
I think the vow of celibacy taken by grown men in order to serve their god isn't normal or necessary, surely you of all people will be in agreement?
Tony, by referring to the divine sacrament of marriage, you are defining marriage in very narrow terms, i.e marriage within the Catholic Church, and by saying that other unions that take place outside the divine sacrament are mere conceptual replications, you are showing that your disagreement is not just with same-sex marriage but with any marriage not blessed by the Catholic Church. So, do you object to Protestant, Jewish or atheist marriages and consider them sham imitations and not really marriages at all?
And by the way, earlier when you were talking about abnormal marriages, despite your protestations to the contrary, you were definitely placing same-sex marriage on a par with marrying a dog, which in my view is equating same-sex marriage with bestiality, a view held by many in the NO camp such as famed US neurosurgeon and crackpot Ben Carson (sorry, Armaghniac, despite his intellect, I do think he's unhinged)
I think that any marriage not occurring in church and therefore God's endorsement is absent is invalid,in the eyes of God.Once again my objection on religious and moral grounds is the normalisation of gay relationships,to the point that they should be accepted as the norm.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 30, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
Gawd, homophobes seem to hate being called homophobes even more than free staters hate being called free staters!
Just to be clear, who are you calling homophobe here?
The No campaign and its supporters.
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 08:28:47 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 30, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
Gawd, homophobes seem to hate being called homophobes even more than free staters hate being called free staters!
Just to be clear, who are you calling homophobe here?
You will find that most play the homophobic card when anyone doesn't openly embrace all things gay, it truly is quite pathetic really. I bet most defending homosexuality to the max would have a wobble or two if their son / daughter told them they were gay.
Well that's what they all say, isn't it?
"I'm not homophobic but..."
"I'm not racist but..."
There's always a but, isn't there?
Quote from: topcuppla on April 30, 2015, 09:32:26 AM
those who say anything negative are homophobic, the rest are civil right campaigners fighting for the equality across society and shouldn't be questioned.
Translation: "The truth hurts. Stop telling me the truth."
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 11:37:03 AM
No I wouldn't be in favour of recriminalising homosexuality,but I am vehemently opposed to the normalisation of homosexuality and the debasement of the holy sacrament of marriage.
Britney Spears got married in Vegas and got it annulled the next morning when she sobered up. Half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce and broken homes. But yeah, it's people in committed same-sex relationships that are "debasing" marriage.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 05:30:49 PM
I think that any marriage not occurring in church and therefore God's endorsement is absent is invalid,in the eyes of God.
You'd be more of a Benedict/ JP2 guy than a Frances fan then Tony?
Interfaith marriages? Catholic marrying Protestant in an Anglican church? C of I marrying Catholic in a Catholic Ceremony but not converting? Are all churches ok- or are you a one true faith kind of guy? What if someone had not been to confession before the sacrament- would it also be invalid? Or they hadn't attended the requisite pre marriage
curse course?
What about Jewish faith Tony? were Mary and Joseph not really married because theirs was a Jewish service in a synagogue?
Where exactly is your line for marriage?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 05:30:49 PM
I think that any marriage not occurring in church and therefore God's endorsement is absent is invalid,in the eyes of God.Once again my objection on religious and moral grounds is the normalisation of gay relationships,to the point that they should be accepted as the norm.
So the only people ever to have been "truly" married are practicing catholics. Everyone else in the world is a bastard. Thanks for clearing that up.
Quote from: heganboy on April 30, 2015, 06:41:15 PM
What about Jewish faith Tony? were Mary and Joseph not really married because theirs was a Jewish service in a synagogue?
Good catch! I think our Tony just called Jesus a bastard too!
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 05:30:49 PM
I think that any marriage not occurring in church and therefore God's endorsement is absent is invalid,in the eyes of God.Once again my objection on religious and moral grounds is the normalisation of gay relationships,to the point that they should be accepted as the norm.
Do you mean only in the catholic church?
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 30, 2015, 06:43:04 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 05:30:49 PM
I think that any marriage not occurring in church and therefore God's endorsement is absent is invalid,in the eyes of God.Once again my objection on religious and moral grounds is the normalisation of gay relationships,to the point that they should be accepted as the norm.
Do you mean only in the catholic church?
I would imagine he means any Christian Church!
Quote from: heganboy on April 30, 2015, 06:41:15 PM
What about Jewish faith Tony? were Mary and Joseph not really married because theirs was a Jewish service in a synagogue?
In fact he probably thinks it depends on whether they were catholic jews or protestant jews.
Quote from: stew on April 30, 2015, 07:44:57 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 30, 2015, 06:43:04 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 05:30:49 PM
I think that any marriage not occurring in church and therefore God's endorsement is absent is invalid,in the eyes of God.Once again my objection on religious and moral grounds is the normalisation of gay relationships,to the point that they should be accepted as the norm.
Do you mean only in the catholic church?
I would imagine he means any Christian Church!
Hard to know... Just wondering how narrow these views go!
From my vantage point Fearon has a different view to most on here and they crucify him for it! What the fcuk is wrong with you people?
I differ in my views from Tony but I respect his right to feel how he feels, I do think he is a wee bit up the Kafflics Church's arse at times but he is at least honest and deserves better than to be treated as he is by some of you gaaboarders!
As long as they are not being married in Christian Churches, I simply hate people being treated differently from others but ultimately I believe marriage in the sight of God should be between a man and a woman, a civil marriage/ marriage of state should be sufficient to get the job done for these alternative lifestyle people!
I will never understand homosexuality but it has no bearing on how me or mine live our lives and given that some cnut from Armagh just got done for humping a dog whilst thinking of his infant children..... I guess there are a lot bigger issues than this one out there........................And the tr**p only got ten months!
Quote from: screenexile on April 29, 2015, 04:01:07 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on April 29, 2015, 02:21:06 PM
Last night I was at the West Tyrone Decides debate in Omagh. In West Tyrone, we have 9 candidates standing for election, but Tom Buchanan of the DUP was a no-show.
The question came around to marriage equality and of course all eyes turned towards the Independent Susan-Anne White. She claimed that gay parents were 40% more likely to abuse their children. Of course there was outrage from the rest of the panel and the audience, people asking her to proves the states she was claiming. Instead, she named two gay people that allegedly abused children. They live internet feed was immediately cut due to legal reasons.
There was outcrys from everyone saying that two people do not amount to 40% increase within the gay community. When asked by Conor Keys, the chair of the debate, did she look into heterosexual child abuse cases. Susan-Anne just replied no, that doesn't matter. She said she was only concerned with gay child abuse cases.
Says it all really. Child abuse is child abuse. It does not matter what section of the community you belong to.
Holy shit!!!
LAD did a wee video on it.
https://www.facebook.com/BELFASTLAD/videos/361508837387407/ (https://www.facebook.com/BELFASTLAD/videos/361508837387407/)
Quote from: Eamonnca1The No campaign and its supporters.
Characterising the entire No campaign and all its supporters as homophobes is par for the course, for those who prefer abuse and prejudice to rational argument. One wonders how the homosexuals in the No campaign, who are also active in promoting the rights of homosexuals, can be reasonably characterised as homophobes. But of course much of this comes from those who characterise any limitation on abortion as misogynist, even when women support this.
Talk of religion is all very fine for baiting other posters, but it is not the point in relation to this thread. Religions have certain faith type things, they also latch on to things that are generally good for society, support marriage, do not rob, do not kill, respect your parents and the like. Even you are Richard Dawkins there is no reason to promote killing because the bible suggests thou shalt not kill and even if you think religion is bollix there is no reason to seek to undermine marriage because the Catholic Church marries people.
Quite simply if a couple have a belief in God,and want to get married in his sight,and obtain his endorsement of their union,I believe a wedding ceremony in any Church is sufficient,on the basis of "when people are gathered together in my name I am present".
Stew how right you are.You get pilloried in Ireland for holding traditional views or beliefs these days.As I said before I suspect the majority trumpeting gay rights and so called equality here wouldn't be seen dead in a gay bar (was in one inadvertently in Glasgow myself one night but got out quicker than Usain Bolt when I realised where I was!) or at a gay pride parade,but anything that annoys or offends Christians with sincere beliefs is fair game for these people.
Quote from: stew on April 30, 2015, 08:06:51 PM
From my vantage point Fearon has a different view to most on here and they crucify him for it! What the fcuk is wrong with you people?
I differ in my views from Tony but I respect his right to feel how he feels, I do think he is a wee bit up the Kafflics Church's arse at times but he is at least honest and deserves better than to be treated as he is by some of you gaaboarders!
As long as they are not being married in Christian Churches, I simply hate people being treated differently from others but ultimately I believe marriage in the sight of God should be between a man and a woman, a civil marriage/ marriage of state should be sufficient to get the job done for these alternative lifestyle people!
I will never understand homosexuality but it has no bearing on how me or mine live our lives and given that some cnut from Armagh just got done for humping a dog whilst thinking of his infant children..... I guess there are a lot bigger issues than this one out there........................And the tr**p only got ten months!
Hold on there Stew - no one is forcing Tony to post his views. They are pretty strong and forceful, and probably deliberately provocative, especially when he ignores the valid critiques of his points. I don't think anyone is saying he doesn't have a right to his opinions. What he does not have is a right not to have those opinions analyzed and rebutted. As long as the responses are kept somewhat mannerly and non-personal, of course.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 08:31:19 PM
Quite simply if a couple have a belief in God,and want to get married in his sight,and obtain his endorsement of their union,I believe a wedding ceremony in any Church is sufficient,on the basis of "when people are gathered together in my name I am present".
Stew how right you are.You get pilloried in Ireland for holding traditional views or beliefs these days.As I said before I suspect the majority trumpeting gay rights and so called equality here wouldn't be seen dead in a gay bar (was in one inadvertently in Glasgow myself one night but got out quicker than Usain Bolt when I realised where I was!) or at a gay pride parade,but anything that annoys or offends Christians with sincere beliefs is fair game for these people.
This is where you get tiresome - you brought up the gay bar non sequitur the other day. I, and others, responded and showed that it was a stupid argument, but you just ignore it and bring it up again. It's like debating a creationist. Talking points stay the same, no matter how many times they're debunked.
My core view is that those arguing in favour of gay marriage are less concerned with human rights and so called equality, but more motivated by the annoyance and offence this causes to Christians and those with religious beliefs and in particular the Catholic Church.
Quote from: J70 on April 30, 2015, 08:32:26 PM
Quote from: stew on April 30, 2015, 08:06:51 PM
From my vantage point Fearon has a different view to most on here and they crucify him for it! What the fcuk is wrong with you people?
I differ in my views from Tony but I respect his right to feel how he feels, I do think he is a wee bit up the Kafflics Church's arse at times but he is at least honest and deserves better than to be treated as he is by some of you gaaboarders!
As long as they are not being married in Christian Churches, I simply hate people being treated differently from others but ultimately I believe marriage in the sight of God should be between a man and a woman, a civil marriage/ marriage of state should be sufficient to get the job done for these alternative lifestyle people!
I will never understand homosexuality but it has no bearing on how me or mine live our lives and given that some cnut from Armagh just got done for humping a dog whilst thinking of his infant children..... I guess there are a lot bigger issues than this one out there........................And the tr**p only got ten months!
Hold on there Stew - no one is forcing Tony to post his views. They are pretty strong and forceful, and probably deliberately provocative, especially when he ignores the valid critiques of his points. I don't think anyone is saying he doesn't have a right to his opinions. What he does not have is a right not to have those opinions analyzed and rebutted. As long as the responses are kept somewhat mannerly and non-personal, of course.
Bullshit, you seem to want him to hold his tongue based on your post as written above!
I never said anyone was forcing Tony to write his opinion, he has the same right to his as you do yours and I have no idea why anyone would be forced to post anything on an open forum such as this.
G Tony you were more exciting back when you thought Armagh could win something instead off jumping round the non-gaa topics.
And this is where you miss the boat completely, Tony, and reveal an underlying paranoia. Proponents of same-sex marriage, at least the loads that I know, have no interest whatsoever in riling Christians, it's just that their quest for equal treatment DOES infuriate Christians who seem intent on imposing their will on society as a whole, not unlike fundamentalist Moslems in the Middle East. I know lots of Christians who endorse same-sex marriage. In fact, polls of evangelical Christian milleniels here in the US indicate that significant number do too. The tide of history is turning, and just as blacks and women have been accorded equality (for the most part), so too will gays.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 08:54:21 PM
My core view is that those arguing in favour of gay marriage are less concerned with human rights and so called equality, but more motivated by the annoyance and offence this causes to Christians and those with religious beliefs and in particular the Catholic Church.
Yet you produce nothing to back up your persecution - fueled assertion.
Aside from the religious perspective I believe gay marriage and the normalisation of unnatural relationships to full equal status with those that are natural, is bad for society.
Quote from: stew on April 30, 2015, 09:03:41 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 30, 2015, 08:32:26 PM
Quote from: stew on April 30, 2015, 08:06:51 PM
From my vantage point Fearon has a different view to most on here and they crucify him for it! What the fcuk is wrong with you people?
I differ in my views from Tony but I respect his right to feel how he feels, I do think he is a wee bit up the Kafflics Church's arse at times but he is at least honest and deserves better than to be treated as he is by some of you gaaboarders!
As long as they are not being married in Christian Churches, I simply hate people being treated differently from others but ultimately I believe marriage in the sight of God should be between a man and a woman, a civil marriage/ marriage of state should be sufficient to get the job done for these alternative lifestyle people!
I will never understand homosexuality but it has no bearing on how me or mine live our lives and given that some cnut from Armagh just got done for humping a dog whilst thinking of his infant children..... I guess there are a lot bigger issues than this one out there........................And the tr**p only got ten months!
Hold on there Stew - no one is forcing Tony to post his views. They are pretty strong and forceful, and probably deliberately provocative, especially when he ignores the valid critiques of his points. I don't think anyone is saying he doesn't have a right to his opinions. What he does not have is a right not to have those opinions analyzed and rebutted. As long as the responses are kept somewhat mannerly and non-personal, of course.
Bullshit, you seem to want him to hold his tongue based on your post as written above!
I never said anyone was forcing Tony to write his opinion, he has the same right to his as you do yours and I have no idea why anyone would be forced to post anything on an open forum such as this.
FFS maybe take a minute to read what I actually wrote, not what you imagine.
My point is that, by posting his opinion, Tony is subject to the same responses and rebuttals as the rest of us. You can't offer an opinion and then whine when someone dissects it. Which, to be fair, I don't think HE does. He just ignores it! :)
I don't want Tony to hold his tongue. Why would I?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:19:37 PM
Aside from the religious perspective I believe gay marriage and the normalisation of unnatural relationships to full equal status with those that are natural, is bad for society.
In what way?
Scripture makes it very clear that homosexuality is wrong.A lot of Christian groups feel it is their God given duty to make people aware of their sin,hence the protests at gay pride parades etc.Although I would never participate in such protests,I do believe the people who do are motivated by the desire to save souls,not deliberately rile marchers etc.
But you can't call churches backward and discriminatory for simply adhering to non negotiable beliefs derived straight from the bible.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 08:31:19 PM
Quite simply if a couple have a belief in God,and want to get married in his sight,and obtain his endorsement of their union,I believe a wedding ceremony in any Church is sufficient,on the basis of "when people are gathered together in my name I am present".
Stew how right you are.You get pilloried in Ireland for holding traditional views or beliefs these days.As I said before I suspect the majority trumpeting gay rights and so called equality here wouldn't be seen dead in a gay bar (was in one inadvertently in Glasgow myself one night but got out quicker than Usain Bolt when I realised where I was!) or at a gay pride parade,but anything that annoys or offends Christians with sincere beliefs is fair game for these people.
You haven't answered my question.
What would you do if a son or daughter of yours came to you and said they were Gay?
Would you disown them or try to cure them?
Would you allow their boyfriend/girlfriend into your house?
If it came down to a ultimatum of your church beliefs or the love of your child what would you do?
J70 I believe anything unnatural I'd wrong.Where is the moral compass with anything goes and the time honoured world order is tossed upside down?
I oppose everything Fearon stands for. But he's playing a blinder here.
Annapr ,sad to say but I couldn't tolerate any gay family members.I would have to say I would be forced to disown them.Harsh I know but this is my honest view
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:26:00 PM
J70 I believe anything unnatural I'd wrong.Where is the moral compass with anything goes and the time honoured world order is tossed upside down?
How is homosexuality unnatural?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:28:16 PM
Annapr ,sad to say but I couldn't tolerate any gay family members.I would have to say I would be forced to disown them.Harsh I know but this is my honest view
You're right that is sad.
I'd hazard a guess and say you don't have children?
No one could have that viewpoint if they have felt the unconditional love you have for your kids from being a parent.
I feel sorry for you.
I agree with you, O'Neill. He is playing, and as regards addressing critiques of his views, I don't think anyone's blinder.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:28:16 PM
Annapr ,sad to say but I couldn't tolerate any gay family members.I would have to say I would be forced to disown them.Harsh I know but this is my honest view
What would you have done if you yourself had been gay?
Quote from: J70 on April 30, 2015, 09:41:05 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:28:16 PM
Annapr ,sad to say but I couldn't tolerate any gay family members.I would have to say I would be forced to disown them.Harsh I know but this is my honest view
What would you have done if you yourself had been gay?
Dressed in better clothes than Armagh, Spurs and Celtic jerseys
What a silly question. I am what I am.
Not a silly question, Tony. The ability to empathize is essential to being open-minded. I think of Dick Cheney's swivel on homosexuality when his daughter announced she has gay or GOP Rob Portman switching his view on same-sex marriage when his son came out as gay. Allow yourself to walk in others' shoes.
Quote from: Oraisteach on April 30, 2015, 10:28:49 PM
Not a silly question, Tony. The ability to empathize is essential to being open-minded. I think of Dick Cheney's swivel on homosexuality when his daughter announced she has gay or GOP Rob Portman switching his view on same-sex marriage when his son came out as gay. Allow yourself to walk in others' shoes.
To change your views on behalf of your own family is simple nepotism and illustrates the venality of politicians.
I'm afraid there'd be no U turns from me on this issue
Quote from: Oraisteach on April 30, 2015, 09:37:46 PM
I agree with you, O'Neill. He is playing, and as regards addressing critiques of his views, I don't think anyone's blinder.
Nah, you and nearly everyone else don't get it.
Anthony, like many in this corner of the planet unfortunately, is answerable to something (ethereal) we cannot begin (or want) to comprehend.
For that reason, and it really is as blind as it sounds, your words fall on totally barren ground. It might read well on your part but if you're wanting to open Anthony's eyes you're better off knitting.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:19:37 PM
Aside from the religious perspective I believe gay marriage and the normalisation of unnatural relationships to full equal status with those that are natural, is bad for society.
"Unnatural?" Are you saying that homosexuality does not exist in nature?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:23:44 PM
But you can't call churches backward and discriminatory for simply adhering to non negotiable beliefs derived straight from the bible.
Yes you can.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 10:30:55 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on April 30, 2015, 10:28:49 PM
Not a silly question, Tony. The ability to empathize is essential to being open-minded. I think of Dick Cheney's swivel on homosexuality when his daughter announced she has gay or GOP Rob Portman switching his view on same-sex marriage when his son came out as gay. Allow yourself to walk in others' shoes.
To change your views on behalf of your own family is simple nepotism and illustrates the venality of politicians.
Unconditional love for your children is "nepotism?" I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 10:30:55 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on April 30, 2015, 10:28:49 PM
Not a silly question, Tony. The ability to empathize is essential to being open-minded. I think of Dick Cheney's swivel on homosexuality when his daughter announced she has gay or GOP Rob Portman switching his view on same-sex marriage when his son came out as gay. Allow yourself to walk in others' shoes.
To change your views on behalf of your own family is simple nepotism and illustrates the venality of politicians.
Or maybe convictions are easy to hold when it's only someone else's family member that is affected.
Prejudice hurts actual real live human beings, not abstract minorities.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2015, 01:44:01 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 10:30:55 PM
To change your views on behalf of your own family is simple nepotism and illustrates the venality of politicians.
Unconditional love for your children is "nepotism?" I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Of course you have to love your children and support them. Nepotism is when you direct public policy to the advantage of our own family, when you wouldn't do it for other people. When you change the tax code because your family have made bad investments, when you change the divorce law because your family have relationship problems and when you undermine marriage because it doesn't suit your family and mates. This is corruption.
Quote from: J70Or maybe convictions are easy to hold when it's only someone else's family member that is affected.
Prejudice hurts actual real live human beings, not abstract minorities.
Oh right, so if some of your children turn out to be supporters of families then you'll not be calling them homophobes, that is only for anonymous people on the Internet?
QuoteNepotism is when you direct public policy to the advantage of our own family, when you wouldn't do it for other people. ... This is corruption.
So supposing someone opposes marriage equality. Then one of their children comes out as gay. Then they learn that homosexuality is as much an accident of birth as left-handedness. Then they change their minds on marriage equality. That's not "nepotism." That's called changing your mind in the light of having a new understanding.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2015, 07:21:22 AM
QuoteNepotism is when you direct public policy to the advantage of our own family, when you wouldn't do it for other people. ... This is corruption.
So supposing someone opposes marriage equality. Then one of their children comes out as gay. Then they learn that homosexuality is as much an accident of birth as left-handedness. Then they change their minds on marriage equality. That's not "nepotism." That's called changing your mind in the light of having a new understanding.
If some politician is making pronouncements on an important matter they should have an informed opinion, which cannot be changed by a sample of one. In the same way as if one of Newt Gingrich's children decided to become a Muslim and he then decided that invading Iraq was wrong, it was no more or less wrong because of one person.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 07:28:10 AM
If some politician is making pronouncements on an important matter they should have an informed opinion, which cannot be changed by a sample of one. In the same way as if one of Newt Gingrich's children decided to become a Muslim and he then decided that invading Iraq was wrong, it was no more or less wrong because of one person.
So once a politician realizes that homophobia is wrong because one of his children turns out to be gay, he should carry on being homophobic and not let his new understanding of the matter change his mind?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2015, 07:32:58 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 07:28:10 AM
If some politician is making pronouncements on an important matter they should have an informed opinion, which cannot be changed by a sample of one. In the same way as if one of Newt Gingrich's children decided to become a Muslim and he then decided that invading Iraq was wrong, it was no more or less wrong because of one person.
So once a politician realizes that homophobia is wrong because one of his children turns out to be gay, he should carry on being homophobic and not let his new understanding of the matter change his mind?
What with unconditional love of children and whatnot, he may then be mainly representing himself.
Even if he now knows he was wrong before?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2015, 01:41:23 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:23:44 PM
But you can't call churches backward and discriminatory for simply adhering to non negotiable beliefs derived straight from the bible.
Yes you can.
Non-negitiable beliefs straight from The Bible such as this:
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.Or is it an a la carte arrangement?
Why do so many people always quote some mad things from the Old Testament?
The New Testament is the real basis for Christianity.
Anyway I'm probably changing to a Yes on this proposal on the basis that it's no skin off my nose.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 30, 2015, 06:42:15 PM
Quote from: heganboy on April 30, 2015, 06:41:15 PM
What about Jewish faith Tony? were Mary and Joseph not really married because theirs was a Jewish service in a synagogue?
Good catch! I think our Tony just called Jesus a b**tard too!
Sure we all know Jesus was a b*stard, the bible tells us so.
Mary was betrothed to Joseph, not married to him.
And Jesus had two fathers. He turned out ok ;D
Quote from: annapr on May 01, 2015, 10:28:18 AM
And Jesus had two fathers. He turned out ok ;D
That'd make a great campaign poster
Quote from: annapr on May 01, 2015, 10:28:18 AM
And Jesus had two fathers. He turned out ok ;D
Brilliant, I might nick this!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2015, 01:39:44 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:19:37 PM
Aside from the religious perspective I believe gay marriage and the normalisation of unnatural relationships to full equal status with those that are natural, is bad for society.
"Unnatural?" Are you saying that homosexuality does not exist in nature?
I think the homo but shows it is for humans only!
Quote from: topcuppla on May 01, 2015, 11:19:36 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2015, 01:39:44 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:19:37 PM
Aside from the religious perspective I believe gay marriage and the normalisation of unnatural relationships to full equal status with those that are natural, is bad for society.
"Unnatural?" Are you saying that homosexuality does not exist in nature?
I think the homo but shows it is for humans only!
There was a gay bull...
Jesus is probably not a good example for the Yes campaign. His upbringing made him tripolar.
Quote from: muppet on May 01, 2015, 10:36:20 AM
Quote from: annapr on May 01, 2015, 10:28:18 AM
And Jesus had two fathers. He turned out ok ;D
Brilliant, I might nick this!
Excellent!
I do find it funny that the "Vote 'No' for Jesus" brigade seem to miss the point that Jesus's message was "love your fellow man".
Anyway, yesterday I heard the most bizarre argument yet for voting 'No'. I was told, "if the animals behaved like that, we'd have nothing to eat".
Quote from: Hardy on May 01, 2015, 11:33:22 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 01, 2015, 10:36:20 AM
Quote from: annapr on May 01, 2015, 10:28:18 AM
And Jesus had two fathers. He turned out ok ;D
Brilliant, I might nick this!
Excellent!
I do find it funny that the "Vote 'No' for Jesus" brigade seem to miss the point that Jesus's message was "love your fellow man".
Anyway, yesterday I heard the most bizarre argument yet for voting 'No'. I was told, "if the animals behaved like that, we'd have nothing to eat".
Even that's flawed. Sure the AI man does most of the work now anyway.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 07:10:52 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2015, 01:44:01 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 10:30:55 PM
To change your views on behalf of your own family is simple nepotism and illustrates the venality of politicians.
Unconditional love for your children is "nepotism?" I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Of course you have to love your children and support them. Nepotism is when you direct public policy to the advantage of our own family, when you wouldn't do it for other people. When you change the tax code because your family have made bad investments, when you change the divorce law because your family have relationship problems and when you undermine marriage because it doesn't suit your family and mates. This is corruption.
Quote from: J70Or maybe convictions are easy to hold when it's only someone else's family member that is affected.
Prejudice hurts actual real live human beings, not abstract minorities.
Oh right, so if some of your children turn out to be supporters of families then you'll not be calling them homophobes, that is only for anonymous people on the Internet?
"Supporters of families"??
Spare us the American right wing Frank Lutz - type euphemisms!
If my kids espouse bigoted views of anything, they will hear about it from me.
Anyway, being challenged about one's prejudiced views is hardly equivalent to being the victim of policies and laws based on prejudice.
Quote"Unnatural?" Are you saying that homosexuality does not exist in nature?
Its Extremely rare in Nature almost unknown . Seem much more often when animals are in captivity
same as with people Sailors prisoners ETC
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2015, 09:51:31 AM
Why do so many people always quote some mad things from the Old Testament?
The New Testament is the real basis for Christianity.
Anyway I'm probably changing to a Yes on this proposal on the basis that it's no skin off my nose.
Because it is mad things from the old testament that people are basing there prejudice on. Mostly Leviticus. Either people believe everything Leviticus says or they believe none of it e.g. he was being pretty firm on what type of slave people could own.
I am not aware of any quotes from Jesus at all in regards to homosexuality, and very few in regards to sex in general.
Oh dear, people seem to be misinterpreting the undeniable Christian ideal of love for one's fellow man, as condoning all human actions, sinful or otherwise. This is plainly silly when the Bible and Jesus made it clear that there will be a fatal price to pay for those who transgress and don't repent.
At the end of the day, there will be Gay Marriage (certainly if I had a vote I would be registering a NO as I will if a referendum is ever held in the North), but I find this more sad than anything else. The world is clearly becoming increasingly confused, as are morals, soon it will be impossible to distinguish between what's right from wrong etc, and the LGBT Community are becoming increasingly intolerant and extremist in their views.
Still , as the good book says, a few (and it emphasises there won't be many of us) will adhere consistently to truths and reap our eternal rewards for so doing.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 01, 2015, 03:39:29 PM
Oh dear, people seem to be misinterpreting the undeniable Christian ideal of love for one's fellow man, as condoning all human actions, sinful or otherwise. This is plainly silly when the Bible and Jesus made it clear that there will be a fatal price to pay for those who transgress and don't repent.
So you can't find any quotes from Jesus in relation to the issue of homosexuality? just general reference to transgressing, where transgressing could mean picking your nose.
Quote
Still , as the good book says, a few (and it emphasises there won't be many of us) will adhere consistently to truths and reap our eternal rewards for so doing.
Hopefully there is a God and you get your eternal rewards for your arrogant belief that you are guaranteed to get into heaven and are more worthy than anyone else.
Quote from: rosnarun on May 01, 2015, 02:38:39 PM
Quote"Unnatural?" Are you saying that homosexuality does not exist in nature?
Its Extremely rare in Nature almost unknown . Seem much more often when animals are in captivity
same as with people Sailors prisoners ETC
It is not almost unknown in nature. For starters, check out our closest cousins, bonobos.
Regardless, rare does not equal unnatural. 90% of people are right handed. That does not make left handedness unnatural.
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable:
10 "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.
12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13 "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
14 "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."
Quote from: dferg on May 01, 2015, 02:39:54 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 01, 2015, 09:51:31 AM
Why do so many people always quote some mad things from the Old Testament?
The New Testament is the real basis for Christianity.
Anyway I'm probably changing to a Yes on this proposal on the basis that it's no skin off my nose.
Because it is mad things from the old testament that people are basing there prejudice on. Mostly Leviticus. Either people believe everything Leviticus says or they believe none of it e.g. he was being pretty firm on what type of slave people could own.
I am not aware of any quotes from Jesus at all in regards to homosexuality, and very few in regards to sex in general.
its funny the way Myths perpetuate
i don't think it could be much clearer `when Jesus said in Matthew 19:3
He answered, 'Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning "made them male and female" , and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"
We live in a republic and are free to vote whatever way we want but Dont try and Use the Bible against its clear meaning
Quote from: J70 on May 01, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on May 01, 2015, 02:38:39 PM
Quote"Unnatural?" Are you saying that homosexuality does not exist in nature?
Its Extremely rare in Nature almost unknown . Seem much more often when animals are in captivity
same as with people Sailors prisoners ETC
It is not almost unknown in nature. For starters, check out our closest cousins, bonobos.
Regardless, rare does not equal unnatural. 90% of people are right handed. That does not make left handedness unnatural.
right/ left handedness is a conpleate non sequiter any more that hair colour , the one thing that is self evident is homsexuality is not hereditry where as the others are.
Bonobos are jsut randy feckers who use sex like activty for almost every purposebut are nearly never exclusively homosexual and im sure they are not the image human homosexuals would like to be their calling card
Fair dues Ros, the first time I've seen someone come up with a biblical interpretation from outside Leviticus.
It is of course, a Republic and as someone who believes and holds to their Faith, you are entitled to use your vote whichever way you feel.
Given that this relates to a civil issue, ie the extension of civil marriage rights to all couples, and given that your right to practice your Faith is protected under the constitution, I feel that the civil rights argument should be prioritised over your religious misgivings. That, to me, is the definition of republicanism - the freedom to practice all religions/ lifestyles/ political beliefs or none, as long as that practice does not impinge on the freedoms of others.
Which is really as far as an argument can go between people of Faith and those of a more secular persuasion, at least politely.
It is not exalting oneself, or lacking in humility, by simply trying to live a good life and doing one's best, in the hope that this will lead to redemption, as promised in Scripture.
Maybe Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality because he felt this topic was well enough covered already. Of course he may have spoken on the subject but his views weren't recorded in the Gospels, it wouldn't have been possible to record his every single utterance in his 33 years on earth.
Though i do disagree with your statement about homosexuality not occurring in nature - there are numerous studies disproving this - do a quick google search - also, we are, despite our sophistication and our dedication to ruining it (despite the obvious moral implications) part of nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
And that just took 10 secs on Wiki...
Quote from: J70 on May 01, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on May 01, 2015, 02:38:39 PM
Quote"Unnatural?" Are you saying that homosexuality does not exist in nature?
Its Extremely rare in Nature almost unknown . Seem much more often when animals are in captivity
same as with people Sailors prisoners ETC
It is not almost unknown in nature. For starters, check out our closest cousins, bonobos.
Regardless, rare does not equal unnatural. 90% of people are right handed. That does not make left handedness unnatural.
Sure anyone who has ever set foot on a farm will know all cattle show gay tendencies. When a cow is in heat the other cows will jump up on her back, mimicking the actions of the bull.
On Tuesday I saw a young bullock mounting a fully grown bull
Such nonsense some people come out with
Quote from: J70 on May 01, 2015, 01:30:47 PM
"Supporters of families"??
Spare us the American right wing Frank Lutz - type euphemisms!
Never heard of him, I'm not the one bringing American values into the debate.
QuoteIf my kids espouse bigoted views of anything, they will hear about it from me.
So if you were the parent of one of the homosexual people in the No campaign, would they "hear about it from you"? What would you say?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 01, 2015, 04:17:55 PM
by simply trying to live a good life and doing one's best
many peoples' view of living a good life and doing one's best are at odds with your views Tony, and also those of "scripture".
and again to be clear- do you mean Christian or catholic scripture?
Quote from: rosnarun on May 01, 2015, 04:14:04 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 01, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on May 01, 2015, 02:38:39 PM
Quote"Unnatural?" Are you saying that homosexuality does not exist in nature?
Its Extremely rare in Nature almost unknown . Seem much more often when animals are in captivity
same as with people Sailors prisoners ETC
It is not almost unknown in nature. For starters, check out our closest cousins, bonobos.
Regardless, rare does not equal unnatural. 90% of people are right handed. That does not make left handedness unnatural.
right/ left handedness is a conpleate non sequiter any more that hair colour , the one thing that is self evident is homsexuality is not hereditry where as the others are.
Bonobos are jsut randy feckers who use sex like activty for almost every purposebut are nearly never exclusively homosexual and im sure they are not the image human homosexuals would like to be their calling card
"Self-evident that homosexuality is not hereditry"? No its not self-evident. Genetics may play only a part, but so what? A mixture of genetics and environment does not mean its unnatural. And given that one can be trained to use their weaker hand, you can't say that left or right handedness is exclusively genetic either.
And I never said bonobos should serve as the model for human homosexual relationships or that their behavior was exclusively one or the other. I said they were an example of homosexual behaviour in the animal world i.e. natural.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 06:01:46 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 01, 2015, 01:30:47 PM
"Supporters of families"??
Spare us the American right wing Frank Lutz - type euphemisms!
Never heard of him, I'm not the one bringing American values into the debate.
If you say so, but "family values" is a staple of the American religious right, basically a euphemism for anti-homosexuality, and cultivated to great effect by Karl Rove, especially in the 2004 presidential election, and currently in the growing Republican field who were tripping over themselves last week in Iowa to condemn the move towards gay marriage nationally.
BTW, Luntz is a Republican operative who uses focus groups to test phrases and words for the GOP. Apparently it was he who advised the Bush Administration to use "climate change" instead of "global warming" and instead of inheritance tax, we now have "death tax" in the US. There are plenty of other instances where something will get relabled to make it more palatable or offensive, depending on whether they're pushing their own ideas or condemning the Democrats.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 06:01:46 PM
QuoteIf my kids espouse bigoted views of anything, they will hear about it from me.
So if you were the parent of one of the homosexual people in the No campaign, would they "hear about it from you"? What would you say?
It would obviously depend on how he rationalized his opposition.
Quote from: rosnarun on May 01, 2015, 02:38:39 PM
Quote"Unnatural?" Are you saying that homosexuality does not exist in nature?
Its Extremely rare in Nature almost unknown . Seem much more often when animals are in captivity
same as with people Sailors prisoners ETC
That is factually, empirically incorrect. Homosexuality is widespread in nature, it has been observed in thousands of species and is well documented in about 500 species.
Quote from: rosnarun on May 01, 2015, 04:14:04 PM
right/ left handedness is a conpleate non sequiter any more that hair colour , the one thing that is self evident is homsexuality is not hereditry where as the others are.
Bonobos are jsut randy feckers who use sex like activty for almost every purposebut are nearly never exclusively homosexual and im sure they are not the image human homosexuals would like to be their calling card
Bonobos are not always exclusively homosexual. Sounds a bit like humans.
Bonobos are highly sexual. Sounds a bit like humans.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 01, 2015, 04:17:55 PM
It is not exalting oneself, or lacking in humility, by simply trying to live a good life and doing one's best, in the hope that this will lead to redemption, as promised in Scripture.
And yet if you had a vote you would use it to prevent other "lesser" people from getting married. But apart from that you're just minding your own business.
Aye.
Right.
Dead on.
Keep her lit.
Quote from: J70 on May 01, 2015, 06:11:24 PM
BTW, Luntz is a Republican operative who uses focus groups to test phrases and words for the GOP. Apparently it was he who advised the Bush Administration to use "climate change" instead of "global warming" and instead of inheritance tax, we now have "death tax" in the US. There are plenty of other instances where something will get relabled to make it more palatable or offensive, depending on whether they're pushing their own ideas or condemning the Democrats.
The abuse of language is a frequent tool of extreme groups. So we have "marriage equality" instead of redefining marriage, and its "about people loving each other" when it really about paying less inheritance tax.
Quote from: Eamonnca1That is factually, empirically incorrect. Homosexuality is widespread in nature, it has been observed in thousands of species and is well documented in about 500 species
This is all very interesting, but the existence of homosexuality is not really in doubt, the issue here is whether there is a public policy requirement to give legal privilege to people practising it at the expense of the rest of society.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 06:30:35 PM
The abuse of language is a frequent tool of extreme groups. So we have "marriage equality" instead of redefining marriage, and its "about people loving each other" when it really about paying less inheritance tax.
So now gay people who want to get married are "an extreme group?"
Quote
This is all very interesting, but the existence of homosexuality is not really in doubt, the issue here is whether there is a public policy requirement to give legal privilege to people practising it at the expense of the rest of society.
I could use a bit of clarification on what you mean by "at the expense of the rest of society."
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 06:30:35 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1That is factually, empirically incorrect. Homosexuality is widespread in nature, it has been observed in thousands of species and is well documented in about 500 species
This is all very interesting, but the existence of homosexuality is not really in doubt, ...
I just realized what you did there. Nobody has questioned the existence of homosexuality and I was not refuting anyone who did. To put those goalposts back where you got them, the point made by someone else is that homosexuality is "unnatural." And that is tripe.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 06:30:35 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 01, 2015, 06:11:24 PM
BTW, Luntz is a Republican operative who uses focus groups to test phrases and words for the GOP. Apparently it was he who advised the Bush Administration to use "climate change" instead of "global warming" and instead of inheritance tax, we now have "death tax" in the US. There are plenty of other instances where something will get relabled to make it more palatable or offensive, depending on whether they're pushing their own ideas or condemning the Democrats.
The abuse of language is a frequent tool of extreme groups. So we have "marriage equality" instead of redefining marriage, and its "about people loving each other" when it really about paying less inheritance tax.
Quote from: Eamonnca1That is factually, empirically incorrect. Homosexuality is widespread in nature, it has been observed in thousands of species and is well documented in about 500 species
This is all very interesting, but the existence of homosexuality is not really in doubt, the issue here is whether there is a public policy requirement to give legal privilege to people practising it at the expense of the rest of society.
"Extreme groups"?? ;D
On the second point, Rosnarun is saying its unnatural.
At times, this thread can produce wonderful humor, usually from the fingers of TF. I especially like the statement that the "LGBT community are . . . increasingly intolerant" as opposed to . . .
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 01, 2015, 06:45:53 PM
At times, this thread can produce wonderful humor, usually from the fingers of TF. I especially like the statement that the "LGBT community are . . . increasingly intolerant" as opposed to . . .
To people who are used to privilege, equality feels like discrimination.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2015, 06:35:15 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 06:30:35 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1That is factually, empirically incorrect. Homosexuality is widespread in nature, it has been observed in thousands of species and is well documented in about 500 species
This is all very interesting, but the existence of homosexuality is not really in doubt, ...
I just realized what you did there. Nobody has questioned the existence of homosexuality and I was not refuting anyone who did. To put those goalposts back where you got them, the point made by someone else is that homosexuality is "unnatural." And that is tripe.
I didn't mover the goalposts, any movement in your imagination. The question of homosexuality being natural is not an issue in this case, except for a handful of lulas. No doubt it suits to keep attention on this, as it is so easily refuted.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 06:59:00 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2015, 06:35:15 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 06:30:35 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1That is factually, empirically incorrect. Homosexuality is widespread in nature, it has been observed in thousands of species and is well documented in about 500 species
This is all very interesting, but the existence of homosexuality is not really in doubt, ...
I just realized what you did there. Nobody has questioned the existence of homosexuality and I was not refuting anyone who did. To put those goalposts back where you got them, the point made by someone else is that homosexuality is "unnatural." And that is tripe.
I didn't mover the goalposts, any movement in your imagination. The question of homosexuality being natural is not an issue in this case, except for a handful of lulas. No doubt it suits to keep attention on this, as it is so easily refuted.
Take your complaint up with the person (s) who introduced the topic to the discussion then!
Quote from: J70 on May 01, 2015, 07:10:30 PM
Take your complaint up with the person (s) who introduced the topic to the discussion then!
OK, person who introduced this topic, please stop now.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 07:14:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 01, 2015, 07:10:30 PM
Take your complaint up with the person (s) who introduced the topic to the discussion then!
OK, person who introduced this topic, please stop now.
;D
I would argue that although Homosexuality appears in nature it doesn't make it natural.
Most if not all animals will also jump on their offspring if they are in heat. Is incest therefore natural?
An old grizzly animal will jump up on a young female in her first season - is pedophilia natural?
We are blurring the lines between normal and natural and evident in nature.....
That's a bit of a risky path to go down.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
I would argue that although Homosexuality appears in nature it doesn't make it natural.
Most if not all animals will also jump on their offspring if they are in heat. Is incest therefore natural?
An old grizzly animal will jump up on a young female in her first season - is pedophilia natural?
We are blurring the lines between normal and natural and evident in nature.....
That's a bit of a risky path to go down.
If something that occurs in nature is not natural, then what is?
Natural doesn't mean that human societies need to deem something acceptable, but it's case by case situation. Bringing up animal homosexual behaviour refutes the "its unnatural" argument, that's all.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
I would argue that although Homosexuality appears in nature it doesn't make it natural.
Most if not all animals will also jump on their offspring if they are in heat. Is incest therefore natural?
An old grizzly animal will jump up on a young female in her first season - is pedophilia natural?
We are blurring the lines between normal and natural and evident in nature.....
That's a bit of a risky path to go down.
It was Tony's line to compare with nature and to declare things natural and natural.
It is a complete red herring as murder is 'natural' for example. However we (usually) don't tolerate it in society.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
I would argue that although Homosexuality appears in nature it doesn't make it natural.
Most if not all animals will also jump on their offspring if they are in heat. Is incest therefore natural?
An old grizzly animal will jump up on a young female in her first season - is pedophilia natural?
We are blurring the lines between normal and natural and evident in nature.....
That's a bit of a risky path to go down.
Well
some people keep telling me that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural. Do you disagree with that argument?
I ask because when you bring up the inconvenient facts about homosexuality in nature, the homophobes have a tendency to wobble between two contradictory arguments, one saying that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, and the other saying that it's wrong because it is natural.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 07:14:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 01, 2015, 07:10:30 PM
Take your complaint up with the person (s) who introduced the topic to the discussion then!
OK, person who introduced this topic, please stop now.
Hehe!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2015, 08:33:01 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
I would argue that although Homosexuality appears in nature it doesn't make it natural.
Most if not all animals will also jump on their offspring if they are in heat. Is incest therefore natural?
An old grizzly animal will jump up on a young female in her first season - is pedophilia natural?
We are blurring the lines between normal and natural and evident in nature.....
That's a bit of a risky path to go down.
Well some people keep telling me that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural. Do you disagree with that argument?
I ask because when you bring up the inconvenient facts about homosexuality in nature, the homophobes have a tendency to wobble between two contradictory arguments, one saying that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, and the other saying that it's wrong because it is natural.
Define natural?
Is it true that in nature that animals and plants sole purpose is to create more?
In order to do that there needs to be a male and a female and according to the discovery channel and My Left Foot, do it for half an hour you get a baby, do it for an hour you get twins. Therefore anything contrary to that purpose would be unnatural? The species would not survive. Reproduction happens between a male and a female. So in line with that then homosexuality is not natural. Or where do we stand on that?
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:41:05 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2015, 08:33:01 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
I would argue that although Homosexuality appears in nature it doesn't make it natural.
Most if not all animals will also jump on their offspring if they are in heat. Is incest therefore natural?
An old grizzly animal will jump up on a young female in her first season - is pedophilia natural?
We are blurring the lines between normal and natural and evident in nature.....
That's a bit of a risky path to go down.
Well some people keep telling me that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural. Do you disagree with that argument?
I ask because when you bring up the inconvenient facts about homosexuality in nature, the homophobes have a tendency to wobble between two contradictory arguments, one saying that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, and the other saying that it's wrong because it is natural.
Define natural?
Is it true that in nature that animals and plants sole purpose is to create more?
In order to do that there needs to be a male and a female and according to the discovery channel and My Left Foot, do it for half an hour you get a baby, do it for an hour you get twins. Therefore anything contrary to that purpose would be unnatural? The species would not survive. Reproduction happens between a male and a female. So in line with that then homosexuality is not natural. Or where do we stand on that?
Celibacy should also be illegal so?
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:41:05 PM
Define natural?
Is it true that in nature that animals and plants sole purpose is to create more?
In order to do that there needs to be a male and a female and according to the discovery channel and My Left Foot, do it for half an hour you get a baby, do it for an hour you get twins. Therefore anything contrary to that purpose would be unnatural? The species would not survive. Reproduction happens between a male and a female. So in line with that then homosexuality is not natural. Or where do we stand on that?
I hope we're not going to get into an endless tennis match of answering every question with a question. The question was about how some people keep telling me that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural. Do you disagree with that argument or do you agree with it?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2015, 08:45:44 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:41:05 PM
Define natural?
Is it true that in nature that animals and plants sole purpose is to create more?
In order to do that there needs to be a male and a female and according to the discovery channel and My Left Foot, do it for half an hour you get a baby, do it for an hour you get twins. Therefore anything contrary to that purpose would be unnatural? The species would not survive. Reproduction happens between a male and a female. So in line with that then homosexuality is not natural. Or where do we stand on that?
I hope we're not going to get into an endless tennis match of answering every question with a question. The question was about how some people keep telling me that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural. Do you disagree with that argument or do you agree with it?
I agree with it. From a scientific standpoint it is unnatural.
I believe that animals display homosexual behaviour but I don't believe it has been proven that they are in fact homosexual. It seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long lasting predisposition to engage in homosexual behaviour. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct of animals is normally directed towards members of the opposite sex. Behaviour outside of this is just that - behaviour. Therefore I agree that homosexuality in nature does not exist and is unnatural.
Like Muppet says its a red herring.
We can't read human motivation and sentiment into animal behaviour. The term homosexuality should only be used for humans. In animals we can only observe motor behaviour. When you interpret animal's motivation we apply human psychodynamics which is surely a foolish and risky path....
Quote from: Tubberman on May 01, 2015, 08:42:59 PM
Celibacy should also be illegal so?
Illegality is not the point here, encouragement is. A society would be unwise to promote celibacy.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 08:59:08 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 01, 2015, 08:42:59 PM
Celibacy should also be illegal so?
Illegality is not the point here, encouragement is. A society would be unwise to promote celibacy.
Should we allow celibate people marry?
Quote from: muppet on May 01, 2015, 09:00:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 08:59:08 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 01, 2015, 08:42:59 PM
Celibacy should also be illegal so?
Illegality is not the point here, encouragement is. A society would be unwise to promote celibacy.
Should we allow celibate people marry?
Isn't that a definition of marriage sure Muppet at your age?
Married and celibate!!! ;) yooooo
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 09:01:22 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 01, 2015, 09:00:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 01, 2015, 08:59:08 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 01, 2015, 08:42:59 PM
Celibacy should also be illegal so?
Illegality is not the point here, encouragement is. A society would be unwise to promote celibacy.
Should we allow celibate people marry?
Isn't that a definition of marriage sure Muppet at your age?
Married and celibate!!! ;) yooooo
F*ck, I have to pretend to be asleep! Why do you think I took up running?
Muppet people are beginning to think you really are a Muppet
Sure it's not like the No side can actually win, if it fails we'll just be annoyed off our tits about it for another decade then asked again. Nice and Lisbon version 3. May as well vote Yes and get it out of the way.
Oh, and it's probably the right thing to do.
The George should be some fun the night of May 23rd.
It'll be like Copper's after Dublin beat Kerry in the All-Ireland final in 2011.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2015, 08:33:01 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
I would argue that although Homosexuality appears in nature it doesn't make it natural.
Most if not all animals will also jump on their offspring if they are in heat. Is incest therefore natural?
An old grizzly animal will jump up on a young female in her first season - is pedophilia natural?
We are blurring the lines between normal and natural and evident in nature.....
That's a bit of a risky path to go down.
Well some people keep telling me that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural. Do you disagree with that argument?
I ask because when you bring up the inconvenient facts about homosexuality in nature, the homophobes have a tendency to wobble between two contradictory arguments, one saying that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, and the other saying that it's wrong because it is natural.
Is everyone who disagrees with your agenda/point of view on this issue a homophobe?
I think homosexuality is wrong but I never want to see anyone discriminated against because they like me get one shot at this adventure.
The past is littered with wonderful people who happen to be gay,and whose lives were made abject misery at the hands of people who agreed with my opinion on the matter, that said every person on earth deserves to be treated with respect and to not be judged by his or her peers unless the law of the land is broken, I was once a walking advocate of the death penalty, no longer, I do not agree with gay marriage but as long as they are not married in a Christian Church I have no right to Judge, if they were married in a Christian Church I still have no right to do so, but God does!
Being on the conservative side does not mean you are an unfeeling bastard, it simply means you are accountable and are no less entitled to your opinion than are your homosexual/liberal counterparts.
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
Sensible article here
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/avoid-triumph-of-political-correctness-over-mother-nature-328052.html
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
Yeah because being Gay is just about the sex really isn't it?
When you're at a heterosexual wedding do you think about all the sex the couple are going to be having or is it just Gay sex you like to think about?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
If we're still talking about the referendum (and I'm not sure we are) then based on your last line, would you vote yes? Because the legal rights / financial security is really what the referendum is about in real terms
Yes I would vote yes, everyone should have the same financial rights no matter what their sexual perferences.
Quote from: annapr on May 02, 2015, 08:41:04 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
Yeah because being Gay is just about the sex really isn't it?
When you're at a heterosexual wedding do you think about all the sex the couple are going to be having or is it just Gay sex you like to think about?
So gay people don't have sex, they just want a flatmate or a buddy, is that it?
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 02, 2015, 09:22:53 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
If we're still talking about the referendum (and I'm not sure we are) then based on your last line, would you vote yes? Because the legal rights / financial security is really what the referendum is about in real terms
The right for two men to adopt a child however should not be allowed.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 10:02:06 AM
Quote from: annapr on May 02, 2015, 08:41:04 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
Yeah because being Gay is just about the sex really isn't it?
When you're at a heterosexual wedding do you think about all the sex the couple are going to be having or is it just Gay sex you like to think about?
So gay people don't have sex, they just want a flatmate or a buddy, is that it?
Yeah that's what I meant ::)
Quote from: annapr on May 02, 2015, 08:41:04 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
Yeah because being Gay is just about the sex really isn't it?
When you're at a heterosexual wedding do you think about all the sex the couple are going to be having or is it just Gay sex you like to think about?
I reckon most of the No camp think about gay sex an awful lot.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:28:16 PM
Annapr ,sad to say but I couldn't tolerate any gay family members.I would have to say I would be forced to disown them.Harsh I know but this is my honest view
A child needs a mother and father they say. Two gay men/women can't raise a child they say.
I think any child would be far better off being raised by two parents in a same sex relationship than having someone like you as a Dad.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 02, 2015, 08:13:01 AM
Sensible article here
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/avoid-triumph-of-political-correctness-over-mother-nature-328052.html
He hides his argument behind an ad hominem at the Taoiseach and the Government. Why? It makes it sound like a rant and it very obviously has a political agenda.
This referendum was proposed by the Constitutional Convention (out of 100 members, only 19 are from the Government) and was approved by both houses of An Oireachtais. But don't let any facts get in the way of....etc.
Two questions for the No camp:
Is it natural for a man to stick his penis in another man's rectum?
Is it natural for a man to stick his penis in a woman's rectum?
Sidney what you do behind close doors with your partner is your own business, now sure how it is relevant to the debate.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 02:35:44 PM
Sidney what you do behind close doors with your partner is your own business, now sure how it is relevant to the debate.
Let's be honest here. That's not how most of the No side see it.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 02:35:44 PM
Sidney what you do behind close doors with your partner is your own business, now sure how it is relevant to the debate.
I think you've just demolished the No case.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 03, 2015, 04:24:08 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 02:35:44 PM
Sidney what you do behind close doors with your partner is your own business, now sure how it is relevant to the debate.
I think you've just demolished to No case.
What's even better is the same poster wrote the following above:
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
Yep. "Their own business".
Sidney do you not hope the No Camp give the Yes crowd a run for their money,especially in Dublin?
The head of amnesty international is a gay man and he and his partner adopted the two children of a friend of his who died. Am I now to believe this is tantamount to child abuse. Shocking thing to say.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:28:16 PM
Annapr ,sad to say but I couldn't tolerate any gay family members.I would have to say I would be forced to disown them.Harsh I know but this is my honest view
Can't believe that more people viewing this thread have not commented on this awful post. And you call yourself a Christian? Surely this it the antihesis of what Christianity is all about. If this is genuinely how you feel, you are an awful human being and I pity you.
And if a family member were to commit murder,would there be a greater understanding for my lack of tolerance?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 11:56:11 AM
And if a family member were to commit murder,would there be a greater understanding for my lack of tolerance?
Yea, cause murder is just like homo-sexuality.
Tony. There is only one party in Ireland that is of a similar mindset to you and that's the DUP. Did you ever think of joining, seriously none of the nationalist parties would have any truck with your opinions.
I haven't really been following this debate but caught the discussion on the Late Late on Friday night. Is there really so much interest in this? Is this an issue that people who aren't in the gay community really care about? My feelings on this would be one of apathy. I couldn't care less if gay couples get married or not as it plays no part in my life. I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to vote no ..... Or yes for that matter.
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 03, 2015, 12:31:02 PM
I haven't really been following this debate but caught the discussion on the Late Late on Friday night. Is there really so much interest in this? Is this an issue that people who aren't in the gay community really care about? My feelings on this would be one of apathy. I couldn't care less if gay couples get married or not as it plays no part in my life. I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to vote no ..... Or yes for that matter.
Well, as long as your apathy extends to not casting an uninformed vote, you can't do any harm.
Rights for others should concern everyone, however.
Benny the issue is nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with rubbing the noses of Christians in it.
Quote from: J70 on May 03, 2015, 12:35:33 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 03, 2015, 12:31:02 PM
I haven't really been following this debate but caught the discussion on the Late Late on Friday night. Is there really so much interest in this? Is this an issue that people who aren't in the gay community really care about? My feelings on this would be one of apathy. I couldn't care less if gay couples get married or not as it plays no part in my life. I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to vote no ..... Or yes for that matter.
Well, as long as your apathy extends to not casting an uninformed vote, you can't do any harm.
Rights for others should concern everyone, however.
I'm not eligible to vote, so don't worry. But don't confuse my apathy for being uninformed, I just wouldn't feel strongly enough about it either way to go out of my way to vote. There's some scaremongering on both sides of this argument which is more concerning. I'd worry that some of the information out there is whipping up a whole population of people who will be casting an uninformed vote based on prejudice or fear.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 12:36:58 PM
Benny the issue is nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with rubbing the noses of Christians in it.
You'd fit in well with the Christian right and GOP in the US.
A big part of their current platform is the "persecution" and "victimization" of Christians.
Absent ANY evidence of actual harm, of course! :D
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 11:56:11 AM
And if a family member were to commit murder,would there be a greater understanding for my lack of tolerance?
Perhaps if a gay person was the victim, you'd be more tolerant?
Quote from: J70 on May 03, 2015, 12:56:31 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 12:36:58 PM
Benny the issue is nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with rubbing the noses of Christians in it.
You'd fit in well with the Christian right and GOP in the US.
A big part of their current platform is the "persecution" and "victimization" of Christians.
Absent ANY evidence of actual harm, of course! :D
The bullies playing the victim card. The oldest trick in the book from right-wingers. They're well practiced at it.
Quote from: Sidney on May 03, 2015, 06:35:07 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 03, 2015, 04:24:08 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 02:35:44 PM
Sidney what you do behind close doors with your partner is your own business, now sure how it is relevant to the debate.
I think you've just demolished to No case.
What's even better is the same poster wrote the following above:
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
Yep. "Their own business".
Sidney I was assuming you were not homosexual, obviously wrongly so I apologise, and my quote in bold was referring to your eloquent statement below.
Quote from: Sidney on May 02, 2015, 12:10:20 PM
Two questions for the No camp:
Is it natural for a man to stick his penis in another man's rectum?
Is it natural for a man to stick his penis in a woman's rectum?
Quote from: Itchy on May 03, 2015, 09:03:10 AM
The head of amnesty international is a gay man and he and his partner adopted the two children of a friend of his who died. Am I now to believe this is tantamount to child abuse. Shocking thing to say.
But true, has he more maternal instincts because he is the head of amnesty international, catch a grip ffs.
Big difference in maternal instincts versus child abuse. Sensationalist nonsense.
And is there a big difference between two homosexual men adopting a child and two homosexual men where one has a high profile job, why mention the job, sure Elton John bought a few kids for him and his gay partner mention him too. Two men should not be allowed to adopt children.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 03, 2015, 01:45:55 PM
Quote from: Sidney on May 03, 2015, 06:35:07 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 03, 2015, 04:24:08 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 02:35:44 PM
Sidney what you do behind close doors with your partner is your own business, now sure how it is relevant to the debate.
I think you've just demolished to No case.
What's even better is the same poster wrote the following above:
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
Yep. "Their own business".
Sidney I was assuming you were not homosexual, obviously wrongly so I apologise, and my quote in bold was referring to your eloquent statement below.
Quote from: Sidney on May 02, 2015, 12:10:20 PM
Two questions for the No camp:
Is it natural for a man to stick his penis in another man's rectum?
Is it natural for a man to stick his penis in a woman's rectum?
No mate, I'm not, but it's obvious you'd have a problem if I was.
So for your eloquent statement about where you put your appendage with your female partner, that really is unnatural but as I said what you do behind close doors with your partner is your own business, now sure how it is relevant to the debate.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 03, 2015, 02:55:09 PM
So for your eloquent statement about where you put your appendage with your female partner, that really is unnatural but as I said what you do behind close doors with your partner is your own business, now sure how it is relevant to the debate.
Woops, you probably shouldn't have posted this, then.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal
You really are very very stupid Sidney - so I will spell it out again, you said is it natural for a man to indulge in anal sex with a woman, I said what you do as you obviously practice this with your partner given you said you are not homosexual , behind close doors with your partner is your own business, now sure how it is relevant to the debate. You are covering yourself in glory here Sidney keep it up, pardon the pun there!
If it helps you I could re-post and change you do to Sidney does and your partner to Sidney's partner, would that aid you at all?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 03, 2015, 04:09:00 PM
You really are very very stupid Sidney - so I will spell it out again, you said is it natural for a man to indulge in anal sex with a woman, I said what you do as you obviously practice this with your partner given you said you are not homosexual , behind close doors with your partner is your own business, now sure how it is relevant to the debate. You are covering yourself in glory here Sidney keep it up, pardon the pun there!
You might want to read back.
I never said anything about whether or not I partake in anal sex.
I didn't say anything about whether I thought anal sex (whether it be with a male or a female) was natural or not. I merely asked for others' opinions, specifically people from the No camp.
You claim in one post that sexual practices conducted by gay people are of no relevance to the debate. Yet what you posted previously would strongly indicate that you are not of this opinion at all, and that the sexual practices of the gay community are very important to the debate as far as you're concerned.
So to clarify,
you're the one making the sexual practices of gay people an issue.
I think it would be best for you and many other No people to be honest about this - that what gay people do sex-wise is an issue to them.
Tony, fair play to him, is at least honest about his bigotry.
Quote from: Sidney on May 03, 2015, 04:31:54 PM
You claim in one post that sexual practices conducted by gay people are of no relevance to the debate. Yet what you posted previously would strongly indicate that you are not of this opinion at all, and that the sexual practices of the gay community are very important to the debate as far as you're concerned.
Where did I say this, and please read my posts carefully before replying, is it the English Language that is confusing you - should I post in Irish would that help?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 03, 2015, 04:39:27 PM
Quote from: Sidney on May 03, 2015, 04:31:54 PM
You claim in one post that sexual practices conducted by gay people are of no relevance to the debate. Yet what you posted previously would strongly indicate that you are not of this opinion at all, and that the sexual practices of the gay community are very important to the debate as far as you're concerned.
Where did I say this, and please read my posts carefully before replying, is it the English Language that is confusing you - should I post in Irish would that help?
So now you're admitting that you think the sexual practices of gay people
are of relevance to the debate? Well, at least that was easy to drag out of you.
Too easy. ;D
Quote from: Sidney on May 03, 2015, 04:44:25 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 03, 2015, 04:39:27 PM
Quote from: Sidney on May 03, 2015, 04:31:54 PM
You claim in one post that sexual practices conducted by gay people are of no relevance to the debate. Yet what you posted previously would strongly indicate that you are not of this opinion at all, and that the sexual practices of the gay community are very important to the debate as far as you're concerned.
Where did I say this, and please read my posts carefully before replying, is it the English Language that is confusing you - should I post in Irish would that help?
So now you're admitting that you think the sexual practices of gay people are of relevance to the debate? Well, at least that was easy to drag out of you.
Too easy. ;D
Please point out where I said this, Ok for the last time you asked about anal sex is it natural I alluded to the fact you practiced it tongue firmly in cheek and stated Sidney what you do (what Sidney does) behind close doors with your partner (Sidney's Partner) is your own business (Sidney's business), not sure how it is relevant to the debate. It obviously went totally over your head, probably best you get back to reading The Sun or Daily Star. I believe the quote is "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
You are obviously only a cub so the next time I will remember to use rolly eyes etc so you can understand better, bless! As for the too easy quote that reaffirms you are probably too young to vote anyway.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 03, 2015, 04:50:16 PM
Quote from: Sidney on May 03, 2015, 04:44:25 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 03, 2015, 04:39:27 PM
Quote from: Sidney on May 03, 2015, 04:31:54 PM
You claim in one post that sexual practices conducted by gay people are of no relevance to the debate. Yet what you posted previously would strongly indicate that you are not of this opinion at all, and that the sexual practices of the gay community are very important to the debate as far as you're concerned.
Where did I say this, and please read my posts carefully before replying, is it the English Language that is confusing you - should I post in Irish would that help?
So now you're admitting that you think the sexual practices of gay people are of relevance to the debate? Well, at least that was easy to drag out of you.
Too easy. ;D
Please point out where I said this, Ok for the last time you asked about anal sex is it natural I alluded to the fact you practiced it tongue firmly in cheek and stated Sidney what you do (what Sidney does) behind close doors with your partner (Sidney's Partner) is your own business (Sidney's business), not sure how it is relevant to the debate. It obviously went totally over your head, probably best you get back to reading The Sun or Daily Star. I believe the quote is "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
You are obviously only a cub so the next time I will remember to use rolly eyes etc so you can understand better, bless! As for the too easy quote that reaffirms you are probably too young to vote anyway.
Well done mate. You should put that quote on your Facebook page to impress people. Profound, particularly in relation to yourself.
What the hell has happened to this board?
Maybe time for a new address: gayboard.com
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 03, 2015, 07:12:51 PM
Maybe time for a new address: gayboard.com
Great idea.
Tony would have to disown us.
Should we have a referendum on it?
Quote from: Sidney on May 03, 2015, 05:11:46 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 03, 2015, 04:50:16 PM
Quote from: Sidney on May 03, 2015, 04:44:25 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 03, 2015, 04:39:27 PM
Quote from: Sidney on May 03, 2015, 04:31:54 PM
You claim in one post that sexual practices conducted by gay people are of no relevance to the debate. Yet what you posted previously would strongly indicate that you are not of this opinion at all, and that the sexual practices of the gay community are very important to the debate as far as you're concerned.
Where did I say this, and please read my posts carefully before replying, is it the English Language that is confusing you - should I post in Irish would that help?
So now you're admitting that you think the sexual practices of gay people are of relevance to the debate? Well, at least that was easy to drag out of you.
Too easy. ;D
Please point out where I said this, Ok for the last time you asked about anal sex is it natural I alluded to the fact you practiced it tongue firmly in cheek and stated Sidney what you do (what Sidney does) behind close doors with your partner (Sidney's Partner) is your own business (Sidney's business), not sure how it is relevant to the debate. It obviously went totally over your head, probably best you get back to reading The Sun or Daily Star. I believe the quote is "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
You are obviously only a cub so the next time I will remember to use rolly eyes etc so you can understand better, bless! As for the too easy quote that reaffirms you are probably too young to vote anyway.
Well done mate. You should put that quote on your Facebook page to impress people. Profound, particularly in relation to yourself.
Stop flirting lads and get a room!
The horrifying outcome of being raised by same-sex parents:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 03, 2015, 08:01:46 PM
The horrifying outcome of being raised by same-sex parents:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q)
This kind of contribution is pointless, but then pointless contributions are par for the course. There being several billions sets of same sex parents then presumably a variety of situations can be identified. Presumably someone can find a case where both parent wore glasses and abused their children, but a sample of one says nothing about the desirability of bespectacled persons in general raising children.
There is a need to differentiate between points.If a child is orphaned as a result of a car crash,and is then raised by two aunts for example,there is no issue,but it does become an issue if the same sex substitute parents are in a gay relationship with each other
I'll be voting Yes, and haven't seen one argument that would make me doubt my decision for a second.
Here's a few questions people should ask themselves before voting, and my views:
i) Is being attracted to members of the same sex equally as natural and normal as being attracted to members of the opposite sex?
Yes. It's entirely natural and normal. The fact there are less gay people than straight people in no way makes it less natural or normal, in a similar way to how people with red hair are no less natural or normal.
ii) Are relationships between members of the same sex equally as natural and normal as relationships between members of the opposite sex?
Yes, for the same reason as i).
iii) Is it important that we should recognise this equality by allowing people of the same sex to marry?
Yes. In my view it's very important because it will go a long way towards making a section of society who have always previously suffered prejudice and bigotry towards them, feel that their sexual orientation is now accepted as as natural, normal and valid as that of people who are attracted to members of the opposite sex, and that as people they are accepted as equal.
iv) Will marriage be redefined under the constitution if the referendum is passed?
No, because the constitution does not define marriage. My own view is, who cares whether the definition of marriage is being redefined? But for what it's worth, the constitution will not be changed either way.
v) Should a gay couple be allowed adopt?
That's irrelevant to the debate, because a gay couple will be able to adopt anyway, regardless of the referendum result, because the Children and Family Relationships Bill, which has already been passed, allows civil partners and cohabiting couples who have lived together for three years to adopt.
I do think that a gay couple should be allowed adopt. But that opinion and that question is as relevant to this debate as my view that the BDO is better darts organisation than the pdc. And given that, the key argument in the No campaign falls away completely.
vi) Is Ireland still a homophobic society?
In my view, certainly yes. That homophobia may be less explicit and more covert than before, but it still very much exists, there is still a significant degree of homophobia internalised in many straight people. A Yes vote will not end that but will send a strong message that homophobia should not and will not be tolerated, no more than racism should be.
vii) Are there valid, non-homophobic reasons for voting no?
Perhaps, but I've yet to see one, and the No campaign in my view has been based entirely on fear and a thinly veiled appeal to base prejudices, using arguments that are wholly irrelevant to the question we're voting on.
That's not to say the Yes side have run a stellar campaign, as they're being sidetracked into arguing irrelevant points, but any examination of the real points means the decision as to which way to vote, to me is a very easy one.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 09:41:30 PM
There is a need to differentiate between points.If a child is orphaned as a result of a car crash,and is then raised by two aunts for example,there is no issue,but it does become an issue if the same sex substitute parents are in a gay relationship with each other
See, it all comes down to the gay sex with you. You're obsessed with it really, aren't you? ;D
I am not obsessed with it (repulsed would be a better word).I just cannot see who any child raised in an unnatural environment could turn out to be normal.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 10:26:14 PM
I am not obsessed with it (repulsed would be a better word).I just cannot see who any child raised in an unnatural environment could turn out to be normal.
As I said earlier, at least you're honest in your bigotry. If only others in the No camp could be as honest. It would make things easier for everybody.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 10:26:14 PM
I am not obsessed with it (repulsed would be a better word).I just cannot see who any child raised in an unnatural environment could turn out to be normal.
So if a man does his wife up the jacksie, is that unnatural?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 10:26:14 PM
I am not obsessed with it (repulsed would be a better word).I just cannot see who any child raised in an unnatural environment could turn out to be normal.
Like the Magdalene laundries, or an abused child who is raised while sworn to secrecy regarding his abuse?
Quote from: general_lee on May 03, 2015, 10:55:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 10:26:14 PM
I am not obsessed with it (repulsed would be a better word).I just cannot see who any child raised in an unnatural environment could turn out to be normal.
So if a man does his wife up the jacksie, is that unnatural?
Yes -do you or Sidney think differently?
Quote from: muppet on May 03, 2015, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 10:26:14 PM
I am not obsessed with it (repulsed would be a better word).I just cannot see who any child raised in an unnatural environment could turn out to be normal.
Like the Magdalene laundries, or an abused child who is raised while sworn to secrecy regarding his abuse?
Petty - what benefits could a young child have in society being raised by two men - and facts please? Do you think two gay men will have the same social circles as a heterosexual couple, it is tantamount to child abuse.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 03, 2015, 11:15:30 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 03, 2015, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 10:26:14 PM
I am not obsessed with it (repulsed would be a better word).I just cannot see who any child raised in an unnatural environment could turn out to be normal.
Like the Magdalene laundries, or an abused child who is raised while sworn to secrecy regarding his abuse?
Petty - what benefits could a young child have in society being raised by two men - and facts please? Do you think two gay men will have the same social circles as a heterosexual couple, it is tantamount to child abuse.
Child abuse?
I feel sorry for people like you. You should seek help before you damage anyone. I really hope you get that help before you have any children.
Quote from: muppet on May 03, 2015, 11:20:28 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 03, 2015, 11:15:30 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 03, 2015, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 10:26:14 PM
I am not obsessed with it (repulsed would be a better word).I just cannot see who any child raised in an unnatural environment could turn out to be normal.
Like the Magdalene laundries, or an abused child who is raised while sworn to secrecy regarding his abuse?
Petty - what benefits could a young child have in society being raised by two men - and facts please? Do you think two gay men will have the same social circles as a heterosexual couple, it is tantamount to child abuse.
Child abuse?
I feel sorry for people like you. You should seek help before you damage anyone. I really hope you get that help before you have any children.
Agreed Muppet. It is sad to read tripe like that. You have the DUP on one side and on the other you can see the same types.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 03, 2015, 09:17:14 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 03, 2015, 08:01:46 PM
The horrifying outcome of being raised by same-sex parents:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q)
This kind of contribution is pointless, but then pointless contributions are par for the course. There being several billions sets of same sex parents then presumably a variety of situations can be identified. Presumably someone can find a case where both parent wore glasses and abused their children, but a sample of one says nothing about the desirability of bespectacled persons in general raising children.
Okay then. Let's hear your empirical evidence that shows that having same-sex parents is harmful.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 10:26:14 PM
I am not obsessed with it (repulsed would be a better word).
I'll bet you've got a mountain of lesbian porn taller than the Empire State Building.
QuoteI just cannot see who any child raised in an unnatural environment could turn out to be normal.
Try watching the link I posted above. Does that young fella look "normal" to you?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 03, 2015, 11:12:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 03, 2015, 10:55:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 10:26:14 PM
I am not obsessed with it (repulsed would be a better word).I just cannot see who any child raised in an unnatural environment could turn out to be normal.
So if a man does his wife up the jacksie, is that unnatural?
Yes -do you or Sidney think differently?
I'll reveal my hand here.
No, I don't think it's unnatural at all, given that anal sex has been practised for as long as humans have been around.
Also, gay sex acts have been commonly observed in over 1,500 species in the animal kingdom, and I know the No camp are very big on what happens in the animal kingdom, when determining whether something is natural or not.
Here's another question: Is oral sex unnatural, given that, presumably, the No camp would be of the opinion that a mouth wasn't made for a penis to be inserted into?
Quote from: muppet on May 03, 2015, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 10:26:14 PM
I am not obsessed with it (repulsed would be a better word).I just cannot see who any child raised in an unnatural environment could turn out to be normal.
Like the Magdalene laundries, or an abused child who is raised while sworn to secrecy regarding his abuse?
For generations in this country, children have subject to abuse at the hands of the Catholic Church, and yet we're told by some that we should listen to them in deciding what's best for children.
Forgive me if I don't listen.
Quote from: Sidney on May 04, 2015, 12:04:05 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 03, 2015, 11:12:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 03, 2015, 10:55:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 10:26:14 PM
I am not obsessed with it (repulsed would be a better word).I just cannot see who any child raised in an unnatural environment could turn out to be normal.
So if a man does his wife up the jacksie, is that unnatural?
Yes -do you or Sidney think differently?
I'll reveal my hand here.
No, I don't think it's unnatural at all, given that anal sex has been practised for as long as humans have been around.
Also, gay sex acts have been commonly observed in over 1,500 species in the animal kingdom, and I know the No camp are very big on what happens in the animal kingdom, when determining whether something is natural or not.
Here's another question: Is oral sex unnatural, given that, presumably, the No camp would be of the opinion that a mouth wasn't made for a penis to be inserted into?
Anyone else getting turned on by this recent discussion or is it just me?
Quote from: Olly on May 04, 2015, 12:28:32 AM
Quote from: Sidney on May 04, 2015, 12:04:05 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 03, 2015, 11:12:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 03, 2015, 10:55:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 10:26:14 PM
I am not obsessed with it (repulsed would be a better word).I just cannot see who any child raised in an unnatural environment could turn out to be normal.
So if a man does his wife up the jacksie, is that unnatural?
Yes -do you or Sidney think differently?
I'll reveal my hand here.
No, I don't think it's unnatural at all, given that anal sex has been practised for as long as humans have been around.
Also, gay sex acts have been commonly observed in over 1,500 species in the animal kingdom, and I know the No camp are very big on what happens in the animal kingdom, when determining whether something is natural or not.
Here's another question: Is oral sex unnatural, given that, presumably, the No camp would be of the opinion that a mouth wasn't made for a penis to be inserted into?
Anyone else getting turned on by this recent discussion or is it just me?
The question is - are you getting turned on by natural or artificial means?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 09:41:30 PM
There is a need to differentiate between points.If a child is orphaned as a result of a car crash,and is then raised by two aunts for example,there is no issue,but it does become an issue if the same sex substitute parents are in a gay relationship with each other
What is the difference Tone please explain it to me! First of all why are two aunts living together?? Then what part of their relationship dynamic makes them better than 2 parents who love each other?? Male or female??
Yes I know your opinion is one I can't change as Oneill has alluded to on more than one occasion but the reality is the main crux of your argument is rooted in the old Testament and "tradition" surely if you're such a stickler for tradition the orangemen should march down Garvaghy freely??????
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
One personal anecdote of a gay person who turned up the campness after the release of coming out is proof that homosexuality is a choice? ;D
I presume your evidence that gay adoption is child abuse is just as robust!
Screen the difference in two aunts and a gay couple is simply the behaviour observed by the child.Eg two aunts wouldn't share the same bed.Also where or where not Orangemen or any other grouping parade does not exercise me in the slightest.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 03, 2015, 11:57:34 PM
Okay then. Let's hear your empirical evidence that shows that having same-sex parents is harmful.
"Harmful" is pejorative, I didn't make a claim that have same sex parents was bad, only that different sex parents on balance were preferable.
You are the people seeking to change the constitution, you should be producing the evidence beyond reasonable doubt, not me. The constitution should not be changed in trivial way, but only if the evidence is clear, but all we get are these samples of one and spurious statements about equality. At the very minimum the whole thing is being conducted with undue haste.
There is a lot of evidence that there problems with non biological parents than arise less with biological ones, the so called Cinderella Effect. Now I realise that this is not entirely clear, but the very least that we should expect is the collection of a proper amount of data to clarify things before changing constitutions and the like.
I say again anyone of the internet warriors here would shit a brick if their son / daughter told them they were gay, irrespective of what shite they spout here. To say you would not be disappointed is a complete lie. In primary school party invites come home most weeks and it appears all girls invite all girls and all boys invite all boys, I drop my youngest who is 5 off at a house or soft ball area and collect a few hours later. If my youngest came home with a party invite from a child who's parents were Barry and Paddy they certainly wouldn't be dropped off to that party and I bet it would not be alone with reservations. Also if it is OK for two men to adopt I take it that extends to a man who has went under surgery and got a few breasts, so a transexual and a gay male partner could also adopt, seriously what sort of message is that sending to a young child, it is wrong and society should be ashamed and taken to task for allowing this to occur.
As for Sidney he is obviously just a cub obsessed with watching porn from what he is posting.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 09:10:15 AM
As for Sidney he is obviously just a cub obsessed with watching porn from what he is posting.
Have you really got kids? Feck me!
God made Daddy for Mammy,not Daddy for Paddy
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 07:35:39 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 03, 2015, 11:57:34 PM
Okay then. Let's hear your empirical evidence that shows that having same-sex parents is harmful.
"Harmful" is pejorative, I didn't make a claim that have same sex parents was bad, only that different sex parents on balance were preferable.
You are the people seeking to change the constitution, you should be producing the evidence beyond reasonable doubt, not me. The constitution should not be changed in trivial way, but only if the evidence is clear, but all we get are these samples of one and spurious statements about equality. At the very minimum the whole thing is being conducted with undue haste.
There is a lot of evidence that there problems with non biological parents than arise less with biological ones, the so called Cinderella Effect. Now I realise that this is not entirely clear, but the very least that we should expect is the collection of a proper amount of data to clarify things before changing constitutions and the like.
This referendum has nothing to do with same-sex parenting
Quote from: topcuppla on May 03, 2015, 11:12:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on May 03, 2015, 10:55:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 10:26:14 PM
I am not obsessed with it (repulsed would be a better word).I just cannot see who any child raised in an unnatural environment could turn out to be normal.
So if a man does his wife up the jacksie, is that unnatural?
Yes -do you or Sidney think differently?
Don't knock it til ya try it ;D
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/catholic-bishops-urge-no-vote-in-republic-of-irelands-marriage-equality-referendum-31192705.html
You "no" it makes sense!
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 04, 2015, 10:06:48 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 07:35:39 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 03, 2015, 11:57:34 PM
Okay then. Let's hear your empirical evidence that shows that having same-sex parents is harmful.
"Harmful" is pejorative, I didn't make a claim that have same sex parents was bad, only that different sex parents on balance were preferable.
You are the people seeking to change the constitution, you should be producing the evidence beyond reasonable doubt, not me. The constitution should not be changed in trivial way, but only if the evidence is clear, but all we get are these samples of one and spurious statements about equality. At the very minimum the whole thing is being conducted with undue haste.
There is a lot of evidence that there problems with non biological parents than arise less with biological ones, the so called Cinderella Effect. Now I realise that this is not entirely clear, but the very least that we should expect is the collection of a proper amount of data to clarify things before changing constitutions and the like.
This referendum has nothing to do with same-sex parenting
A yes vote will completely open the door to it.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 04, 2015, 11:51:55 AM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/catholic-bishops-urge-no-vote-in-republic-of-irelands-marriage-equality-referendum-31192705.html
You "no" it makes sense!
Reflecting the view of his fellow bishops, Dr Boyce said the Church accepts people "with homosexual tendencies"
They really are a great set of lads.
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 04, 2015, 09:17:32 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 09:10:15 AM
As for Sidney he is obviously just a cub obsessed with watching porn from what he is posting.
Have you really got kids? Feck me!
Yeah I married a woman and let nature take it's course. Have you kids?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 09:09:38 AM
I say again anyone of the internet warriors here would shit a brick if their son / daughter told them they were gay, irrespective of what shite they spout here. To say you would not be disappointed is a complete lie.
Not being funny here but you might want to address this within yourself. You should have unconditional love for your children. It's disappointing that some people feel the way you do in 2015.
Quote from: macdanger2
This referendum has nothing to do with same-sex parenting
This is the thread on the marriage referendum, either you are referring to the presidential age referendum or you are think we are eejits.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 12:32:36 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 link=topic=25487.msg1464021#msg1464021
This referendum has nothing to do with same-sex parenting
/quote]
This is the thread on the marriage referendum, either you are referring to the presidential age referendum or you are think se are eejits.
You're obviously not familiar with what's being voted on here. MacDanger is correct.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 09:09:38 AM
I say again anyone of the internet warriors here would shit a brick if their son / daughter told them they were gay, irrespective of what shite they spout here. To say you would not be disappointed is a complete lie. In primary school party invites come home most weeks and it appears all girls invite all girls and all boys invite all boys, I drop my youngest who is 5 off at a house or soft ball area and collect a few hours later. If my youngest came home with a party invite from a child who's parents were Barry and Paddy they certainly wouldn't be dropped off to that party and I bet it would not be alone with reservations. Also if it is OK for two men to adopt I take it that extends to a man who has went under surgery and got a few breasts, so a transexual and a gay male partner could also adopt, seriously what sort of message is that sending to a young child, it is wrong and society should be ashamed and taken to task for allowing this to occur.
Your rage seems to be focused on gay men. Lesbians are ok by you, are they? ;D
And you should stop projecting your own prejudice and rage onto others. Besides, even if one' s initial reaction were one of private disappointment, most decent people (unless youre like Tony and it's really all about the affront to YOU) would (and do) accept it and support their child. Things have changed in recent years and there is much less need to be fearful for a gay child.
My remaining parent is past pension age, and never batted an eyelid when a gay friend officiated at myself and my wife's wedding. Even people raised in 40s- 60s Ireland aren't necessarily consumed with fear and loathing for homosexuality.
Thankfully society is leaving men such as yourself whose hang-up with gays extends to even stopping a kid going to a bloody birthday party behind.
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, or is this only something you address when you child "comes out" as it where.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
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, or is this only something you address when you child "comes out" as it where.
We have gay friends who are married with whom our kids regularly interact. Even if we didn't, we would still be teaching our kids that it's normal, just like different races, accents and right/left handedness.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 09:09:38 AM
I say again anyone of the internet warriors here would shit a brick if their son / daughter told them they were gay, irrespective of what shite they spout here. To say you would not be disappointed is a complete lie. In primary school party invites come home most weeks and it appears all girls invite all girls and all boys invite all boys, I drop my youngest who is 5 off at a house or soft ball area and collect a few hours later. If my youngest came home with a party invite from a child who's parents were Barry and Paddy they certainly wouldn't be dropped off to that party and I bet it would not be alone with reservations. Also if it is OK for two men to adopt I take it that extends to a man who has went under surgery and got a few breasts, so a transexual and a gay male partner could also adopt, seriously what sort of message is that sending to a young child, it is wrong and society should be ashamed and taken to task for allowing this to occur.
That's a recipe for making your children mentally ill there if ever I saw one.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
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?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 04, 2015, 09:49:03 AM
God made Daddy for Mammy,not Daddy for Paddy
God made viruses as well, Tony. And some awful diseases.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/63481-religion-has-actually-convinced-people-that-there-s-an-invisible-man
"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!"
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 12:32:36 PM
Quote from: macdanger2
This referendum has nothing to do with same-sex parenting
This is the thread on the marriage referendum, either you are referring to the presidential age referendum or you are think we are eejits.
I'll refer you to your own previous post:
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 09:24:38 AM
The previous post is written as if the recent adoption act had never been passed, maybe you should extend your reading to that.
which was in response to this post:
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=25487.msg1462543#msg1462543
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 12:15:13 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 04, 2015, 10:06:48 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 07:35:39 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 03, 2015, 11:57:34 PM
Okay then. Let's hear your empirical evidence that shows that having same-sex parents is harmful.
"Harmful" is pejorative, I didn't make a claim that have same sex parents was bad, only that different sex parents on balance were preferable.
You are the people seeking to change the constitution, you should be producing the evidence beyond reasonable doubt, not me. The constitution should not be changed in trivial way, but only if the evidence is clear, but all we get are these samples of one and spurious statements about equality. At the very minimum the whole thing is being conducted with undue haste.
There is a lot of evidence that there problems with non biological parents than arise less with biological ones, the so called Cinderella Effect. Now I realise that this is not entirely clear, but the very least that we should expect is the collection of a proper amount of data to clarify things before changing constitutions and the like.
This referendum has nothing to do with same-sex parenting
A yes vote will completely open the door to it.
It's already wide open and this outcome of this vote one way or the other will not change it. Same-sex adoption is already legal under the Children and Family Relationships Bill:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/cabinet-approves-bill-allowing-adoption-by-same-sex-couples-1.2106843
Quote from: ONeill on May 04, 2015, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
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.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 02:53:24 PM
Quote from: ONeill on May 04, 2015, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
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"?
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2015, 03:24:36 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 02:53:24 PM
Quote from: ONeill on May 04, 2015, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
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.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 02:53:24 PM
Quote from: ONeill on May 04, 2015, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
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.
What if your kid told you he was gay? I've no doubt you'd cure him by making him watch footie and drink beer?
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.
Stew, you are becoming much more open-minded. First, it was the death penalty, and now it's same-sex relationship. All you need now is to undergo Harps-conversion therapy. Good man.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 02:53:24 PM
Quote from: ONeill on May 04, 2015, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
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.
WTF backwoods do you come from? Progressive? Maybe in the 1950s or early 60s.
You made a right few incorrect assumptions in that post but I'll deal with one. My children are 8. They're big fans of Modern Family which has 2 gay men as prominent characters. I think one of my children may have asked if they were gay when they started watching it. And that was that. The don't bat an eyelid to what sexuality someone is. Funny, earlier today the son heard something about this referendum on RTE and asked me why gay men cannot marry. He asked 'isn't that racist?'
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 04, 2015, 02:31:38 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 12:32:36 PM
Quote from: macdanger2
This referendum has nothing to do with same-sex parenting
This is the thread on the marriage referendum, either you are referring to the presidential age referendum or you are think we are eejits.
I'll refer you to your own previous post:
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 09:24:38 AM
The previous post is written as if the recent adoption act had never been passed, maybe you should extend your reading to that.
which was in response to this post:
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=25487.msg1462543#msg1462543
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.
Quote from: ONeill on May 04, 2015, 05:24:32 PM
You made a right few incorrect assumptions in that post but I'll deal with one. My children are 8. They're big fans of Modern Family which has 2 gay men as prominent characters. I think one of my children may have asked if they were gay when they started watching it. And that was that. The don't bat an eyelid to what sexuality someone is. Funny, earlier today the son heard something about this referendum on RTE and asked me why gay men cannot marry. He asked 'isn't that racist?'
That figures. The entire campaign by yes has been conducted at the level of 8 year olds.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 05:52:41 PM
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.
So you agree that this referendum has nothing to do with same-sex parenting?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 05:52:41 PM
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?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 09:09:38 AM
I say again anyone of the internet warriors here would shit a brick if their son / daughter told them they were gay, irrespective of what shite they spout here. To say you would not be disappointed is a complete lie. In primary school party invites come home most weeks and it appears all girls invite all girls and all boys invite all boys, I drop my youngest who is 5 off at a house or soft ball area and collect a few hours later. If my youngest came home with a party invite from a child who's parents were Barry and Paddy they certainly wouldn't be dropped off to that party and I bet it would not be alone with reservations. Also if it is OK for two men to adopt I take it that extends to a man who has went under surgery and got a few breasts, so a transexual and a gay male partner could also adopt, seriously what sort of message is that sending to a young child, it is wrong and society should be ashamed and taken to task for allowing this to occur.
I think we heard you the first time.
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 06:49:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 05:52:41 PM
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
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 06:49:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 05:52:41 PM
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?
2 wemen - who's reversing the motor
2 men - who's cleaning the bath.
2 Meath men - who's the greatest Royal gay icon - Prince Willie or Hardy.
Here's one for ye...
My friend's uncle who is gay has said to him that he's voting no because marriage is an 'institution of the church" which he wants nothing to do with it.
Don't ask me to decipher his thought process.
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 06:49:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 06:49:12 PMAs 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. Quote
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.
I
John Waters was quoted in the Irish Times on Saturday. Half a million kids in the 26 counties in one parent families.
Gay marriage is more symbolic than anything else. Giving some sort of equality to people who were denied it.
But the law can't do much about messy emotional situations.
"Australian children with same-sex attracted parents score higher than population samples on a number of parent-reported measures of child health. Perceived stigma is negatively associated with mental health. Through improved awareness of stigma these findings play an important role in health policy, improving child health outcomes."
Source: Parent-reported measures of child health and wellbeing in same-sex parent families: a cross-sectional survey
Simon R Crouch, Elizabeth Waters, Ruth McNair, Jennifer Power and Elise Davis
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/635/abstract (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/635/abstract)
"Previous studies on adolescent psychological adjustment found few differences between American and British offspring in
same-sex female parent families and their counterparts with heterosexual parents (Gartrell & Bos, 2010; Golombok & Badger,
2010; Rivers et al., 2008; Wainright & Patterson, 2006, 2008; Wainright et al., 2004). The American and British results have
now been replicated and expanded upon in the Netherlands. In sum, our results suggest that even though Dutch adolescents
with lesbian and heterosexual parents had similar scores on self-reported and parent-reported problem behavior, for adolescents
in planned lesbian families, adolescent-reported homophobic stigmatization was associated with more problem
behavior. These findings suggest that same-sex parents could benefit from guidance in preparing their offspring for the
prospect of discrimination in order to teach them effective responses to hostile comments and behavior. Routine health
assessments should include questions about experiences of stigmatization so that clinicians can recommend support services
to those who have been targeted."
Source: Dutch adolescents from lesbian-parent families: How do they compare to peers with heterosexual parents and what is the impact of homophobic stigmatization?
Loes van Rijn-van Gelderen, Henny M.W. Bos, Nanette K. Gartrell
https://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/2015-dutch-adolescents-lesbian-families.pdf (https://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/2015-dutch-adolescents-lesbian-families.pdf)
In other words, children of same-sex parents do just fine. Any harm that does come to them comes from the attitude of homophobes. The solution to that is for homophobes to stop being homophobes, because they are the ones abusing the children, not their parents.
Eamonnca1....
That Australian study isn't hectic, just read it..the parents were the ones who filled the questionnaire out, not the children. Results should be looked at with that caveat
Dutch article is much sounder.
I see marriage as between man and woman. However if my children assuming I havve any, are gay, then I would hate to see them denied the right to be married. Do I go with what I see now or do I go with what 'may be' for my children if I'm blessed to haave them and are gay? Genuine opinions needed. I hope this post isn't seen as homophobic.
What is it about not being allowed to be married that is a problem? The name, because people are perfectly free to conduct their relationships.
Read this and tell me Tony Fearon doesn't belong in the DUP.
Ali Gordon
04 May 2015 05:14 PM
A gay parent has hit out at Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson, saying his children went to school in tears last week because of comments made by the DUP leader on TV.
Devoted dad George Clarke, from Newtownards, Co Down, says his children Leo, 11, and Tobyn, 9, feared their married fathers would be sent to jail following Mr Robinson's controversial remarks about homosexuals and the law on the BBC's The View programme
"I don't really care for who Peter Robinson is, but when his party and others like them are the reason my children are going to school in tears then something has got to change," said the George, who wed his partner Kenny last summer.
On the TV show First Minister Mr Robinson defended Mid Ulster DUP councillor Paul McLean's right to express the view that homosexuality should be declared illegal, but stressed it was not part of his party's policy.
Questioned by host Mark Carruthers as to why he was entitled to suggest gay people should be jailed, Mr Robinson said: "I don't think he's wanting to throw anyone in prison. I would hope that if it was illegal, people would obey the law."
Mr Robinson's shock comments came just days after then-DUP Health Minister Jim Wells' outburst when he said that "a child is far more likely to be abused or neglected in a non-stable marriage situation, gay or straight."
He later apologised - but the remarks provoked a storm of controversy.
George Clarke said: "The point was our children were being asked do we abuse them in any shape or form and that is ridiculous.
"From the bottom of my — and my husband's — hearts, we would do nothing to hurt the kids. They mean the world to us."
George, who runs successful independent film company, Yellow Fever Productions, wed his partner in a civil ceremony at Knockninny House Hotel in Derrylin, Co Fermanagh.
He said: "It's as if you are gay you are not real, you are not worthy. I believe it's the fearmongering that the DUP do that keeps them in power.
"I'm annoyed at myself for letting what Peter Robinson has said get to me, but it has."
George's children Leo and Tobyn, from a previous relationship, spend alternate weeks at his house and their mum's.
"Our family life is just natural, like everyone else's. We can have the odd disagreement or whatever, but so do all families."
George was upset that the First Minister's remarks had made his young children so fearful.
"I just wish I could wake up tomorrow morning and know that my kids don't have to worry about their daddies going to jail because they love each other," he said.
"When you're a child, your imagination runs wild, especially my two, and they over-think things and then it upsets them and I'm their dad so of course I hate to see them sad.
"I'm nobody special. I'm just a small town filmmaker, but I'm a husband and I'm a father and I think it's my duty to stick up for my family and protect them."
George has received messages from complete strangers who wished he had stood as an electoral candidate after he posted a video online about the sorry state of Northern Ireland's equality legislation.
"I just felt like I had to get the message out there that we had to stand up for our basic human rights. The most natural thing in the world is to love, and everyone has a right to do it.
"If we all have to put on our rainbow balaclavas and put up a fight then I'm sure everyone will be willing to do so because it's just got to the point where it's so ridiculous that the DUP and politicians are coming up with these comments," he said.
George's latest video, which is expected be posted online later today, reveals the heartache his family have faced in recent weeks.
"Making the video, I got very angry and emotional about what has happened lately and just seeing the kids faces when they saw the video made me shake with anger," he said.
Belfast Telegraph
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 07:18:47 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 06:49:12 PM
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.
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.)
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 07:18:47 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 06:49:12 PMAs you say
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.
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.
You ignore this and give us a polemic on the meaning of marriage. It may be true or it may not, but it has nothing to say about how same-sex marriage affects the marriage rights of others. If you want to complain about junk TV, I suggest this is not the thread for 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.
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?
Quote from: glens73 on May 04, 2015, 04:08:14 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2015, 03:24:36 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 02:53:24 PM
Quote from: ONeill on May 04, 2015, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
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.
Quote from: ONeill on May 04, 2015, 05:24:32 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 02:53:24 PM
Quote from: ONeill on May 04, 2015, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
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.
WTF backwoods do you come from? Progressive? Maybe in the 1950s or early 60s.
You made a right few incorrect assumptions in that post but I'll deal with one. My children are 8. They're big fans of Modern Family which has 2 gay men as prominent characters. I think one of my children may have asked if they were gay when they started watching it. And that was that. The don't bat an eyelid to what sexuality someone is. Funny, earlier today the son heard something about this referendum on RTE and asked me why gay men cannot marry. He asked 'isn't that racist?'
2 gay men on Family Guy really, so in a few years when you are giving them the facts of life talk how babies are conceived, you will have a second part which says by the way this could be totally irrelevant as sexual gratification between same sex couples is also very normal in which no children are conceived and if you want a kid you could adopt one.
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.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 08:37:11 PM
Quote from: glens73 on May 04, 2015, 04:08:14 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2015, 03:24:36 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 02:53:24 PM
Quote from: ONeill on May 04, 2015, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
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!!
Quote from: T Fearon on May 04, 2015, 08:43:29 PM
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??
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 07:18:47 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 06:49:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 06:49:12 PMAs 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. Quote
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.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 04, 2015, 07:03:59 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 06:49:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 05:52:41 PM
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?
Quote from: stew on May 04, 2015, 04:30:50 PM
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.
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2015, 08:52:53 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 04, 2015, 07:03:59 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 06:49:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 05:52:41 PM
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....
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.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 04, 2015, 09:28:11 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2015, 08:52:53 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 04, 2015, 07:03:59 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 06:49:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 05:52:41 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Sidney on May 04, 2015, 09:46:02 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 04, 2015, 09:28:11 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2015, 08:52:53 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 04, 2015, 07:03:59 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 06:49:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 05:52:41 PM
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"
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 04, 2015, 09:36:43 PM
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.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 04, 2015, 09:51:00 PM
LGBT's were oppressed now they will become the oppressors and not settle for anything less than "Church weddings"
What nonsense.
And Christians were persecuted and oppressed and have done a great job of oppressing ever since! Therefore you must be right :o
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 08:34:13 PM
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.
Quote from: HardySorry, 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.
Quote from: HardyThe 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.
Quote from: HardyWe 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.
Quote from: Sidney on May 04, 2015, 09:52:06 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 04, 2015, 09:51:00 PM
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 (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://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/ (http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/)
Armaghniac, it's important but entirely irrelevant to this debate. We established in a previous conversation that the privileges extended to married couples are to encourage child nurture , not to recognise reproductive capacity.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 04, 2015, 10:00:54 PM
Quote from: Sidney on May 04, 2015, 09:52:06 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 04, 2015, 09:51:00 PM
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 (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://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/ (http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/)
I read the links - in the first one, it is a facility owned by the religioius group. They are being accused of discriminating in renting out the room. I'd have to think about it for a bit, but given that it was three years ago, how did it turn out? In any case, the church was not forced to marry anyone.
Second one - it is a for profit outfit. I don't see the issue there if they want to operate as a business.
In the third one, there's a law suit. I don't see how they can or should win it though, if the UK laws are anything like US. Any outcome.
Quote from: Sidney on May 04, 2015, 09:51:13 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 04, 2015, 09:36:43 PM
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.
It may not be the best word but what I meant was there are in this country a lot of people who are gay who are fighting themselves and can't bring themselves to admit/accept what they are for fear of what society has in store for them (for example, if they were related to Tony Fearon he would disown them). I am now thankful that this is less and less the case. That's the point I was trying to make.
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 10:05:57 PM
Armaghniac, it's important but entirely irrelevant to this debate. We established in a previous conversation that the privileges extended to married couples are to encourage child nurture , not to recognise reproductive capacity.
So, having a biological link to children is of no advantage whatsoever to nurture? In your world, nobody resembles their grandfather, blood is not thicker than water? Should Kate Middleton just have sent down to the orphanage for a sprog and not bother with all the morning sickness?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 10:21:32 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 10:05:57 PM
Armaghniac, it's important but entirely irrelevant to this debate. We established in a previous conversation that the privileges extended to married couples are to encourage child nurture , not to recognise reproductive capacity.
So, having a biological link to children is of no advantage whatsoever to nurture? In your world, nobody resembles their grandfather, blood is not thicker than water? Should Kate Middleton just have sent down to the orphanage for a sprog and not bother with all the morning sickness?
If your position is that adoptive parents nurture less well than biological parents, your problem is with adoption, not marriage, heterosexual or same-sex.
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 10:32:45 PM
If your position is that adoptive parents nurture less well than biological parents, your problem is with adoption, not marriage, heterosexual or same-sex.
Not at all. Adoption steps in where there is a problem and is very much needed, my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 10:40:00 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 10:32:45 PM
If your position is that adoptive parents nurture less well than biological parents, your problem is with adoption, not marriage, heterosexual or same-sex.
And how does extending marriage rights Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 10:40:00 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 10:32:45 PM
If your position is that adoptive parents nurture less well than biological parents, your problem is with adoption, not marriage, heterosexual or same-sex.
Not at all. Adoption steps in where there is a problem and is very much needed, my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem.
Not at all. Adoption steps in where there is a problem and is very much needed, my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem.
And how would same-sex marriage prevent this?
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 10:48:02 PM
And how would same-sex marriage prevent this?
This is a typical black and white question, as if I am somehow obliged to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a catastrophe will result. I do not believe this will improve marriage, and I do not think that marriage should be changed in ways that do not improve it. If you are proposing to change the constitution then you must advance strong evidence of the benefit to marriage of this change, not me.
This referendum is still not about same-sex parenting. Accepting or rejecting it will not change how and whether gay couples are allowed to adopt or become surrogate parents to children
We know that.We object same sex marriage on the basis of opposition to equating the unnatural gay relationship with that of the natural hetrosexual relationship which has been the cornerstone of society since time immemorial.
There is no need to redefine marriage or distort the norm
(To armaghniac) You're not obliged to do, say or prove anything. We're simply making points in a debate. You made a point purporting to support your position and I challenged it.
I think your whole argument against the proposition in the referendum boils down to a fairly insipid, nebulous, generalised concern about an idealised conception of marriage that you haven't shown to be threatened by this proposition anyway.
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 11:22:34 PM
(To armaghniac) You're not obliged to do, say or prove anything. We're simply making points in a debate. You made a point purporting to support your position and I challenged it.
I think your whole argument against the proposition in the referendum boils down to a fairly insipid, nebulous, generalised concern about an idealised conception of marriage that you haven't shown to be threatened by this proposition anyway.
As I said, those proposing change should show that there will be no threat to marriage. In most cases they have carefully avoided any nuanced discussion of the point, although you Hardy have shown more willingness than most.
It's a bit like adding Blanchardstown IT to TCD and having a fairly insipid, nebulous, generalised concern that the nature of TCD degrees might be affected by the change.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 10:53:14 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 10:48:02 PM
And how would same-sex marriage prevent this?
This is a typical black and white question, as if I am somehow obliged to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a catastrophe will result. I do not believe this will improve marriage, and I do not think that marriage should be changed in ways that do not improve it. If you are proposing to change the constitution then you must advance strong evidence of the benefit to marriage of this change, not me.
You claimed to be supporting 'my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem'.
Here are example of 'normal situations' as I see it (feel free to add):
1. Married man & woman with children.
2. Single woman with children.
3. Single man with children.
4. Woman living with children and a man, not the father.
5. Man living with children and a woman, not the mother.
6. Grandparents living with grandchildren.
7. One grandparent living with children.
If voting against same-sex marriage 'supports' any of the above, how does voting for same-sex marriage undermine any of them?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 04, 2015, 10:19:32 PM
Quote from: Sidney on May 04, 2015, 09:51:13 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 04, 2015, 09:36:43 PM
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.
It may not be the best word but what I meant was there are in this country a lot of people who are gay who are fighting themselves and can't bring themselves to admit/accept what they are for fear of what society has in store for them (for example, if they were related to Tony Fearon he would disown them). I am now thankful that this is less and less the case. That's the point I was trying to make.
Ah yeah I know the point you were making and I agree with you but the word "admit" just carries such negative connotations that it's one I'd avoid in any circumstances.
Quote from: muppet on May 04, 2015, 11:40:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 10:53:14 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 10:48:02 PM
And how would same-sex marriage prevent this?
This is a typical black and white question, as if I am somehow obliged to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a catastrophe will result. I do not believe this will improve marriage, and I do not think that marriage should be changed in ways that do not improve it. If you are proposing to change the constitution then you must advance strong evidence of the benefit to marriage of this change, not me.
You claimed to be supporting 'my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem'.
Here are example of 'normal situations' as I see it (feel free to add):
1. Married man & woman with children.
2. Single woman with children.
3. Single man with children.
4. Woman living with children and a man, not the father.
5. Man living with children and a woman, not the mother.
6. Grandparents living with grandchildren.
7. One grandparent living with children.
If voting against same-sex marriage 'supports' any of the above, how does voting for same-sex marriage undermine any of them?
Once again the use of negative language "undermine".
Marriage is a form of positive legal privilege to support something society should support, if you extend positive preferment too widely then it becomes meaningless.
My point is the positive benefits of parents bringing up their own children, but everyone here is calling on me to bad mouth ever other arrangement.
But since you insist, I think this positive privilege should occur because if you have 1) above then you still have 2) or 3) if one parent dies or the like, and you have two sets of grandparents to allow 6) or 7) if both parents pass away in a crash or something. 4) and 5) are good as both genders are represented, but a step-parent may not be quite as invested in the children as a real parent. For instance, if a relationship breaks up a real parent will generally (and should) keep contact with their children, a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 11:35:56 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 11:22:34 PM
(To armaghniac) You're not obliged to do, say or prove anything. We're simply making points in a debate. You made a point purporting to support your position and I challenged it.
I think your whole argument against the proposition in the referendum boils down to a fairly insipid, nebulous, generalised concern about an idealised conception of marriage that you haven't shown to be threatened by this proposition anyway.
As I said, those proposing change should show that there will be no threat to marriage. In most cases they have carefully avoided any nuanced discussion of the point, although you Hardy have shown more willingness than most.
It's a bit like adding Blanchardstown IT to TCD and having a fairly insipid, nebulous, generalised concern that the nature of TCD degrees might be affected by the change.
Far more valid comparisons would be how the extension of voting to women did not devalue the votes of men, and how the extension of voting to black people did not devalue the votes of white people. Even the opening of Croke Park to other sports is a more accurate comparison - it did not devalue Croke Park for GAA players, although that rather foolish opinion was not unheard of at the time amongst certain GAA people.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 11:52:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 04, 2015, 11:40:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 10:53:14 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 10:48:02 PM
And how would same-sex marriage prevent this?
This is a typical black and white question, as if I am somehow obliged to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a catastrophe will result. I do not believe this will improve marriage, and I do not think that marriage should be changed in ways that do not improve it. If you are proposing to change the constitution then you must advance strong evidence of the benefit to marriage of this change, not me.
You claimed to be supporting 'my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem'.
Here are example of 'normal situations' as I see it (feel free to add):
1. Married man & woman with children.
2. Single woman with children.
3. Single man with children.
4. Woman living with children and a man, not the father.
5. Man living with children and a woman, not the mother.
6. Grandparents living with grandchildren.
7. One grandparent living with children.
If voting against same-sex marriage 'supports' any of the above, how does voting for same-sex marriage undermine any of them?
Once again the use of negative language "undermine".
Marriage is a form of positive legal privilege to support something society should support, if you extend positive preferment too widely then it becomes meaningless.
My point is the positive benefits of parents bringing up their own children, but everyone here is calling on me to bad mouth ever other arrangement.
But since you insist, I think this positive privilege should occur because if you have 1) above then you still have 2) or 3) if one parent dies or the like, and you have two sets of grandparents to allow 6) or 7) if both parents pass away in a crash or something. 4) and 5) are good as both genders are represented, but a step-parent may not be quite as invested in the children as a real parent. For instance, if a relationship breaks up a real parent will generally (and should) keep contact with their children, a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.
This referendum will change nothing from a parenting point of view as you've already said yourself. Why is this still part of the discussion?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 11:52:17 PM
a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.
Is it?
I was at a wedding on Saturday where the bride was given away by her stepfather and the biological father was nowhere to be seen.
Quote from: gallsman on May 05, 2015, 12:02:28 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 11:52:17 PM
a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.
Is it?
I was at a wedding on Saturday where the bride was given away by her stepfather and the biological father was nowhere to be seen.
Samples of one do not shed much light on the problem.
Had her biological father been married to her mother?
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 05, 2015, 12:00:42 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 11:52:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 04, 2015, 11:40:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 10:53:14 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 10:48:02 PM
And how would same-sex marriage prevent this?
This is a typical black and white question, as if I am somehow obliged to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a catastrophe will result. I do not believe this will improve marriage, and I do not think that marriage should be changed in ways that do not improve it. If you are proposing to change the constitution then you must advance strong evidence of the benefit to marriage of this change, not me.
You claimed to be supporting 'my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem'.
Here are example of 'normal situations' as I see it (feel free to add):
1. Married man & woman with children.
2. Single woman with children.
3. Single man with children.
4. Woman living with children and a man, not the father.
5. Man living with children and a woman, not the mother.
6. Grandparents living with grandchildren.
7. One grandparent living with children.
If voting against same-sex marriage 'supports' any of the above, how does voting for same-sex marriage undermine any of them?
Once again the use of negative language "undermine".
Marriage is a form of positive legal privilege to support something society should support, if you extend positive preferment too widely then it becomes meaningless.
My point is the positive benefits of parents bringing up their own children, but everyone here is calling on me to bad mouth ever other arrangement.
But since you insist, I think this positive privilege should occur because if you have 1) above then you still have 2) or 3) if one parent dies or the like, and you have two sets of grandparents to allow 6) or 7) if both parents pass away in a crash or something. 4) and 5) are good as both genders are represented, but a step-parent may not be quite as invested in the children as a real parent. For instance, if a relationship breaks up a real parent will generally (and should) keep contact with their children, a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.
This referendum will change nothing from a parenting point of view as you've already said yourself. Why is this still part of the discussion?
Diversion. The only chance the no side have is to try and divert the discussion onto red herring issues that play to base prejudice. That and to laughably claim that they're being bullied and that they're being silenced. Yeah, silenced with their 50% of the media debate as mandated by law.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2015, 12:06:43 AM
Quote from: gallsman on May 05, 2015, 12:02:28 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 11:52:17 PM
a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.
Is it?
I was at a wedding on Saturday where the bride was given away by her stepfather and the biological father was nowhere to be seen.
Samples of one do not shed much light on the problem.
Had her biological father been married to her mother?
The No side are only too happy to use samples of one when it suits them.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2015, 12:06:43 AM
Quote from: gallsman on May 05, 2015, 12:02:28 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 11:52:17 PM
a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.
Is it?
I was at a wedding on Saturday where the bride was given away by her stepfather and the biological father was nowhere to be seen.
Samples of one do not shed much light on the problem.
Had her biological father been married to her mother?
My sample of one is one more than the zero from your evidence-lacking assertion above though, isn't it?
Yes, very much married and the bride still carries his name, not her stepfather's.
Quote from: gallsman on May 05, 2015, 12:09:38 AM
My sample of one is one more than the zero from your evidence-lacking assertion above though, isn't it?
There is research on step-parents and this does occur.
Quote
Yes, very much married and the bride still carries his name, not her stepfather's.
Well her father is a bollix, but one bollix is not a guide to the generality.
Quote from: SidneyThe No side are only too happy to use samples of one when it suits them.
perhaps, but that doesn't make it right.
I have to say I am sickened by not just the generalisations used here, but the casual willingness to sterotype other families arrangements as outside the "norm". There is no norm. Anyone unlucky enough to have had any experience of marriage breakdown knows there is no perfect way to deal with it. People are just people, and their flaws are what define them.
But of course, the father in the case above must have been "a complete bollix". Some of the No sides willingness to pigeonhole and rate relationships shows not only do they have no concept of equality, but an almost sociopathic lack of empathy with other people.
Imagine how children being raised by gay parents now feel, given where they stand on the sliding scale of normality? Or children from one parent homes? Or children of divorced and separated couples? They don't rank up there on the scale either.
And then they have the gall to say that they are motivated by concern for children, when they are the prime manufacturers of propaganda guaranteed to lower the self worth of these children?
God give me strength. And hopefully He'll give a copy of our constitution to some on these boards to read and understand - that we commit to cherish all the children of the state equally.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 04, 2015, 11:16:55 PM
We know that.We object same sex marriage on the basis of opposition to equating the unnatural gay relationship with that of the natural hetrosexual relationship which has been the cornerstone of society since time immemorial.
There is no need to redefine marriage or distort the norm
WTF? I thought we'd already refuted this "unnatural" bollox!
You haven't.It is irrefutable
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 11:52:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 04, 2015, 11:40:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 04, 2015, 10:53:14 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 04, 2015, 10:48:02 PM
And how would same-sex marriage prevent this?
This is a typical black and white question, as if I am somehow obliged to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a catastrophe will result. I do not believe this will improve marriage, and I do not think that marriage should be changed in ways that do not improve it. If you are proposing to change the constitution then you must advance strong evidence of the benefit to marriage of this change, not me.
You claimed to be supporting 'my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem'.
Here are example of 'normal situations' as I see it (feel free to add):
1. Married man & woman with children.
2. Single woman with children.
3. Single man with children.
4. Woman living with children and a man, not the father.
5. Man living with children and a woman, not the mother.
6. Grandparents living with grandchildren.
7. One grandparent living with children.
If voting against same-sex marriage 'supports' any of the above, how does voting for same-sex marriage undermine any of them?
Once again the use of negative language "undermine".
Marriage is a form of positive legal privilege to support something society should support, if you extend positive preferment too widely then it becomes meaningless.
My point is the positive benefits of parents bringing up their own children, but everyone here is calling on me to bad mouth ever other arrangement.
But since you insist, I think this positive privilege should occur because if you have 1) above then you still have 2) or 3) if one parent dies or the like, and you have two sets of grandparents to allow 6) or 7) if both parents pass away in a crash or something. 4) and 5) are good as both genders are represented, but a step-parent may not be quite as invested in the children as a real parent. For instance, if a relationship breaks up a real parent will generally (and should) keep contact with their children, a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.
If find this argument quite incredible. It is ok for you to say a No vote is 'support' for something, yet examining what a Yes vote could be is 'Once again the use of negative language'.
Then you state that marriage is something that society should support. But only on your terms. Society it seems must be as you see it.
But regardless, you never even approached explaining how allowing same-sex marriage 'undermines' or goes against supporting, or however you want to describe it, any of the normal arrangements I listed. You simply outlined why you thought they were fine. How is your No vote 'supporting' these arrangements?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 05, 2015, 04:14:49 AM
You haven't.It is irrefutable
So you still think homosexual behaviour doesn't exist in nature?
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 05, 2015, 01:09:48 AM
I have to say I am sickened by not just the generalisations used here, but the casual willingness to sterotype other families arrangements as outside the "norm". There is no norm. Anyone unlucky enough to have had any experience of marriage breakdown knows there is no perfect way to deal with it. People are just people, and their flaws are what define them.
But of course, the father in the case above must have been "a complete bollix". Some of the No sides willingness to pigeonhole and rate relationships shows not only do they have no concept of equality, but an almost sociopathic lack of empathy with other people.
I cannot win here. Gallsman produced an example where a stepfather had done a better job than a biological father, I agreed that the biological father wasn't great, and you attack me!!!
QuoteImagine how children being raised by gay parents now feel, given where they stand on the sliding scale of normality? Or children from one parent homes? Or children of divorced and separated couples? They don't rank up there on the scale either.
And then they have the gall to say that they are motivated by concern for children, when they are the prime manufacturers of propaganda guaranteed to lower the self worth of these children?
I said nothing about such children, only about the conduct of their parents. I admire the children for making a go of things in less than ideal circumstances.
QuoteGod give me strength. And hopefully He'll give a copy of our constitution to some on these boards to read and understand - that we commit to cherish all the children of the state equally.
Indeed, we strive to give them an equal right to a father and mother.
This rant was typical of the conduct of this debate. They talk about equality, while proposing that further groups be added to the unequal status of marriage, but refuse to justify this. They say that others should not judge, while calling them bigots and homophobes. They invoke God, while abusing those who believe in God.
And as for rating thing, how on earth can any public policy be made if there no willingness to identify what you want to do. Are the road safety campaigns to be abolished because they stereotype people who speed? Are the campaigns to encourage parents to feed their children more veg and less biscuits to be canned because people are just people?
Quote from: muppet
If find this argument quite incredible. It is ok for you to say a No vote is 'support' for something, yet examining what a Yes vote could be is 'Once again the use of negative language'.
Then you state that marriage is something that society should support. But only on your terms. Society it seems must be as you see it.
But regardless, you never even approached explaining how allowing same-sex marriage 'undermines' or goes against supporting, or however you want to describe it, any of the normal arrangements I listed. You simply outlined why you thought they were fine. How is your No vote 'supporting' these arrangements?
You may not agree with my points, but there is nothing incredible about them.
I've been entirely logical and consistent, which is more than can be said for some. Society supports marriage because it brings men and women together to have their own children, adding in groups who do not this can only reduce support for marriage. You may want this, but I do not.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2015, 07:53:53 AM
I've been entirely logical and consistent, which is more than can be said for some. Society supports marriage because it brings men and women together to have their own children, adding in groups who do not this can only reduce support for marriage. You may want this, but I do not.
You have been consistent in your views armaghniac and from what I've read of your posts, the above is the essence of what you think on the matter?
For me, this is flawed on two points:
QuoteSociety supports marriage because it brings men and women together to have their own children
Society also supports marriage for couple who have gone past child-bearing age.
Quoteadding in groups who do not this can only reduce support for marriage
I don't understand how extending the rights associated with marriage (and we're talking primarily about legal / financial rights)
reduces the right for married couples who have children. The rights of married couples with children remains the same. Does allowing women who have gone past child-bearing age to marry also reduce these rights??
A brother and sister can also procreate. If, as armaghniac believes, procreation is the basis for marriage, logic and consistency demands their inclusion.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2015, 07:53:53 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 05, 2015, 01:09:48 AM
I have to say I am sickened by not just the generalisations used here, but the casual willingness to sterotype other families arrangements as outside the "norm". There is no norm. Anyone unlucky enough to have had any experience of marriage breakdown knows there is no perfect way to deal with it. People are just people, and their flaws are what define them.
But of course, the father in the case above must have been "a complete bollix". Some of the No sides willingness to pigeonhole and rate relationships shows not only do they have no concept of equality, but an almost sociopathic lack of empathy with other people.
I cannot win here. Gallsman produced an example where a stepfather had done a better job than a biological father, I agreed that the biological father wasn't great, and you attack me!!!
QuoteImagine how children being raised by gay parents now feel, given where they stand on the sliding scale of normality? Or children from one parent homes? Or children of divorced and separated couples? They don't rank up there on the scale either.
And then they have the gall to say that they are motivated by concern for children, when they are the prime manufacturers of propaganda guaranteed to lower the self worth of these children?
I said nothing about such children, only about the conduct of their parents. I admire the children for making a go of things in less than ideal circumstances.
QuoteGod give me strength. And hopefully He'll give a copy of our constitution to some on these boards to read and understand - that we commit to cherish all the children of the state equally.
Indeed, we strive to give them an equal right to a father and mother.
This rant was typical of the conduct of this debate. They talk about equality, while proposing that further groups be added to the unequal status of marriage, but refuse to justify this. They say that others should not judge, while calling them bigots and homophobes. They invoke God, while abusing those who believe in God.
And as for rating thing, how on earth can any public policy be made if there no willingness to identify what you want to do. Are the road safety campaigns to be abolished because they stereotype people who speed? Are the campaigns to encourage parents to feed their children more veg and less biscuits to be canned because people are just people?
Quote from: muppet
If find this argument quite incredible. It is ok for you to say a No vote is 'support' for something, yet examining what a Yes vote could be is 'Once again the use of negative language'.
Then you state that marriage is something that society should support. But only on your terms. Society it seems must be as you see it.
But regardless, you never even approached explaining how allowing same-sex marriage 'undermines' or goes against supporting, or however you want to describe it, any of the normal arrangements I listed. You simply outlined why you thought they were fine. How is your No vote 'supporting' these arrangements?
You may not agree with my points, but there is nothing incredible about them.
I've been entirely logical and consistent, which is more than can be said for some. Society supports marriage because it brings men and women together to have their own children, adding in groups who do not this can only reduce support for marriage. You may want this, but I do not.
Firstly, the example given was of a girl who was given away by her stepfather rather than her father. It was you who took the logical leap (not your first and not your last) of assumimg the father must be a complete bollix. Because you like labeling and stereotyping people.
Secondly "I didnt' say anything about the kids, I just commented on the conduct of their parents" doesn't wash. Do you have kids? Do you have any idea how familial ties work? do you have any idea what it does to kids when you tell them "your situation is less than ideal" or less "normal"? A few pages back you were saying that the children of homosexual parents would not be able to experience the full gamut of the human race, unlike childen of heterosexual relatonships. And you dare to squeal about being judged?
"they talk about equality whilst trying to add groups to the unequal status of marriage and fail to justify this" - and the award for most tortuous and obtuse sentence ever goes to....
The problem your No argument has Armaghniac - and I'll just lay this at your door, because I'd hate to label anyone else - is that when you try to argue logically against it, you come up with bizarre sentences like the one above. It has no internal logic. It is bankrupt intellectually. Every social progression ever made was to make an unequal situation more equal, but to even argue that with you dignifies the ridiculous artifices you hide behind. Hardy spent two pages trying to get you to get you to clarify your position on why we are even talking about children, when the law has already been changed to allow same sex couples adopt.
But the worst thing is, your argument is emotionally tone deaf. You cannot conceive yourself in anyone else's position so everybody becomes figures on your sliding scale of normality. You have no idea the damage that this does to children, who, for whatever reason, do not have a mother and father together. And that is why your argument will fail. Because most people have compassion and will vote compassionately.
Cherishing all the children of the Republic equally does not mean providing them with an identikit mother and father - it means giving them respect whatever their background, providing them with support should they need it, giving them the opportunity to explore their potential and welcoming the diverse experiences that can only add to the life of this State.
Oh and by the way, I never called you a homophobe. If I ever want to, I'll do it straight out. So until then, stop bleating about it.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 05, 2015, 04:14:49 AM
You haven't.It is irrefutable
ONeill says it is on some American cartoon, seems to me that makes it very natural!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 05, 2015, 06:43:31 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 05, 2015, 04:14:49 AM
You haven't.It is irrefutable
So you still think homosexual behaviour doesn't exist in nature?
Either he is willfully deaf\blind\impervious to logic\evidence, or he is using some narrow, religious definition of the word "natural".
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 01:22:59 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 05, 2015, 04:14:49 AM
You haven't.It is irrefutable
ONeill says it is on some American cartoon, seems to me that makes it very natural!
No he didn't.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 08:37:11 PM
Quote from: glens73 on May 04, 2015, 04:08:14 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 04, 2015, 03:24:36 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 02:53:24 PM
Quote from: ONeill on May 04, 2015, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
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.
I think you need to step back and have a bit of perspective. If a mother dies or walks out and a father raises the children on his own, then presumably that's ok, if not ideal? But add another male and it becomes 'truly evil'? What if it's a father and a grandfather? Or two brothers?
Guys, I'm trying to find out the new, updated differences between the Civil Partnership legislation, and the rights a married couple have. Apparently a professor in Maynooth identified 21, as a lot of the original 169 have been closed off via legislation since the website I consulted (referred to earlier on) was updated. Has anyone a concise list of what Gay couples are not entitled to that Straight couples are?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 09:09:38 AM
I say again anyone of the internet warriors here would shit a brick if their son / daughter told them they were gay, irrespective of what shite they spout here. To say you would not be disappointed is a complete lie.
Some would, some wouldn't - don't judge everyone by your standards. Many people will have gay family members and won't get that excited by such a scenario. Others will be disappointed. But many of those same people will still vote Yes, because they love their children and in a future scenario where their child does tell them that they're gay, they don't want to deny them the same opportunity to marry.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 09:09:38 AM
In primary school party invites come home most weeks and it appears all girls invite all girls and all boys invite all boys, I drop my youngest who is 5 off at a house or soft ball area and collect a few hours later. If my youngest came home with a party invite from a child who's parents were Barry and Paddy they certainly wouldn't be dropped off to that party and I bet it would not be alone with reservations.
Then you're the problem. And it's more likely that your children will be the ones making it difficult for child who has Barry and Paddy as parents.
Maguire you know nothing about my children so I would ask you to wind your neck in, you are seriously accusing a 5 year old you don't know to be a bully in a hypothetical situation, you are some boy, I think you have a few issues there. On another note ONeill still hasn't answered or any parent who thinks the act of homosexuality is a completely normal trait in humans how they go about explaining this to their kids at 10 or 11 when explaining the facts of life? My oldest is 11 they had a talk in school, homosexuality wasn't mentioned, is the education system failing our kids not telling them that as well as boys and girls, boys and boys and girls and girls are totally normal, as well as transgenders and explaining the whole lesbian and gay community. As a responsible parent should I be pulling my 11 year old aside and telling them about these options, are their books that could help me, or can parents here tell me how they explained the totally natural human trait of homosexuality to their child?
Quote from: SidneyA brother and sister can also procreate. If, as armaghniac believes, procreation is the basis for marriage, logic and consistency demands their inclusion.
That's a mature contribution, a concise statement of the yes argument, let everyone do everything.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 05, 2015, 09:42:55 AM
But the worst thing is, your argument is emotionally tone deaf. You cannot conceive yourself in anyone else's position so everybody becomes figures on your sliding scale of normality. You have no idea the damage that this does to children, who, for whatever reason, do not have a mother and father together. And that is why your argument will fail. Because most people have compassion and will vote compassionately.
Cherishing all the children of the Republic equally does not mean providing them with an identikit mother and father - it means giving them respect whatever their background, providing them with support should they need it, giving them the opportunity to explore their potential and welcoming the diverse experiences that can only add to the life of this State.
Well then why not just abolish marriage and make everyone the same? That meets your objectives. If you believe that marriage should exist as a legally privileged then it is appropriate to discuss the conditions of admission to this inequality.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 05:46:11 PM
Maguire you know nothing about my children so I would ask you to wind your neck in, you are seriously accusing a 5 year old you don't know to be a bully in a hypothetical situation, you are some boy, I think you have a few issues there. On another note ONeill still hasn't answered or any parent who thinks the act of homosexuality is a completely normal trait in humans how they go about explaining this to their kids at 10 or 11 when explaining the facts of life? My oldest is 11 they had a talk in school, homosexuality wasn't mentioned, is the education system failing our kids not telling them that as well as boys and girls, boys and boys and girls and girls are totally normal, as well as transgenders and explaining the whole lesbian and gay community. As a responsible parent should I be pulling my 11 year old aside and telling them about these options, are their books that could help me, or can parents here tell me how they explained the totally natural human trait of homosexuality to their child?
Judging from your sarcastic, hysterical tone, it looks like you're very genuine about looking for guidance from advocates of tolerance in explaining this stuff to your kids. ::)
How are YOU going to explain homosexuality to your kids? Presumably it will come up at some point? That they're evil/deviant/perverted/sick/paedophiles etc. etc.?
Personally, I would explain it to them that some people are different, and that is ok, the same as skin colour. Depending on the age of the child, the depth of the details will vary. If in the future, they were to find themselves confused and conflicted about their sexuality, I certainly would not want them to be afraid of coming to me because I had been expressing contempt and hatred for homosexuals in the past.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 05:46:11 PM
Maguire you know nothing about my children so I would ask you to wind your neck in, you are seriously accusing a 5 year old you don't know to be a bully in a hypothetical situation, you are some boy, I think you have a few issues there.
Of course I know nothing about your children, and it wasn't my intention to make any accusation. You raised a hypothetical situation, so let's have a hypothetical child of a parent who won't let their child go to a birthday party of another child who has same sex parents. How is this situation explained to the child? How is this likely to influence how those children interact thereafter? If parents aren't tolerant, are their children likely to be?
Quote from: J70 on May 05, 2015, 05:59:22 PM
Judging from your sarcastic, hysterical tone, it looks like you're very genuine about looking for guidance from advocates of tolerance in explaining this stuff to your kids. ::)
How are YOU going to explain homosexuality to your kids? Presumably it will come up at some point? That they're evil/deviant/perverted/sick/paedophiles etc. etc.?
Personally, I would explain it to them that some people are different, and that is ok, the same as skin colour. Depending on the age of the child, the depth of the details will vary. If in the future, they were to find themselves confused and conflicted about their sexuality, I certainly would not want them to be afraid of coming to me because I had been expressing contempt and hatred for homosexuals in the past.
The point is if it is a normal trait in humans does one explain the facts of life - male and female, conceiving a child and all that, but then say this also could not apply to you son / daughter as homosexuality and being with a partner of the same sex is also very normal human behaviour, and what age do you tell them is 10 or 11 OK for this as well? How much detail does one go into, do you explain this to all kids even those you don't believe to be gay, it is all very confusing. As for the bit in bold - doesn't cover yourself in glory there.
I call bullshit on this pathetic, bigoted, homophobic gobshite having kids. He's clearly about 16.
If not, I pity you, your other half, your kids and your family.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 05, 2015, 06:11:39 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 05:46:11 PM
Maguire you know nothing about my children so I would ask you to wind your neck in, you are seriously accusing a 5 year old you don't know to be a bully in a hypothetical situation, you are some boy, I think you have a few issues there.
Of course I know nothing about your children, and it wasn't my intention to make any accusation. You raised a hypothetical situation, so let's have a hypothetical child of a parent who won't let their child go to a birthday party of another child who has same sex parents. How is this situation explained to the child? How is this likely to influence how those children interact thereafter? If parents aren't tolerant, are their children likely to be?
I would not feel comfortable dropping my child off with one man let alone two, I certainly wouldn't be telling my child of 5 my reasoning, I don't think any parent would, they are 5, I would just make up and excuse for their inability to attend.
Quote from: gallsman on May 05, 2015, 06:18:13 PM
I call bullshit on this pathetic, bigoted, homophobic gobshite having kids. He's clearly about 16.
If not, I pity you, your other half, your kids and your family.
That's good, when you can't argue resort to abuse, agree with me or you are a bigot, as for questioning have I kids, again you ain't covering yourself in glory, but people like you don't care you just want to shout people down. The irony is you are aligning yourself to the tolerant folk on here.
So topcuppla what would you do if one of your kids came out as Gay?
Would you disown them like that other ignorant buffoon?
Quote from: gallsman on May 05, 2015, 06:18:13 PM
I call bullshit on this pathetic, bigoted, homophobic gobshite having kids. He's clearly about 16.
If not, I pity you, your other half, your kids and your family.
That bit in bold is amazing, so my wife and kids whom you know nothing about are to be pitied, the tolerant yes campaign you do them proud.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:26:26 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 05, 2015, 06:11:39 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 05:46:11 PM
Maguire you know nothing about my children so I would ask you to wind your neck in, you are seriously accusing a 5 year old you don't know to be a bully in a hypothetical situation, you are some boy, I think you have a few issues there.
Of course I know nothing about your children, and it wasn't my intention to make any accusation. You raised a hypothetical situation, so let's have a hypothetical child of a parent who won't let their child go to a birthday party of another child who has same sex parents. How is this situation explained to the child? How is this likely to influence how those children interact thereafter? If parents aren't tolerant, are their children likely to be?
I would not feel comfortable dropping my child off with one man let alone two, I certainly wouldn't be telling my child of 5 my reasoning, I don't think any parent would, they are 5, I would just make up and excuse for their inability to attend.
So it's not about gay people now? Just men? What if the two gay men also had female adults at their party? Or what if the party was for the child of a heterosexual man who had lost his wife?
Quote from: laoislad on May 05, 2015, 06:32:06 PM
So topcuppla what would you do if one of your kids came out as Gay?
Would you disown them like that other ignorant buffoon?
No absolutely not, I love my kids unconditionally, and if you look back you will see I would vote for gay marriage, I think that all people should have financial security. I do think two men should not be allowed to adopt kids, and I struggle to understand the whole push on here to stress homosexuality is a very natural activity in humans, I don't believe it is, but to gallsman and his kin that makes me - what was it oh yes - a pathetic, bigoted, homophobic gobshite who's whole family is to be pitied.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:32:37 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 05, 2015, 06:18:13 PM
I call bullshit on this pathetic, bigoted, homophobic gobshite having kids. He's clearly about 16.
If not, I pity you, your other half, your kids and your family.
That bit in bold is amazing, so my wife and kids whom you know nothing about are to be pitied, the tolerant yes campaign you do them proud.
You don't tolerate intolerance.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 05, 2015, 06:33:32 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:26:26 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 05, 2015, 06:11:39 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 05:46:11 PM
Maguire you know nothing about my children so I would ask you to wind your neck in, you are seriously accusing a 5 year old you don't know to be a bully in a hypothetical situation, you are some boy, I think you have a few issues there.
Of course I know nothing about your children, and it wasn't my intention to make any accusation. You raised a hypothetical situation, so let's have a hypothetical child of a parent who won't let their child go to a birthday party of another child who has same sex parents. How is this situation explained to the child? How is this likely to influence how those children interact thereafter? If parents aren't tolerant, are their children likely to be?
I would not feel comfortable dropping my child off with one man let alone two, I certainly wouldn't be telling my child of 5 my reasoning, I don't think any parent would, they are 5, I would just make up and excuse for their inability to attend.
So it's not about gay people now? Just men? What if the two gay men also had female adults at their party? Or what if the party was for the child of a heterosexual man who had lost his wife?
Gay men adopting a child I think I may have mentioned I think is wrong, what maternal instinct do these individuals have, I would not be comfortable leaving my child anywhere I didn't know and trust the parents, that probably will save you coming with with more scenarios.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 05, 2015, 06:37:39 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:32:37 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 05, 2015, 06:18:13 PM
I call bullshit on this pathetic, bigoted, homophobic gobshite having kids. He's clearly about 16.
If not, I pity you, your other half, your kids and your family.
That bit in bold is amazing, so my wife and kids whom you know nothing about are to be pitied, the tolerant yes campaign you do them proud.
You don't tolerate intolerance.
The man has covered himself in glory, enough said - I was merely pointing out the irony of his rant.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:45:24 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 05, 2015, 06:33:32 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:26:26 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 05, 2015, 06:11:39 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 05:46:11 PM
Maguire you know nothing about my children so I would ask you to wind your neck in, you are seriously accusing a 5 year old you don't know to be a bully in a hypothetical situation, you are some boy, I think you have a few issues there.
Of course I know nothing about your children, and it wasn't my intention to make any accusation. You raised a hypothetical situation, so let's have a hypothetical child of a parent who won't let their child go to a birthday party of another child who has same sex parents. How is this situation explained to the child? How is this likely to influence how those children interact thereafter? If parents aren't tolerant, are their children likely to be?
I would not feel comfortable dropping my child off with one man let alone two, I certainly wouldn't be telling my child of 5 my reasoning, I don't think any parent would, they are 5, I would just make up and excuse for their inability to attend.
So it's not about gay people now? Just men? What if the two gay men also had female adults at their party? Or what if the party was for the child of a heterosexual man who had lost his wife?
Gay men adopting a child I think I may have mentioned I think is wrong, what maternal instinct do these individuals have, I would not be comfortable leaving my child anywhere I didn't know and trust the parents, that probably will save you coming with with more scenarios.
So you could never trust gay parents?
You left out the bit where I said I didn't know and trust the parents, though I think you did that on purpose!
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:50:18 PM
You left out the bit where I said I didn't know and trust the parents, though I think you did that on purpose!
Ok.
If you got to know Gay parents would you then let your kids go to the their kids birthday party's?
To save you 3 pages of posts, I'll repeat if Barry and Paddy were the parents of a child in my child's class I can't see how I would get to know them.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:54:53 PM
To save you 3 pages of posts, I'll repeat if Barry and Paddy were the parents of a child in my child's class I can't see how I would get to know them.
The same way you get to meet any set of parents I would guess.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:32:37 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 05, 2015, 06:18:13 PM
I call bullshit on this pathetic, bigoted, homophobic gobshite having kids. He's clearly about 16.
If not, I pity you, your other half, your kids and your family.
That bit in bold is amazing, so my wife and kids whom you know nothing about are to be pitied, the tolerant yes campaign you do them proud.
Yes, they are to be pitied. You are a cretin.
There are 30 kids in my youngest class, I know about 6 parents, I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make or what you are trying to allude to.
Your kid is friends with their kid and wants to invite them around to play. They are on the same sports team. They are on some parents committee at school. They move in next door...
some scenarios for you!!
Quote from: gallsman on May 05, 2015, 06:58:03 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:32:37 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 05, 2015, 06:18:13 PM
I call bullshit on this pathetic, bigoted, homophobic gobshite having kids. He's clearly about 16.
If not, I pity you, your other half, your kids and your family.
That bit in bold is amazing, so my wife and kids whom you know nothing about are to be pitied, the tolerant yes campaign you do them proud.
Yes, they are to be pitied. You are a cretin.
Says an individual who can only abuse people who don't agree with them.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:17:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 05, 2015, 05:59:22 PM
Judging from your sarcastic, hysterical tone, it looks like you're very genuine about looking for guidance from advocates of tolerance in explaining this stuff to your kids. ::)
How are YOU going to explain homosexuality to your kids? Presumably it will come up at some point? That they're evil/deviant/perverted/sick/paedophiles etc. etc.?
Personally, I would explain it to them that some people are different, and that is ok, the same as skin colour. Depending on the age of the child, the depth of the details will vary. If in the future, they were to find themselves confused and conflicted about their sexuality, I certainly would not want them to be afraid of coming to me because I had been expressing contempt and hatred for homosexuals in the past.
The point is if it is a normal trait in humans does one explain the facts of life - male and female, conceiving a child and all that, but then say this also could not apply to you son / daughter as homosexuality and being with a partner of the same sex is also very normal human behaviour, and what age do you tell them is 10 or 11 OK for this as well? How much detail does one go into, do you explain this to all kids even those you don't believe to be gay, it is all very confusing. As for the bit in bold - doesn't cover yourself in glory there.
Hey, you're the one railing against homosexuality being natural, claiming it's a choice because you knew a guy who went a bit camp after he came out. If you would tell your kids otherwise, good.
As for the rest, I don't see your problem:
Lesson 1: this is how babies are made.
Lesson 2: some people are gay.
Procreation and sexuality, two different issues and lessons.
I'm sure you can figure out the details appropriate for your child's age and maturity.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:58:26 PM
There are 30 kids in my youngest class, I know about 6 parents, I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make or what you are trying to allude to.
So you only know 6 sets of parents?
Funny because I thought you said earlier you were dropping them off to a different party nearly every weekend.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:54:53 PM
To save you 3 pages of posts, I'll repeat if Barry and Paddy were the parents of a child in my child's class I can't see how I would get to know them.
Why not?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:58:26 PM
There are 30 kids in my youngest class, I know about 6 parents, I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make or what you are trying to allude to.
So you only allow your child to go to the birthday parties in those 6 houses?
Quote from: laoislad on May 05, 2015, 07:08:28 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:58:26 PM
There are 30 kids in my youngest class, I know about 6 parents, I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make or what you are trying to allude to.
So you only know 6 sets of parents?
Funny because I thought you said earlier you were dropping them off to a different party nearly every weekend.
I am married, my wife does the school things but nice try. It is pathetic what you are alluding too, btw Barry and Paddy as parents was made up.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 05, 2015, 07:10:44 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:58:26 PM
There are 30 kids in my youngest class, I know about 6 parents, I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make or what you are trying to allude to.
So you only allow your child to go to the birthday parties in those 6 houses?
See post above, again slightly pathetic and petty.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 07:11:02 PM
Quote from: laoislad on May 05, 2015, 07:08:28 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:58:26 PM
There are 30 kids in my youngest class, I know about 6 parents, I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make or what you are trying to allude to.
So you only know 6 sets of parents?
Funny because I thought you said earlier you were dropping them off to a different party nearly every weekend.
I am married, my wife does the school things but nice try. It is pathetic what you are alluding too, btw Barry and Paddy as parents was made up.
So if your wife knew and trusted Barry and Paddy?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 07:11:41 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 05, 2015, 07:10:44 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:58:26 PM
There are 30 kids in my youngest class, I know about 6 parents, I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make or what you are trying to allude to.
So you only allow your child to go to the birthday parties in those 6 houses?
See post above, again slightly pathetic and petty.
No, you're tying yourself in knots. First it was specifically a gay couple, then it was any man, then it was people you didn't know and trust...
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 05, 2015, 07:16:43 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 07:11:41 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 05, 2015, 07:10:44 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:58:26 PM
There are 30 kids in my youngest class, I know about 6 parents, I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make or what you are trying to allude to.
So you only allow your child to go to the birthday parties in those 6 houses?
See post above, again slightly pathetic and petty.
No, you're tying yourself in knots. First it was specifically a gay couple, then it was any man, then it was people you didn't know and trust...
I think you are doing that to yourself, I'll let you go off and find all these quotes, you were doing so well too, but you are letting yourself down now, bless. I said I would not let my child go to a party if the childs parents were Paddy and Barry (two gay men - do you understand now?) I said I would not feel comfortable dropping my child off with one man let alone two (do you see the point I was making here) and I would not be comfortable leaving my child anywhere I didn't know and trust the parents, so what is your point. Maybe you just drop your kids off anywhere but I take my parental rights very seriously.
Can anyone explain how a Yes vote does the opposite to 'support', or in any way undermines, families?
(If you think same-sex couple are likely to abuse children then please don't bother replying, as you will cause offence. Seek help instead)
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 07:27:49 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 05, 2015, 07:16:43 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 07:11:41 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 05, 2015, 07:10:44 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 05, 2015, 06:58:26 PM
There are 30 kids in my youngest class, I know about 6 parents, I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make or what you are trying to allude to.
So you only allow your child to go to the birthday parties in those 6 houses?
See post above, again slightly pathetic and petty.
No, you're tying yourself in knots. First it was specifically a gay couple, then it was any man, then it was people you didn't know and trust...
I think you are doing that to yourself, I'll let you go off and find all these quotes, you were doing so well too, but you are letting yourself down now, bless. I said I would not let my child go to a party if the childs parents were Paddy and Barry (two gay men - do you understand now?) I said I would not feel comfortable dropping my child off with one man let alone two (do you see the point I was making here) and I would not be comfortable leaving my child anywhere I didn't know and trust the parents, so what is your point. Maybe you just drop your kids off anywhere but I take my parental rights very seriously.
I wouldn't drop my children off with anyone I don't trust, be they straight, gay, single, married, co-habiting... Simple as that. The reasoning should be fairly self-explanatory.
You wouldn't leave your child with a gay couple (not sure if this is just gay men, or if it would apply to a lesbian couple). Why not?
You said you wouldn't drop your child off where one man is hosting a birthday party. Why not?
If you don't trust specific people, then there's a clear logic. If you don't trust certain categories of people, based on their gender or sexuality for example, then you should be able to justify this.
Quote from: muppet on May 05, 2015, 07:31:05 PM
Can anyone explain how a Yes vote does the opposite to 'support', or in any way undermines, families?
(If you think same-sex couple are likely to abuse children then please don't bother replying, as you will cause offence. Seek help instead)
Apparently traditional families are so fragile and the lure of homosexual relationships so great that hordes of men and women will drop all, abandon their spouses and kids and run off to get married to their gay lovers.
Quote from: muppet on May 05, 2015, 07:31:05 PM
Can anyone explain how a Yes vote does the opposite to 'support', or in any way undermines, families?
I did, several times.
Perhaps you should get a franchise for these for the yes campaign.
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090207040202/muppet/images/5/5e/Japan-elmoearmuffs.jpg)
Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2015, 05:48:58 PM
Quote from: SidneyA brother and sister can also procreate. If, as armaghniac believes, procreation is the basis for marriage, logic and consistency demands their inclusion.
That's a mature contribution, a concise statement of the yes argument, let everyone do everything.
I'm not calling for that. Your logic is.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 29, 2015, 11:44:22 PM
Quote from: LCohen on April 29, 2015, 08:48:14 PM
Who in the yes campaign is trying to restrict debate?
There are lots of examples.
But just taking you, on this forum, you have called several people homophobes, called one person a moron and a horror of human being and described another as unhinged. Not the conduct of a person engaging in respectful debate with others he feels entitled to hold their opinion. Remembering that this is not about some sort of genocide or violence of any sort, but about the legal point of whether same sex relationships should be called civil partnerships or marriage.
So your best example of the Yes campaign trying to restrict debate is someone (i.e. me) who repeatedly asks advocates of the No campaign to explain their position and provide evidence. Forgive me for pointing out that it is a laughably bad example.
Who have I called homophobic who has not made homophobic comments? Surely you don't have a problem with homophobes being correctly labelled? Same applies to the other comments you refer to.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 06:36:01 AM
Er could someone point out where I even tenuously equated gay sex with sex with animals? I used the comparison to show that in future,the way this world is going,it is not entirely inconceivable that bestiality will be defined as a human right and such relationships granted the same status as that of human relationships,on the basis that homosexuality, in the space of my short lifetime has travelled from a status of criminality to marriage endorsement in law.
On a lighter note I struggled to control my urine flow when I saw the Paddy Power billboard ad (featuring two hooded blokes kissing) and the Tiocfaidh Ar La caption,offering odds on the referendum outcome ;D. Not often anyone successfully takes the piss out of Sinn Fein!
What is the direction of travel that points to legalisation of bestiality?
Have you used this bestiality argument in any other debates or have you restricted it to debates on issues relating to homosexuality?
Quote from: Sidney on May 05, 2015, 08:43:35 PM
I'm not calling for that. Your logic is.
My logic certainly is not, I am not calling for marriage to be changed.
You are the people advocating change.
Quote from: LCohenWho have I called homophobic who has not made homophobic comments? Surely you don't have a problem with homophobes being correctly labelled?
Who have I said was trying to restrict debate who is not trying to restrict debate?
QuoteSame applies to the other comments you refer to.
Would that be where you implied that anyone who supported marriage was unhinged?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 11:37:03 AM
No I wouldn't be in favour of recriminalising homosexuality,but I am vehemently opposed to the normalisation of homosexuality and the debasement of the holy sacrament of marriage.
In what way is homosexuality not normal?
Please confirm that you do at least accept that homosexuality is at least natural?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 04:18:11 PM
Well we've lived for aeons without it.So why is it necessary now?
Do you believe in universal adult suffrage? Do you believe in statutory employment rights? Do you believe in free at the point of delivery healthcare? Ditto education? We had aeons without them and so you presumably consider them unnecessary?
Also is your reference to aeons not anti-biblical?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:19:37 PM
Aside from the religious perspective I believe gay marriage and the normalisation of unnatural relationships to full equal status with those that are natural, is bad for society.
Tony, if you continue to refer to homosexual relationships as unnatural but refuse to provide any rationale for this determination it is going to be very difficult to avoid these accusations of homophobia. Just spell it out. What is the big secret?
Quote from: LCohen on May 05, 2015, 09:22:40 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:19:37 PM
Aside from the religious perspective I believe gay marriage and the normalisation of unnatural relationships to full equal status with those that are natural, is bad for society.
Tony, if you continue to refer to homosexual relationships as unnatural but refuse to provide any rationale for this determination it is going to be very difficult to avoid these accusations of homophobia. Just spell it out. What is the big secret?
Can't spell Fearon without Fear.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:23:44 PM
Scripture makes it very clear that homosexuality is wrong.A lot of Christian groups feel it is their God given duty to make people aware of their sin,hence the protests at gay pride parades etc.Although I would never participate in such protests,I do believe the people who do are motivated by the desire to save souls,not deliberately rile marchers etc.
But you can't call churches backward and discriminatory for simply adhering to non negotiable beliefs derived straight from the bible.
There is an american university that teaches geology based upon the story of Noah, the ark and the flood. Do you think I would be justified in labelling that seat of learning as "backward"? Honest question
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:28:16 PM
Annapr ,sad to say but I couldn't tolerate any gay family members.I would have to say I would be forced to disown them.Harsh I know but this is my honest view
Presumably you are "without sin"?
Similarly, if the church called for a return to stoning adulterers, as advocated in the Bible, I'd certainly consider it backward.
Are you going to do that for all his posts over the last 7 days?
Quote from: muppet on May 01, 2015, 08:58:49 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 01, 2015, 01:41:23 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:23:44 PM
But you can't call churches backward and discriminatory for simply adhering to non negotiable beliefs derived straight from the bible.
Yes you can.
Non-negitiable beliefs straight from The Bible such as this:
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
Or is it an a la carte arrangement?
Never met a christian who has not had an a la carte view on the bible. Lets be clear Tony does not hold to the view that he is compelled to hold to the bible. He selects the areas of the bible he likes. Tony does not have views on homosexuality based upon the bible. He has a view on homosexuality and separately a selective awareness of an ancient text
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 05, 2015, 09:33:04 PM
Are you going to do that for all his posts over the last 7 days?
The forum wouldn't have enough bandwidth to do that.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2015, 09:07:25 PM
Quote from: Sidney on May 05, 2015, 08:43:35 PM
I'm not calling for that. Your logic is.
My logic certainly is not, I am not calling for marriage to be changed.
You are the people advocating change.
Your logic clearly calls for it as procreation is possible between brother and sister.
If you aren't calling for brother-sister marriages, which I don't believe you are, don't use the logic of procreation to define the basis of marriage.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
I would argue that although Homosexuality appears in nature it doesn't make it natural.
Please explain?
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
Most if not all animals will also jump on their offspring if they are in heat. Is incest therefore natural?
Most you say. Should be plenty of evidence then. Post it and I will take a view.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
An old grizzly animal will jump up on a young female in her first season - is pedophilia natural?
Paedophilia is (in the most part - see below) natural. It is not however consenual. The latter is quite important
(I say in the most part because there is some evidence of paedophile tendencies arising via exposure as a victim or as a prolonged investigator - more research required)
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 05, 2015, 09:31:27 PM
Similarly, if the church called for a return to stoning adulterers, as advocated in the Bible, I'd certainly consider it backward.
Couldn't we have a stone button on Facebook?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
Would one man bringing up a child be tantamount to child abuse?
Are you stating that homosexuals in non human species are making a choice to be gay? Presumably to be cool?
Anyway congratulations on the extensive research
Nothing quite like being stoned on Facebook, I imagine.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 03, 2015, 04:24:08 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 02:35:44 PM
Sidney what you do behind close doors with your partner is your own business, now sure how it is relevant to the debate.
I think you've just demolished the No case.
+1
Quote from: T Fearon on May 03, 2015, 11:56:11 AM
And if a family member were to commit murder,would there be a greater understanding for my lack of tolerance?
I would expect an adult to hold very different views between murder and being homosexual. Personally I cannot see any link between the 2
Quote from: LCohen on May 05, 2015, 09:51:40 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
I would argue that although Homosexuality appears in nature it doesn't make it natural.
Please explain?
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
Most if not all animals will also jump on their offspring if they are in heat. Is incest therefore natural?
Most you say. Should be plenty of evidence then. Post it and I will take a view.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
An old grizzly animal will jump up on a young female in her first season - is pedophilia natural?
Paedophilia is (in the most part - see below) natural. It is not however consenual. The latter is quite important
(I say in the most part because there is some evidence of paedophile tendencies arising via exposure as a victim or as a prolonged investigator - more research required)
why don't you go back and address the post where I further explained my point and see where you land. Nobody else has. In fact people are still asking for answers when I gave one...
Quote from: T Fearon on May 04, 2015, 08:43:29 PM
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.
Should all adoptions be deferred until the child in question reaches the age of reason and can express a view on any of the many reasons why they might object to the placement? You see this as workable? or uou reserving it for just one issue - the homosexuality issue. Not that you are a homophobe like?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2015, 09:07:25 PM
Quote from: LCohenWho have I called homophobic who has not made homophobic comments? Surely you don't have a problem with homophobes being correctly labelled?
Who have I said was trying to restrict debate who is not trying to restrict debate?
Shambolic post. You have accused the Yes campaign of trying to restrict debate. You use me as an example. I provide an argument as to why that cannot be the case. Seems to have been edited out in your attempt to quote me.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2015, 09:07:25 PM
Would that be where you implied that anyone who supported marriage was unhinged?
Provide me with the quote where I said/implied that/"implied that anyone who supported marriage was unhinged" and I will provide a considered response. After all I'm all for debate
Both grossly offensive in God's eyes
Quote from: The Iceman on May 05, 2015, 10:15:05 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 05, 2015, 09:51:40 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
I would argue that although Homosexuality appears in nature it doesn't make it natural.
Please explain?
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
Most if not all animals will also jump on their offspring if they are in heat. Is incest therefore natural?
Most you say. Should be plenty of evidence then. Post it and I will take a view.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 01, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
An old grizzly animal will jump up on a young female in her first season - is pedophilia natural?
Paedophilia is (in the most part - see below) natural. It is not however consenual. The latter is quite important
(I say in the most part because there is some evidence of paedophile tendencies arising via exposure as a victim or as a prolonged investigator - more research required)
why don't you go back and address the post where I further explained my point and see where you land. Nobody else has. In fact people are still asking for answers when I gave one...
Was that the one where you said that evidence of homosexual behaviour in the wider animal kingdom did not point towards homosexuality being natural. I don't think you actually refuted that homosexuality has been observed on an ongoing basis in many species.
What is the breakdown of the rationale where we cannot use analysis of closely related species as analogous to human beings?
Because you're reading human behaviour into animals. Science doesn't do that. Homosexual behaviour may exist but not homosexuality. That term should only be reserved for humans.
I argue that it isn't normal from a scientific perspective when you draw the comparison to animals. Existence of behaviour in nature does not equate to normal or natural.
For pediophilia in nature talk to any dog breeder, horse breeder. In-line breeding happens all the time - it is encouraged infact to retain desirable traits in animals. Grandfathers to grand-daughters.... happens all the time. Doesn't make it normal or justify it in humans.
Like Muppet pointed out from the start - its a red herring shouldnt be part of the conversation at all.
Browsing through this thread and having followed the debate in the media I do wonder if the actual constitutional change that is proposed has been read and understood by all concerned. I've read many letters to the editor(s) etc. and having read the explanatory leaflet received in the post in the last few days I'm of the opinion that many contributors to the debate are actually ill-informed - I was myself.
The origin of this referendum, I believe, was a grouping that was formed to review the constitution and propose amendments if and where required - the 2 proposed amendments that we vote on this month result from the recommendations of the review group.
The most glaring fault line in the same-sex marriage debate is that members of the main political parties are not properly upfront and representing the views (whether Yes or No) of their constituents. It's ironic in the circumstances that here on this forum some of the people willing to put their heads above the parapet and go against the supposed mainstream don't actually have a vote - fair play to the boys from Armagh (There's one fair county in Ireland....).
Anyway, our constitution does not actually define marriage (up to recent years this was no debate as to it's definition) so nobody can state categorically that the constitution discriminates against gays and lesbians. Of course our actual legislation is a different matter and is subject to the parameters of our constitution. No constitution (whether that of a nation, political party, sports club) can be all things to all people - it has to formulated for the greater good (which is what this debate is all about).
I will be voting No but I do respect and understand many of the viewpoints put forward by the Yes side - I would say I am 80% NO.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 05, 2015, 10:57:22 PM
Because you're reading human behaviour into animals. Science doesn't do that. Homosexual behaviour may exist but not homosexuality. That term should only be reserved for humans.
I argue that it isn't normal from a scientific perspective when you draw the comparison to animals. Existence of behaviour in nature does not equate to normal or natural.
Ok, so if we pretend that humans aren't animals and that animal behaviour has no light to shed on human behaviour, then what does "natural" actually mean when it comes to humans?
Quote from: The Iceman on May 05, 2015, 10:57:22 PM
For pediophilia in nature talk to any dog breeder, horse breeder. In-line breeding happens all the time - it is encouraged infact to retain desirable traits in animals. Grandfathers to grand-daughters.... happens all the time. Doesn't make it normal or justify it in humans.
Like Muppet pointed out from the start - its a red herring shouldnt be part of the conversation at all.
Yet the fact that it "goes against nature" is a "criticism" often leveled at homosexuality.
The existence of the behaviour in animals is a perfectly valid response to such as charge. And given that its homosexual acts and behaviour, not only sexual orientation, that seems to drive these people crazy, the distinction between the behaviour itself and orientation, even if it were valid, is not really relevant to such a conversation.
But yeah, I would agree, it is a red herring, albeit one that is introduced when all else fails in terms of arguing against homosexuality.
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 06, 2015, 01:10:30 AM
Browsing through this thread and having followed the debate in the media I do wonder if the actual constitutional change that is proposed has been read and understood by all concerned. I've read many letters to the editor(s) etc. and having read the explanatory leaflet received in the post in the last few days I'm of the opinion that many contributors to the debate are actually ill-informed - I was myself.
The origin of this referendum, I believe, was a grouping that was formed to review the constitution and propose amendments if and where required - the 2 proposed amendments that we vote on this month result from the recommendations of the review group.
The most glaring fault line in the same-sex marriage debate is that members of the main political parties are not properly upfront and representing the views (whether Yes or No) of their constituents. It's ironic in the circumstances that here on this forum some of the people willing to put their heads above the parapet and go against the supposed mainstream don't actually have a vote - fair play to the boys from Armagh (There's one fair county in Ireland....).
Anyway, our constitution does not actually define marriage (up to recent years this was no debate as to it's definition) so nobody can state categorically that the constitution discriminates against gays and lesbians. Of course our actual legislation is a different matter and is subject to the parameters of our constitution. No constitution (whether that of a nation, political party, sports club) can be all things to all people - it has to formulated for the greater good (which is what this debate is all about).
I will be voting No but I do respect and understand many of the viewpoints put forward by the Yes side - I would say I am 80% NO.
A constitution should guarantee rights for every individual. "Greater good" is a nebulous concept that can be harnessed for better or worse.
Still waiting, Tony.
Waiting for Godot or Waiting for God, oh?
Waiting for what? A bus?
You to answer the question about "unnatural" homosexual behaviour that happens to be widespread in nature. Are you denying that it exists in nature?
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2015, 01:49:07 AM
A constitution should guarantee rights for every individual. "Greater good" is a nebulous concept that can be harnessed for better or worse.
There are no rights involved in this issue.
And "Greater good" might indeed seem worse when it was the opposite of what you are trying to do.
Quote from: Eamonnca1You to answer the question about "unnatural" homosexual behaviour that happens to be widespread in nature. Are you denying that it exists in nature?
This is a bit of a cul-de-sac in any case. Animals do lots of things, eat their young, crap on the streets, lick their balls; none of this is a good recommendation for human behaviour.
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 06, 2015, 01:10:30 AM
Anyway, our constitution does not actually define marriage (up to recent years this was no debate as to it's definition) so nobody can state categorically that the constitution discriminates against gays and lesbians. Of course our actual legislation is a different matter and is subject to the parameters of our constitution. No constitution (whether that of a nation, political party, sports club) can be all things to all people - it has to formulated for the greater good (which is what this debate is all about).
I will be voting No but I do respect and understand many of the viewpoints put forward by the Yes side - I would say I am 80% NO.
You're correct in what you say (about the constitution) but I don't understand why you're voting No?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 06, 2015, 07:37:54 AM
You to answer the question about "unnatural" homosexual behaviour that happens to be widespread in nature. Are you denying that it exists in nature?
Is this the extent of your argument that it is natural, it's a bit lame.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 07:51:24 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2015, 01:49:07 AM
A constitution should guarantee rights for every individual. "Greater good" is a nebulous concept that can be harnessed for better or worse.
There are no rights involved in this issue.
And "Greater good" might indeed seem worse when it was the opposite of what you are trying to do.
Quote from: Eamonnca1You to answer the question about "unnatural" homosexual behaviour that happens to be widespread in nature. Are you denying that it exists in nature?
This is a bit of a cul-de-sac in any case. Animals do lots of things, eat their young, crap on the streets, lick their balls; none of this is a good recommendation for human behaviour.
I thought it was about the right to marry your lover, whatever the sex?
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 05, 2015, 01:56:16 PM
Guys, I'm trying to find out the new, updated differences between the Civil Partnership legislation, and the rights a married couple have. Apparently a professor in Maynooth identified 21, as a lot of the original 169 have been closed off via legislation since the website I consulted (referred to earlier on) was updated. Has anyone a concise list of what Gay couples are not entitled to that Straight couples are?
Anyone any luck with this? I can't find a list of them anywhere. It's a bit annoying.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2015, 08:12:38 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 05, 2015, 07:31:05 PM
Can anyone explain how a Yes vote does the opposite to 'support', or in any way undermines, families?
I did, several times.
Perhaps you should get a franchise for these for the yes campaign.
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090207040202/muppet/images/5/5e/Japan-elmoearmuffs.jpg)
You answered the question 'please show me what a normal marriage is'. Thanks for that.
You didn't answer the question how voting Yes undermines these marriages. You got offended with the word 'undermine' which you claimed was being all 'negative'. This despite you insisting a No vote supports these marriages. So again, replace the word undermine with whatever word you feel is the appropriate opposite of 'support' and maybe answer the question.
Or just ignore this post, but don't pretend you have answered the question when you haven't.
A Yes vote strengthens the concept of the family and strengthens constitutional protection for families and children.
Every major children's charity has called for a Yes vote.
Quote from: Sidney on May 05, 2015, 08:43:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2015, 05:48:58 PM
Quote from: SidneyA brother and sister can also procreate. If, as armaghniac believes, procreation is the basis for marriage, logic and consistency demands their inclusion.
That's a mature contribution, a concise statement of the yes argument, let everyone do everything.
I'm not calling for that. Your logic is.
How about yourself, Sidney, as you believe that any combination of two people should marry, do you support marriage for brothers and sisters, sons and mothers, brothers and brothers and so on?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 05:47:36 PM
Quote from: Sidney on May 05, 2015, 08:43:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2015, 05:48:58 PM
Quote from: SidneyA brother and sister can also procreate. If, as armaghniac believes, procreation is the basis for marriage, logic and consistency demands their inclusion.
That's a mature contribution, a concise statement of the yes argument, let everyone do everything.
I'm not calling for that. Your logic is.
How about yourself, Sidney, as you believe that any combination of two people should marry, do you support marriage for brothers and sisters, sons and mothers, brothers and brothers and so on?
No. Obviously not. Obviously I don't believe that any combination of two people should marry but then I haven't used that logic.
I don't for instance believe a man should be able to marry a 10 year old girl. It's possible for a 10 year old to procreate - a 10 year old girl who was the victim of rape in Paraguay is currently being denied an abortion and forced to carry a child which likely won't survive anyway and which could kill her, to term. Why? Because Roman Catholic doctrine interferes in that society, as it still does here.
But anyway, the logic you use calls for two of the combinations you mentioned to be allowed. Because two of those combinations can procreate. And elderly and infertile male-female couples can't. And if you use the ability to procreate as the basis of marriage, as the No side does, don't complain when the weak points of that logic are exposed.
If you don't support brother-sister marriages or mother-son marriages, and I didn't suggest you do, don't use the "ability to procreate is the fundamental basis of marriage" argument.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 06, 2015, 09:25:16 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 06, 2015, 07:37:54 AM
You to answer the question about "unnatural" homosexual behaviour that happens to be widespread in nature. Are you denying that it exists in nature?
Is this the extent of your argument that it is natural, it's a bit lame.
Well I'm glad it's not the extent of my argument.
Quote from: Sidney on May 06, 2015, 06:54:48 PM
How about yourself, Sidney, as you believe that any combination of two people should marry, do you support marriage for brothers and sisters, sons and mothers, brothers and brothers and so on?
No. Obviously not. Obviously I don't believe that any combination of two people should marry but then I haven't used that logic.
If two consenting adults want to marry, then they should, that is the principle of the yes campaign, is it not?
Perhaps you, or your fellow travellers, would like to expand on this point.
QuoteI don't for instance believe a man should be able to marry a 10 year old girl.
Not consenting adults.
Quote
If you don't support brother-sister marriages or mother-son marriages, and I didn't suggest you do, don't use the "ability to procreate is the fundamental basis of marriage" argument.
Brother sister marriages are not a sound basis for family formation and is irrelevant to the No argument. The No argument is that the present basis of marriage is sound and well tested and does not need to changed.
I don't think anyone ever suggested that heterosexual marriage was not "sound and well tested". You and others, Armaghniac, are claiming that permitting gays to marry will somehow harm it (I still don't know how!). Gay marriage advocates see no reason why gay marriage would have ANY effect on the soundness of heterosexual marriage.
But it's not about soundness. It's about inclusion.
So, should brother and sister marriages be included?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 08:24:39 PM
So, should brother and sister marriages be included?
Is there a demand for it?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 08:24:39 PM
So, should brother and sister marriages be included?
If that is directed at me, then no, obviously not. Inbreeding has bad enough effects when cousins marry.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/two-of-our-bishops-should-repent-1-6727280
Whether you are Christian,agnostic or atheist,the points in this letter are irrefutable
Quote from: T Fearon on May 06, 2015, 09:20:52 PM
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/two-of-our-bishops-should-repent-1-6727280
Whether you are Christian,agnostic or atheist,the points in this letter are irrefutable
For good traditional Anglicans, I guess you are right.
The relevance for the rest of us...?
Tony, I can't read it on my iPad. Can you post the text of the article? If not, no bother.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 06, 2015, 09:20:52 PM
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/two-of-our-bishops-should-repent-1-6727280
Whether you are Christian,agnostic or atheist,the points in this letter are irrefutable
The resolution further states: "The Church of Ireland recognises for itself and of itself, no other understanding of marriage than that provided for in the totality of Canon 31. The Church of Ireland teaches therefore that faithfulness within marriage is the only normative context for sexual intercourse. Members of the Church of Ireland are required by the Catechism to keep their bodies in 'temperance, soberness and chastity'. Clergy are called in the Ordinal to be 'wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Jesus Christ'."If they are 'irrefutable', then you are not a Catholic. ;D ;D
Tony, do you believe there should be a separation of church and state? If so, then pronouncements by various religious denominations should have little relevance to whether or not the constitution should be changed. If you think church and state ought to be one and the same, then you believe in a theocracy. Ireland shares the first two letters of Iran, but that should be their only similarity, I believe.
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2015, 09:19:15 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 08:24:39 PM
So, should brother and sister marriages be included?
If that is directed at me, then no, obviously not. Inbreeding has bad enough effects when cousins marry.
But, surely marriage has nothing to do with children, according to yourself.
Tony, I love riding. Can I still be a catholic or what's the story?
No but it might explain the itch..
Catch yourself on lads. Coming from a statelet where prejudice was acceptable. It's interesting to watch the developing 26 county world struggling to accept diversity. 26 county Ireland needs to grow into its skin. It can be a great state but it's got to free itself...The liberals in the north can do no more. We want to see an Ireland where we are all cherished as equal. Prejudice has no place in an Ireland United and fair.
Still waiting, Tony.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 06, 2015, 11:55:03 PM
Still waiting, Tony.
Since you like to call for clarification, where do you stand on people being allowed to marry their granny?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 10:10:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2015, 09:19:15 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 08:24:39 PM
So, should brother and sister marriages be included?
If that is directed at me, then no, obviously not. Inbreeding has bad enough effects when cousins marry.
But, surely marriage has nothing to do with children, according to yourself.
When I was young I had a teacher whose wife had died years earlier. He then married his wife's sister. That afaik, is still against Catholic Church teaching on the ludicrous grounds of 'affinity', There is no blood relationship, yet because of some twisted ideology from a really old book, it is a sin. Of course a sin becomes not a sin if His Holiness decrees it to be so, thus is possible they received Papal Dispensation. Is this nonsense still the case today?
Quote from: muppet on May 07, 2015, 12:05:31 AM
When I was young I had a teacher whose wife had died years earlier. He then married his wife's sister. That afaik, is still against Catholic Church teaching on the ludicrous grounds of 'affinity', There is no blood relationship, yet because of some twisted ideology from a really old book, it is a sin. Of course a sin becomes not a sin if His Holiness decrees it to be so, thus is possible they received Papal Dispensation. Is this nonsense still the case today?
The irony being that God impregnated his mother to father himself :o
http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Voices-Reflections-Catholic-Priest/dp/1484106792/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368062717&sr=8-1&keywords=gary+m+meier (http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Voices-Reflections-Catholic-Priest/dp/1484106792/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368062717&sr=8-1&keywords=gary+m+meier)
Presumably Tony would want this priest to quit the Catholic Church? And why hasn't he been forced to quit?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 06, 2015, 11:55:03 PM
Still waiting, Tony.
Since you like to call for clarification, where do you stand on people being allowed to marry their granny?
If it ever arises I can assure you I won't be in favour.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 10:10:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2015, 09:19:15 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 08:24:39 PM
So, should brother and sister marriages be included?
If that is directed at me, then no, obviously not. Inbreeding has bad enough effects when cousins marry.
But, surely marriage has nothing to do with children, according to yourself.
So what are you proposing, allowing them to marry and sterilizing them?
Unless a gay person decides to use a sibling as a surrogate parent, I don't see the relevance of brother-sister relationships to gay marriage.
Perhaps you can explain it.
Pope says we must stand with our Gay/Lesbian Children
http://www.ibtimes.com/pope-francis-addresses-gay-marriage-church-should-support-families-lgbt-children-1742369
God is not afraid of new things - Pope Francis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/19/pope-homosexuality-church-gay_n_6010904.html
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 06, 2015, 11:55:03 PM
Still waiting, Tony.
Since you like to call for clarification, where do you stand on people being allowed to marry their granny?
Does the gran have to still be alive, or what?
Quote from: DrinkingHarp on May 07, 2015, 04:24:00 AM
Pope says we must stand with our Gay/Lesbian Children
http://www.ibtimes.com/pope-francis-addresses-gay-marriage-church-should-support-families-lgbt-children-1742369
Church has said that all along - only Tony thinks different.
Quote from: DrinkingHarp on May 07, 2015, 04:24:00 AM
God is not afraid of new things - Pope Francis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/19/pope-homosexuality-church-gay_n_6010904.html
Read the article - aside from being a year old it was all about the headline. Pope Francis pulled everyone back then and since.
church isn't changing - some things are being communicated differently. Content and delivery. Francis is about better delivery.
Quote from: J70 on May 07, 2015, 03:26:33 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 10:10:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2015, 09:19:15 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 08:24:39 PM
So, should brother and sister marriages be included?
If that is directed at me, then no, obviously not. Inbreeding has bad enough effects when cousins marry.
But, surely marriage has nothing to do with children, according to yourself.
So what are you proposing, allowing them to marry and sterilizing them?
Unless a gay person decides to use a sibling as a surrogate parent, I don't see the relevance of brother-sister relationships to gay marriage.
Perhaps you can explain it.
ok then is it ok for a man to marry his father, or a daughter her mother? Or indeed a man to marry his mother, if she is past child bearing age?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 07, 2015, 01:13:19 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 06, 2015, 11:55:03 PM
Still waiting, Tony.
Since you like to call for clarification, where do you stand on people being allowed to marry their granny?
If it ever arises I can assure you I won't be in favour.
What if the granny had a sex change and became the granda, would that be ok?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 07, 2015, 08:45:37 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 07, 2015, 01:13:19 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 06, 2015, 11:55:03 PM
Still waiting, Tony.
Since you like to call for clarification, where do you stand on people being allowed to marry their granny?
If it ever arises I can assure you I won't be in favour.
What if the granny had a sex change and became the granda, would that be ok?
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/779/388/d33.jpg)
Quote from: topcuppla on May 07, 2015, 08:45:37 AM
What if the granny had a sex change and became the granda, would that be ok?
Surely that is a matter for your own family?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 07, 2015, 08:45:37 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 07, 2015, 01:13:19 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 06, 2015, 11:55:03 PM
Still waiting, Tony.
Since you like to call for clarification, where do you stand on people being allowed to marry their granny?
If it ever arises I can assure you I won't be in favour.
What if the granny had a sex change and became the granda, would that be ok?
I'd say you watch some mad porn...
Between sex changed grannies and all the gay stuff you watch you must have yourself pulled asunder.
Quote from: laoislad on May 07, 2015, 11:04:19 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 07, 2015, 08:45:37 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 07, 2015, 01:13:19 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 06, 2015, 11:55:03 PM
Still waiting, Tony.
Since you like to call for clarification, where do you stand on people being allowed to marry their granny?
If it ever arises I can assure you I won't be in favour.
What if the granny had a sex change and became the granda, would that be ok?
I'd say you watch some mad porn...
Between sex changed grannies and all the gay stuff you watch you must have yourself pulled asunder.
According to you it would be totally natural to be aroused by transsexuals or homosexuals, so why are you using it in a derogatory way. As I keep saying you would all shit a brick if your child told you they were gay, internet warriors who harbor prejudicial thoughts but like to feel good and post happy gay right thoughts. You are a hypocrite.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 07, 2015, 12:13:11 PM
Quote from: laoislad on May 07, 2015, 11:04:19 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 07, 2015, 08:45:37 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 07, 2015, 01:13:19 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 06, 2015, 11:55:03 PM
Still waiting, Tony.
Since you like to call for clarification, where do you stand on people being allowed to marry their granny?
If it ever arises I can assure you I won't be in favour.
What if the granny had a sex change and became the granda, would that be ok?
I'd say you watch some mad porn...
Between sex changed grannies and all the gay stuff you watch you must have yourself pulled asunder.
According to you it would be totally natural to be aroused by transsexuals or homosexuals, so why are you using it in a derogatory way. As I keep saying you would all shit a brick if your child told you they were gay, internet warriors who harbor prejudicial thoughts but like to feel good and post happy gay right thoughts. You are a hypocrite.
Where did I say that?
Not saying it is or isn't natural but I think you are confusing me with someone else.
You must therefore think it is unnatural if you are using it in a derogatory way?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 07, 2015, 12:13:11 PM
Quote from: laoislad on May 07, 2015, 11:04:19 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 07, 2015, 08:45:37 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 07, 2015, 01:13:19 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 06, 2015, 11:55:03 PM
Still waiting, Tony.
Since you like to call for clarification, where do you stand on people being allowed to marry their granny?
If it ever arises I can assure you I won't be in favour.
What if the granny had a sex change and became the granda, would that be ok?
I'd say you watch some mad porn...
Between sex changed grannies and all the gay stuff you watch you must have yourself pulled asunder.
According to you it would be totally natural to be aroused by transsexuals or homosexuals, so why are you using it in a derogatory way. As I keep saying you would all shit a brick if your child told you they were gay, internet warriors who harbor prejudicial thoughts but like to feel good and post happy gay right thoughts. You are a hypocrite.
Right, just because you think that way and can't imagine anyone not doing so, it means everyone thinks that way.
It's called "argument from personal incredulity", a classic type of logical fallacy.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 07, 2015, 08:13:17 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 07, 2015, 03:26:33 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 10:10:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2015, 09:19:15 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2015, 08:24:39 PM
So, should brother and sister marriages be included?
If that is directed at me, then no, obviously not. Inbreeding has bad enough effects when cousins marry.
But, surely marriage has nothing to do with children, according to yourself.
So what are you proposing, allowing them to marry and sterilizing them?
Unless a gay person decides to use a sibling as a surrogate parent, I don't see the relevance of brother-sister relationships to gay marriage.
Perhaps you can explain it.
ok then is it ok for a man to marry his father, or a daughter her mother? Or indeed a man to marry his mother, if she is past child bearing age?
The libertarian in me would say "why not?"
But I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist.
I've never heard of anyone lobbying for that right though. Even in animals, steps have evolved to avoid mating with close relatives. There is a reason that, for example, one sex usually disperses a good distance from the natal home range and individual males don't dominate mating for very long.
So again, I do not see the relevance to gay marriage.
Quote from: J70 on May 07, 2015, 01:44:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 07, 2015, 08:13:17 AM
ok then is it ok for a man to marry his father, or a daughter her mother? Or indeed a man to marry his mother, if she is past child bearing age?
The libertarian in me would say "why not?"
But I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist.
I've never heard of anyone lobbying for that right though. Even in animals, steps have evolved to avoid mating with close relatives. There is a reason that, for example, one sex usually disperses a good distance from the natal home range and individual males don't dominate mating for very long.
Some people do favour incestuous marriage, not very many, but then the number is not the point as we have been told
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17690997
Quote
So again, I do not see the relevance to gay marriage.
A simplistic justification has been advanced that two people love each other and should consequently be allowed marriage, this is a "right". This is an example where it seems that several of you do not think that two people who love each other should be allowed marry. Now you would say that this is a different case than gay marriage and probably somebody less sophisticated with describe this as a "distraction" and others will post silly cartoons. But there is a point here in that much of this debate has been conducted in simplistic black and white terms which are very dangerous to the conduct of democracy.
Human society has evolved an understanding of marriage, which includes unions of the same sex, but not incestuous ones and does not include same sex unions. This understanding of marriage arises from real differences in the nature of relationships and does not need changed, and certainly should not be changed in the context of the trite soundbites of this campaign.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 07, 2015, 06:07:59 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 07, 2015, 01:44:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 07, 2015, 08:13:17 AM
ok then is it ok for a man to marry his father, or a daughter her mother? Or indeed a man to marry his mother, if she is past child bearing age?
The libertarian in me would say "why not?"
But I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist.
I've never heard of anyone lobbying for that right though. Even in animals, steps have evolved to avoid mating with close relatives. There is a reason that, for example, one sex usually disperses a good distance from the natal home range and individual males don't dominate mating for very long.
Some people do favour incestuous marriage, not very many, but then the number is not the point as we have been told
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17690997
Quote
So again, I do not see the relevance to gay marriage.
A simplistic justification has been advanced that two people love each other and should consequently be allowed marriage, this is a "right". This is an example where it seems that several of you do not think that two people who love each other should be allowed marry. Now you would say that this is a different case than gay marriage and probably somebody less sophisticated with describe this as a "distraction" and others will post silly cartoons. But there is a point here in that much of this debate has been conducted in simplistic black and white terms which are very dangerous to the conduct of democracy.
Human society has evolved an understanding of marriage, which includes unions of the same sex, but not incestuous ones and does not include same sex unions. This understanding of marriage arises from real differences in the nature of relationships and does not need changed, and certainly should not be changed in the context of the trite soundbites of this campaign.
So your argument is that "it doesn't need to be changed" and that those who advocate changes are being logically inconsistent in not being in favour of opening it up to all types of relationships, just gay ones?
I disagree with the first part, obviously, which we've covered extensively, and obviously everything else springs from that disagreement.
And as for the second part, society deems incest to be unacceptable, possibly partly due to its usual manifestation as child abuse, but probably also due to the natural instinctual aversion to sexual relations with immediate relatives. Leaving the child abuse aside for the moment, you might respond along the lines of most people also being naturally repulsed by homosexual sexual relations (lesbian porn aside :p). Which is fair enough, and basically it comes back down to what society deems acceptable. Society deemed homosexuality unacceptable in the past, but we've moved to the point where there is no justifiable reason for maintaining such attitudes. So the movement for gay marriage stems from and is continuation of the normalization of homosexuality. Incest is a separate issue. It has not been normalized in modern society, and from this perspective its hard to see how it ever might be. Paedophilia may also be perfectly natural for those who experience those urges, but we deem it unacceptable for the obvious reason that immature children are involved. Just because an urge or a tendency, sexual or not, may be natural, does not mean that society has to embrace it. Each issue needs to be considered on its own merits. Right now we are considering gay marriage. There is no good reason I've yet seen for continuing to outlaw it. That the traditional definition of marriage "doesn't need to be changed" is not a compelling reason whatsoever, especially when the legalization of gay marriage will do nothing to affect traditional marriage in the first place.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 07, 2015, 06:07:59 PM
A simplistic justification has been advanced that two people love each other and should consequently be allowed marriage, this is a "right"
It's not a right at present. The purpose of the referendum is to determine whether it becomes a right.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 07, 2015, 06:07:59 PM
much of this debate has been conducted in simplistic black and white terms
In a sense it has to be, since ultimately the question being posed is a yes/no choice. Should same-sex marriage be allowed? Black and white.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 07, 2015, 06:07:59 PM
This understanding of marriage ... does not need changed
The people will decide whether it needs to be changed.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 07, 2015, 06:07:59 PM
A simplistic justification has been advanced that two people love each other and should consequently be allowed marriage, this is a "right". This is an example where it seems that several of you do not think that two people who love each other should be allowed marry. Now you would say that this is a different case than gay marriage and probably somebody less sophisticated with describe this as a "distraction" and others will post silly cartoons. But there is a point here in that much of this debate has been conducted in simplistic black and white terms which are very dangerous to the conduct of democracy.
Human society has evolved an understanding of marriage, which includes unions of the same sex, but not incestuous ones and does not include same sex unions. This understanding of marriage arises from real differences in the nature of relationships and does not need changed, and certainly should not be changed in the context of the trite soundbites of this campaign.
And it continues to evolve, which is why there is a call for same-sex marriage. There obviously has been no evolution towards marriage between members of the same family, otherwise it would be on the ballot paper. That is the nature of evolution, changes that are beneficial usually come to the fore. So your position seems to be that marriage should evolve only to include heterosexual couples. Do you believe in evolution?
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 07, 2015, 10:59:37 PM
And it continues to evolve, which is why there is a call for same-sex marriage. There obviously has been no evolution towards marriage between members of the same family, otherwise it would be on the ballot paper. That is the nature of evolution, changes that are beneficial usually come to the fore. So your position seems to be that marriage should evolve only to include heterosexual couples. Do you believe in evolution?
Evolution normally moves towards thins that are beneficial, this does not benefit society as a whole, but merely panders to a pressure group. It certainly isn't an issue that the public were exercised about, if it were not the darling of the media. And while Hardy is correct to say that the people will speak, (perhaps 25% of people will vote for this, more will not bother voting), but against a background of media manipulation and the repeated use of language such as "outlaw" which implies that same sex relationships are somehow prevented and the falsehood that this will not affect traditional marriage. The whole thing is reminiscent of the media led groupthink in the property boom.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 07, 2015, 11:32:13 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 07, 2015, 10:59:37 PM
And it continues to evolve, which is why there is a call for same-sex marriage. There obviously has been no evolution towards marriage between members of the same family, otherwise it would be on the ballot paper. That is the nature of evolution, changes that are beneficial usually come to the fore. So your position seems to be that marriage should evolve only to include heterosexual couples. Do you believe in evolution?
Evolution normally moves towards thins that are beneficial, this does not benefit society as a whole, but merely panders to a pressure group. It certainly isn't an issue that the public were exercised about, if it were not the darling of the media. And while Hardy is correct to say that the people will speak, (perhaps 25% of people will vote for this, more will not bother voting), but against a background of media manipulation and the repeated use of language such as "outlaw" which implies that same sex relationships are somehow prevented and the falsehood that this will not affect traditional marriage. The whole thing is reminiscent of the media led groupthink in the property boom.
I may have missed it but please explain to me how gay people being allowed to marry even remotely affects my marriage??
Quote from: armaghniac on May 07, 2015, 11:32:13 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 07, 2015, 10:59:37 PM
And it continues to evolve, which is why there is a call for same-sex marriage. There obviously has been no evolution towards marriage between members of the same family, otherwise it would be on the ballot paper. That is the nature of evolution, changes that are beneficial usually come to the fore. So your position seems to be that marriage should evolve only to include heterosexual couples. Do you believe in evolution?
Evolution normally moves towards thins that are beneficial, this does not benefit society as a whole, but merely panders to a pressure group. It certainly isn't an issue that the public were exercised about, if it were not the darling of the media. And while Hardy is correct to say that the people will speak, (perhaps 25% of people will vote for this, more will not bother voting), but against a background of media manipulation and the repeated use of language such as "outlaw" which implies that same sex relationships are somehow prevented and the falsehood that this will not affect traditional marriage. The whole thing is reminiscent of the media led groupthink in the property boom.
Using your logic one could say that all of the great social evolutions of the past 200 years were merely pandering to pressure groups. Certainly the abolition of slavery in America destroyed the economies of the southern states, within which the vast majority of people ( who were white) were benefiting hugely from slave labour. Similarly the moves across the western world to extend the vote to women who were, at the time, a pressure group without political or economic power. Similarly the Civil rights movements in America and Northern Ireland - vocal minorities demanding rights, not because of their ability to dominant the agenda, but precisely because they were unable to exercise influence within the systems as they stood. It is the nature of social evolutions that they begin as challenges to the established order.
In case you forgot, there was a constitutional convention that agreed on the need to have this referendum, and as representatives of the nation as a whole, they moved the motion.
Your "media manipulation" is to me a failure of the No side to articulate a coherent and logical argument to oppose the Yes side, as illustrated by your repeated refusal to answer the question - how does same sex marriage undermine existing and future heterosexual marriage? The No side are receiving the same air time, there is a constitutional imperative for balance in the debate and they have the backing of the Catholic Hierarchy and various socially conservative pressure groups from across Ireland and the world. Yet they still couldn't check to see if the couple in their poster actually supported the cause they were using them to front. It seems to me your "media manipulation" is like someone fuming at last night's Champions League coverage for not concentrating on Bernat giving away the ball for Messi's first goal. I'd love to engage in your argument, if you can provide one, but making unfounded accusations about the media and ad hominem attacks on other posters here does not an argument make. In fact they are classic diversionary tactics and are easily recognised as such.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 08, 2015, 01:35:17 AM
Using your logic one could say that all of the great social evolutions of the past 200 years were merely pandering to pressure groups. Certainly the abolition of slavery in America destroyed the economies of the southern states, within which the vast majority of people ( who were white) were benefiting hugely from slave labour. Similarly the moves across the western world to extend the vote to women who were, at the time, a pressure group without political or economic power. Similarly the Civil rights movements in America and Northern Ireland - vocal minorities demanding rights, not because of their ability to dominant the agenda, but precisely because they were unable to exercise influence within the systems as they stood. It is the nature of social evolutions that they begin as challenges to the established order.
These examples are not helpful. Slavery in America, and even civil rights were in one locality, as was the 6 counties, they say nothing about the world in general.
The example of woman is closer to being useful, but women getting the vote did not change the nature of voting, only the set of people doing it and the franchise had been increasingly extended.
QuoteIn case you forgot, there was a constitutional convention that agreed on the need to have this referendum, and as representatives of the nation as a whole, they moved the motion.
I don't know who is on the constitutional convention, do you? In any case the proper thing is to have the vote and vote no.
Your "media manipulation" is to me a failure of the No side to articulate a coherent and logical argument to oppose the Yes side, as illustrated by your repeated refusal to answer the question - how does same sex marriage undermine existing and future heterosexual marriage? The No side are receiving the same air time, there is a constitutional imperative for balance in the debate and they have the backing of the Catholic Hierarchy and various socially conservative pressure groups from across Ireland and the world. Yet they still couldn't check to see if the couple in their poster actually supported the cause they were using them to front. It seems to me your "media manipulation" is like someone fuming at last night's Champions League coverage for not concentrating on Bernat giving away the ball for Messi's first goal. I'd love to engage in your argument, if you can provide one, but making unfounded accusations about the media and ad hominem attacks on other posters here does not an argument make. In fact they are classic diversionary tactics and are easily recognised as such.
[/quote]
Quote from: armaghniac on May 07, 2015, 11:32:13 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 07, 2015, 10:59:37 PM
And it continues to evolve, which is why there is a call for same-sex marriage. There obviously has been no evolution towards marriage between members of the same family, otherwise it would be on the ballot paper. That is the nature of evolution, changes that are beneficial usually come to the fore. So your position seems to be that marriage should evolve only to include heterosexual couples. Do you believe in evolution?
Evolution normally moves towards thins that are beneficial, this does not benefit society as a whole, but merely panders to a pressure group. It certainly isn't an issue that the public were exercised about, if it were not the darling of the media. And while Hardy is correct to say that the people will speak, (perhaps 25% of people will vote for this, more will not bother voting), but against a background of media manipulation and the repeated use of language such as "outlaw" which implies that same sex relationships are somehow prevented and the falsehood that this will not affect traditional marriage. The whole thing is reminiscent of the media led groupthink in the property boom.
Hah?!
It does nothing of the sort. Genes mutate randomly and life carries on with the consequences.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 07, 2015, 11:32:13 PM
The whole thing is reminiscent of the media led groupthink in the property boom.
I bet you heard Breda O'Brien say that and decided to run with it as a soundbyte which you probably think sounds discerning but in reality is completely vacuous.
In agreement on this issue you have political parties which are directly opposed to each other on pretty much everything else. Fine Gael and Sinn Fein agree. Joe Higgins agrees. Do you think Joe Higgins does groupthink?
IBEC and all the trade unions agree on this.
At some point you have to take a step back and say, when all the arguments and all the evidence points to something being right, and when its opponents can't muster a single coherent argument between them, that it's the No side that are clearly out of step.
Is it groupthink that Cameron is going to be PM again or that Kilkenny have been the best hurling team over the last 15 years?
BTW, apparently a Nebraska woman is suing gay people. That's right, all of them. Better get tubes and tubes of KY Jelly to squeeze them all into that courtroom.
http://time.com/3848666/nebraska-woman-sues-gays/ (http://time.com/3848666/nebraska-woman-sues-gays/)
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 08, 2015, 08:44:47 AM
http://time.com/3848666/nebraska-woman-sues-gays/ (http://time.com/3848666/nebraska-woman-sues-gays/)
Thankfully we would never have anyone that bigoted or intolerant. Sure we wouldn't?
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 08, 2015, 05:04:56 AM
BTW, apparently a Nebraska woman is suing gay people. That's right, all of them. Better get tubes and tubes of KY Jelly to squeeze them all into that courtroom.
Either a crackpot or a publicity stunt, or both!
On what grounds is she suing? Did she suffer damages?
I'd be shocked, even in somewhere like Nebraska, if a judge agreed to hear this, or even a lawyer took the case.
Quote from: J70 on May 08, 2015, 03:10:04 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 08, 2015, 05:04:56 AM
BTW, apparently a Nebraska woman is suing gay people. That's right, all of them. Better get tubes and tubes of KY Jelly to squeeze them all into that courtroom.
Either a crackpot or a publicity stunt, or both!
On what grounds is she suing? Did she suffer damages?
I'd be shocked, even in somewhere like Nebraska, if a judge agreed to hear this, or even a lawyer took the case.
I wish that were so, sad thing is this right wing nut will probably get her day in court in Nebraska!
She should get a soft kick in the hole but maybe she would enjoy it too much! ;)
No, I believe she's flying solo, no case law in her handwritten brief, only Biblical quotes and dictionary definitions. Sin is her theme, I understand, so what a wonderful opportunity for a Portadown-Poyntzpass prosecutor to perform pro bono work.
Read this on joe.ie
http://www.joe.ie/news/marriage-equality-referendum-5-key-questions-for-both-sides-of-the-debate/494917?utm_content=buffer94486&utm_medium=Social+organic&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer
The advocate for the 'No' side clearly has no rational explanation for voting no so he reframes the question and makes it about Gay and Lesbian couples raising families...
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE REFERENDUM IS ABOUT YOU IDIOT!!
Off topic but as it's part of the no campaign and mentioned by the yes side also what is the definition of a family? Is a mother and father of a child that are not married a family? have they the same rights as a family who are married. Do you need to be married to be considered a family? Are single mothers or fathers who were married afforded more rights then single mothers and fathers who were never married? Thanks
Quote from: screenexile on May 08, 2015, 03:32:28 PM
Read this on joe.ie
http://www.joe.ie/news/marriage-equality-referendum-5-key-questions-for-both-sides-of-the-debate/494917?utm_content=buffer94486&utm_medium=Social+organic&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer
The advocate for the 'No' side clearly has no rational explanation for voting no so he reframes the question and makes it about Gay and Lesbian couples raising families...
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE REFERENDUM IS ABOUT YOU IDIOT!!
That Keith Mills chap tied himself in knots on the Late Late Show when he responded to a question from an audience member by (correctly) acknowledging that it's the Children and Family Relationships bill which deals with the issue of same sex parenting, not the Marriage Equality referendum. The problem was he'd argued the direct opposite just a couple of minutes earlier.
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 08, 2015, 03:26:39 PM
No, I believe she's flying solo, no case law in her handwritten brief, only Biblical quotes and dictionary definitions. Sin is her theme, I understand, so what a wonderful opportunity for a Portadown-Poyntzpass prosecutor to perform pro bono work.
Judge will dismiss it and hopefully fine her for wasting his time!
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on May 08, 2015, 04:02:13 PM
Off topic but as it's part of the no campaign and mentioned by the yes side also what is the definition of a family? Is a mother and father of a child that are not married a family? have they the same rights as a family who are married. Do you need to be married to be considered a family? Are single mothers or fathers who were married afforded more rights then single mothers and fathers who were never married? Thanks
AFAIK under the constitution at present, a family is defined as a couple that is married. So the status that the constitution confers on families is not extended to civil partnerships. One of the central planks of the Yes campaign (though the questions of parents rights etc were cleared up to an extent by the recent legislation).
Quote from: screenexile on May 08, 2015, 03:32:28 PM
Read this on joe.ie
http://www.joe.ie/news/marriage-equality-referendum-5-key-questions-for-both-sides-of-the-debate/494917?utm_content=buffer94486&utm_medium=Social+organic&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer
The advocate for the 'No' side clearly has no rational explanation for voting no so he reframes the question and makes it about Gay and Lesbian couples raising families...
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE REFERENDUM IS ABOUT YOU IDIOT!!
I see the No side has continued their usual respectful tone for democratic debate. Misquote the other side and then imply that they don't have the right to make their point. Par for the course.
Mills' point is that there should be positive encouragement for a child to be brought up by its father and mother
"that marriage is an institution orientated towards a man and woman raising and being responsible for the children they have created"
Quote from: armaghniac on May 08, 2015, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: screenexile on May 08, 2015, 03:32:28 PM
Read this on joe.ie
http://www.joe.ie/news/marriage-equality-referendum-5-key-questions-for-both-sides-of-the-debate/494917?utm_content=buffer94486&utm_medium=Social+organic&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer
The advocate for the 'No' side clearly has no rational explanation for voting no so he reframes the question and makes it about Gay and Lesbian couples raising families...
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE REFERENDUM IS ABOUT YOU IDIOT!!
I see the No side has continued their usual respectful tone for democratic debate. Misquote the other side and then imply that they don't have the right to make their point. Par for the course.
Mills' point is that there should be positive encouragement for a child to be brought up by its father and mother
"that marriage is an institution orientated towards a man and woman raising and being responsible for the children they have created"
And yet again that has nothing to do with the referendum.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 05, 2015, 10:57:22 PM
Because you're reading human behaviour into animals. Science doesn't do that. Homosexual behaviour may exist but not homosexuality. That term should only be reserved for humans.
I argue that it isn't normal from a scientific perspective when you draw the comparison to animals. Existence of behaviour in nature does not equate to normal or natural.
For pediophilia in nature talk to any dog breeder, horse breeder. In-line breeding happens all the time - it is encouraged infact to retain desirable traits in animals. Grandfathers to grand-daughters.... happens all the time. Doesn't make it normal or justify it in humans.
Like Muppet pointed out from the start - its a red herring shouldnt be part of the conversation at all.
What is the basis for not being able to draw comparison with/evidence from the wider animal kingdom?
I still haven't seen any evidence for this contentioan that homosexuality should be reserved as a term for homo sapiens sapiens.
I have no difficutly with your paedophilia argument. After all I accept that it is natural in humans also.
Am I correct in saying that the No campaign centres on 3 points
1) Homosexuality offends god. It says so in the bible and the bible is to be taken literally and not to be interpreted by man. Separately other bits of the bible are not to be taken literally. The contradiction is to be ignored and it is faith bashing by the Yes campaign if they point this out.
2) Queers are bad for children. A good way to stop children being exposed to homosexuals would be to stop them being adopted by homosexual couples. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to provide any evidence in support of their claim. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to counter any evidence that the Yes campaign might offer in support of their claim. It is unfair of the Yes campaign to politely ask the No Campaign to address the 2 preceding points. The fact that the referendum is not about adoption should not prevent the No campaign for using this line of argument.
3) Homosexuality is unnatural. Evidence of its existence in other species is to be ignored. It is best to pretend that evidence that offends your own argument simply doesnt exist. Alternative explanations of where homosexuality comes from are unnecessary.
If I am correct in this then its difficult to see how a rational adult could vote No. If there are other arguments from the No camapign then they need to set them out. Otherwise it is difficult not to conclude that the only reason to vote no is that the voter doesn't like gays i.e. they suffer from homophobia. Sorry to have to point that out but as I say feel free to point out those other reasons for voting no.
Sorry to backtrack here, but can anyone tell me specially what the Asher (?) Bakery was asked to write on the cake they were asked to provide for the same- sex couple. Was it text, and if so what did the words say, or was it an offensive image? Thanks for any help.
QuoteMr Lee had placed an order for a cake with the slogan 'support gay marriage' and an image of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street.
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 10:11:45 AM
Am I correct in saying that the No campaign centres on 3 points
1) Homosexuality offends god. It says so in the bible and the bible is to be taken literally and not to be interpreted by man. Separately other bits of the bible are not to be taken literally. The contradiction is to be ignored and it is faith bashing by the Yes campaign if they point this out.
2) Queers are bad for children. A good way to stop children being exposed to homosexuals would be to stop them being adopted by homosexual couples. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to provide any evidence in support of their claim. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to counter any evidence that the Yes campaign might offer in support of their claim. It is unfair of the Yes campaign to politely ask the No Campaign to address the 2 preceding points. The fact that the referendum is not about adoption should not prevent the No campaign for using this line of argument.
3) Homosexuality is unnatural. Evidence of its existence in other species is to be ignored. It is best to pretend that evidence that offends your own argument simply doesnt exist. Alternative explanations of where homosexuality comes from are unnecessary.
If I am correct in this then its difficult to see how a rational adult could vote No. If there are other arguments from the No camapign then they need to set them out. Otherwise it is difficult not to conclude that the only reason to vote no is that the voter doesn't like gays i.e. they suffer from homophobia. Sorry to have to point that out but as I say feel free to point out those other reasons for voting no.
I'm not in the no camp before anyone chastises me.
I think some arguments centre around the basic definition and boundaries of marriage and they feel it's outside the boundaries of it due to inability to have family, outside adoption, etc.
Not everyone who opposes it is homophobic. There are quite a few good examples of homophobia on this thread but i think there is one in the no camp here who isn't that and is being grouped with everyone else...
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 09, 2015, 01:22:15 PM
I think some arguments centre around the basic definition and boundaries of marriage and they feel it's outside the boundaries of it due to inability to have family, outside adoption, etc.
The whole thing ceentres around the basic definition of marriage. But the link to having children is a complete red herring. Afterall there is no current prohibition on hetrosexual couples who cannot or do not want to have childre, from getting married.
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 09, 2015, 01:22:15 PM
Not everyone who opposes it is homophobic. There are quite a few good examples of homophobia on this thread but i think there is one in the no camp here who isn't that and is being grouped with everyone else...
Please point me to the non-homophobic reasons for voting No.
Truly pathetic, the homophobic card has to be the most played card in modern society, that is the reason the polls all point to a resounding yes people are scared by gay right activists like yourself branding them homophobic by daring to question the issue of same sex marriage. Come polling day the result will be a lot closer than the polls show.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:30:26 PM
Truly pathetic, the homophobic card has to be the most played card in modern society, that is the reason the polls all point to a resounding yes people are scared by gay right activists like yourself branding them homophobic by daring to question the issue of same sex marriage. Come polling day the result will be a lot closer than the polls show.
Just point me to the non-homophobic argument for voting No then?
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 10:11:45 AM
Am I correct in saying that the No campaign centres on 3 points
1) Homosexuality offends god. It says so in the bible and the bible is to be taken literally and not to be interpreted by man. Separately other bits of the bible are not to be taken literally. The contradiction is to be ignored and it is faith bashing by the Yes campaign if they point this out.
2) Queers are bad for children. A good way to stop children being exposed to homosexuals would be to stop them being adopted by homosexual couples. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to provide any evidence in support of their claim. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to counter any evidence that the Yes campaign might offer in support of their claim. It is unfair of the Yes campaign to politely ask the No Campaign to address the 2 preceding points. The fact that the referendum is not about adoption should not prevent the No campaign for using this line of argument.
3) Homosexuality is unnatural. Evidence of its existence in other species is to be ignored. It is best to pretend that evidence that offends your own argument simply doesnt exist. Alternative explanations of where homosexuality comes from are unnecessary.
I don't agree with any of these contentions. God is not involved in civil law, many gays are good to children and whether homosexuality occurs in nature is neither here nor there.
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:32:16 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:30:26 PM
Truly pathetic, the homophobic card has to be the most played card in modern society, that is the reason the polls all point to a resounding yes people are scared by gay right activists like yourself branding them homophobic by daring to question the issue of same sex marriage. Come polling day the result will be a lot closer than the polls show.
Just point me to the non-homophobic argument for voting No then?
That sums it up anyone who dares question any part of it is homophobic in your eyes, truly pathetic.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:34:31 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:32:16 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:30:26 PM
Truly pathetic, the homophobic card has to be the most played card in modern society, that is the reason the polls all point to a resounding yes people are scared by gay right activists like yourself branding them homophobic by daring to question the issue of same sex marriage. Come polling day the result will be a lot closer than the polls show.
Just point me to the non-homophobic argument for voting No then?
That sums it up anyone who dares question any part of it is homophobic in your eyes, truly pathetic.
You cannot really expect to get away with that. You contend that there are arguments for voting No and these arguments are not homophobic. I merely request that you point these arguments out anew or point out where they have been detailed before. That is the nature of debate.
I will be voting NO because I don't believe believe aberrant dispositions and behaviours should be normalised as it is not in the greater interests of society. I appreciate that homosexuals don't choose their sexual orientation and would not think any less of a man or woman because they are gay.
I don't understand how I can be labelled homophobic - I neither fear nor hate gay people.
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 09, 2015, 05:40:17 PM
I will be voting NO because I don't believe believe aberrant dispositions and behaviours should be normalised as it is not in the greater interests of society. I appreciate that homosexuals don't choose their sexual orientation and would not think any less of a man or woman because they are gay.
I don't understand how I can be labelled homophobic - I neither fear nor hate gay people.
To evaluate your argument, such as it is I would have to explore
1) Why you believe that gay marriage is not in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why you believe homosexuality is not normal (it would have to something more valid than "most people are not gay therefore its not normal")
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:38:22 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:34:31 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:32:16 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:30:26 PM
Truly pathetic, the homophobic card has to be the most played card in modern society, that is the reason the polls all point to a resounding yes people are scared by gay right activists like yourself branding them homophobic by daring to question the issue of same sex marriage. Come polling day the result will be a lot closer than the polls show.
Just point me to the non-homophobic argument for voting No then?
That sums it up anyone who dares question any part of it is homophobic in your eyes, truly pathetic.
You cannot really expect to get away with that. You contend that there are arguments for voting No and these arguments are not homophobic. I merely request that you point these arguments out anew or point out where they have been detailed before. That is the nature of debate.
Truly pathetic, people have opinions and beliefs, you are say ANYONE who does not believe in gay marriage is homophobic. People aren't allowed to question your beliefs but you can trample theirs by branding ANYONE who does not conform to your way of thinking homophobic, you are a lovely boy.
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:45:38 PM
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 09, 2015, 05:40:17 PM
I will be voting NO because I don't believe believe aberrant dispositions and behaviours should be normalised as it is not in the greater interests of society. I appreciate that homosexuals don't choose their sexual orientation and would not think any less of a man or woman because they are gay.
I don't understand how I can be labelled homophobic - I neither fear nor hate gay people.
To evaluate your argument, such as it is I would have to explore
1) Why you believe that gay marriage is not in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why you believe homosexuality is not normal (it would have to something more valid than "most people are not gay therefore its not normal")
1) Why do you believe that gay marriage is in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why do you believe homosexuality is normal (it would have to something more valid than "the odd male dog bangs the odd other male dog")
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:46:03 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:38:22 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:34:31 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:32:16 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:30:26 PM
Truly pathetic, the homophobic card has to be the most played card in modern society, that is the reason the polls all point to a resounding yes people are scared by gay right activists like yourself branding them homophobic by daring to question the issue of same sex marriage. Come polling day the result will be a lot closer than the polls show.
Just point me to the non-homophobic argument for voting No then?
That sums it up anyone who dares question any part of it is homophobic in your eyes, truly pathetic.
You cannot really expect to get away with that. You contend that there are arguments for voting No and these arguments are not homophobic. I merely request that you point these arguments out anew or point out where they have been detailed before. That is the nature of debate.
Truly pathetic, people have opinions and beliefs, you are say ANYONE who does not believe in gay marriage is homophobic. People aren't allowed to question your beliefs but you can trample theirs by branding ANYONE who does not conform to your way of thinking homophobic, you are a lovely boy.
I say that I have not heard a non-homophobic argument for voting No. I keep inviting you to post or direct me to an argument that is not homphobic. That is all you have to do.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2015, 05:34:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 10:11:45 AM
Am I correct in saying that the No campaign centres on 3 points
1) Homosexuality offends god. It says so in the bible and the bible is to be taken literally and not to be interpreted by man. Separately other bits of the bible are not to be taken literally. The contradiction is to be ignored and it is faith bashing by the Yes campaign if they point this out.
2) Queers are bad for children. A good way to stop children being exposed to homosexuals would be to stop them being adopted by homosexual couples. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to provide any evidence in support of their claim. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to counter any evidence that the Yes campaign might offer in support of their claim. It is unfair of the Yes campaign to politely ask the No Campaign to address the 2 preceding points. The fact that the referendum is not about adoption should not prevent the No campaign for using this line of argument.
3) Homosexuality is unnatural. Evidence of its existence in other species is to be ignored. It is best to pretend that evidence that offends your own argument simply doesnt exist. Alternative explanations of where homosexuality comes from are unnecessary.
I don't agree with any of these contentions. God is not involved in civil law, many gays are good to children and whether homosexuality occurs in nature is neither here nor there.
That is good that you don't agree with those 3 points. Are you aware of any other arguments for voting No?
Religious belief is one.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:48:44 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:45:38 PM
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 09, 2015, 05:40:17 PM
I will be voting NO because I don't believe believe aberrant dispositions and behaviours should be normalised as it is not in the greater interests of society. I appreciate that homosexuals don't choose their sexual orientation and would not think any less of a man or woman because they are gay.
I don't understand how I can be labelled homophobic - I neither fear nor hate gay people.
To evaluate your argument, such as it is I would have to explore
1) Why you believe that gay marriage is not in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why you believe homosexuality is not normal (it would have to something more valid than "most people are not gay therefore its not normal")
1) Why do you believe that gay marriage is in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why do you believe homosexuality is normal (it would have to something more valid than "the odd male dog bangs the odd other male dog")
Simple really
1) There is zero evidence that it will any harm. If presented the opportunity to treat people equal and it will do nor harm it is a very easy decision - Vote Yes.
2) Homosexuality occurs naturally in homo sapiens sapiens as it does in the wider animal kingdom. Its not even confined to mamals. Things naturally arising in nature are normal. Paedophilia is normal. Its is non-consenual and harmful and there we try to prohibit it. Consenting homosexual behaviour presents no problems that need regulated.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:50:55 PM
Religious belief is one.
Please be specific. I have dealt with the biblical arguments previously but if you have something new that has not previously been exploded then please present it
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:57:12 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:50:55 PM
Religious belief is one.
Please be specific. I have dealt with the biblical arguments previously but if you have something new that has not previously been exploded then please present it
You asked for a non homophobic reason to vote No , a religious belief is such a reason.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 06:03:58 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:57:12 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:50:55 PM
Religious belief is one.
Please be specific. I have dealt with the biblical arguments previously but if you have something new that has not previously been exploded then please present it
You asked for a non homophobic reason to vote No , a religious belief is such a reason.
Not really. You need to explain the religious belief. To date those have used this argement have said their religious belief is informed by scripture. If its in scripture its the word of god and must be obeyed. They then accept that they do not accept other things in the bible. Therefore they have made a choice to believe this particular bit of the bible. The decision to accept the anti-gay bits but reject other bits couldn't really be used as evidence of not being homophobic.
Therefore much more detail than "religious belief" is needed
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:55:22 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:48:44 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:45:38 PM
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 09, 2015, 05:40:17 PM
I will be voting NO because I don't believe believe aberrant dispositions and behaviours should be normalised as it is not in the greater interests of society. I appreciate that homosexuals don't choose their sexual orientation and would not think any less of a man or woman because they are gay.
I don't understand how I can be labelled homophobic - I neither fear nor hate gay people.
To evaluate your argument, such as it is I would have to explore
1) Why you believe that gay marriage is not in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why you believe homosexuality is not normal (it would have to something more valid than "most people are not gay therefore its not normal")
1) Why do you believe that gay marriage is in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why do you believe homosexuality is normal (it would have to something more valid than "the odd male dog bangs the odd other male dog")
Simple really
1) There is zero evidence that it will any harm. If presented the opportunity to treat people equal and it will do nor harm it is a very easy decision - Vote Yes.
2) Homosexuality occurs naturally in homo sapiens sapiens as it does in the wider animal kingdom. Its not even confined to mamals. Things naturally arising in nature are normal. Paedophilia is normal. Its is non-consenual and harmful and there we try to prohibit it. Consenting homosexual behaviour presents no problems that need regulated.
Exactly. Homosexual behaviour should not be regulated, it should not be prohibited, it should not be promoted.
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 06:03:58 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:57:12 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:50:55 PM
Religious belief is one.
Please be specific. I have dealt with the biblical arguments previously but if you have something new that has not previously been exploded then please present it
You asked for a non homophobic reason to vote No , a religious belief is such a reason.
Not really. You need to explain the religious belief. To date those have used this argement have said their religious belief is informed by scripture. If its in scripture its the word of god and must be obeyed. They then accept that they do not accept other things in the bible. Therefore they have made a choice to believe this particular bit of the bible. The decision to accept the anti-gay bits but reject other bits couldn't really be used as evidence of not being homophobic.
Therefore much more detail than "religious belief" is needed
No there isn't, if people have a religious belief to vote No on same sex marriage, that is a spiritual reason for themselves, you need no other detail and people need to offer no other detail. Religion is a highly personal thing for billions of people, are you in your wisdom classifying ANYONE from any world religion who would vote no on same sex marriage homophobic, as I say you are truly pathetic. I am not religious but if God said the word, man wrote it, so invariable any religious's scripture can be hole picked, but you know that, you just want to berate and castigate anyone who doesn't pander to your views on gay marriage.
Armaghniac, your last post gave me a chuckle, I have to admit. I was thinking about the prospect of unregulated homosexual activity, perhaps a naked LBGT sports day at St. Oliver Plunkett's Park?. And as for not promoting homosexuality, I can't imagine the success of a sign saying "Play G.A.Y., You'll Find It's the Best Way.' But maybe you could promote the sports day itself. 'Come to Sports Day in Cross, Where We Put the 'Cross' in Crossmaglen.'
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 06:16:16 PM
No there isn't, if people have a religious belief to vote No on same sex marriage, that is a spiritual reason for themselves, you need no other detail and people need to offer no other detail. Religion is a highly personal thing for billions of people, are you in your wisdom classifying ANYONE from any world religion who would vote no on same sex marriage homophobic, as I say you are truly pathetic. I am not religious but if God said the word, man wrote it, so invariable any religious's scripture can be hole picked, but you know that, you just want to berate and castigate anyone who doesn't pander to your views on gay marriage.
This would be more convincing if religious people were as outraged at mixed-material fabrics and gathering sticks on a Sunday as they are about homosexuality. Sorry, but this cherry-picking of scripture is not fooling me. Homophobia is homophobia, pure and simple. If the truth hurts then let get get out the ...
(http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/thumbnails/6a00d834515ae969e2017c35817072970b.jpg)
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 09, 2015, 07:55:57 PM
Armaghniac, your last post gave me a chuckle, I have to admit. I was thinking about the prospect of unregulated homosexual activity, perhaps a naked LBGT sports day at St. Oliver Plunkett's Park?. And as for not promoting homosexuality, I can't imagine the success of a sign saying "Play G.A.Y., You'll Find It's the Best Way.' But maybe you could promote the sports day itself. 'Come to Sports Day in Cross, Where We Put the 'Cross' in Crossmaglen.'
Gay or not, if they are any good they will be expected to reproduce and contribute to the record breaking team of 2040 and their 75th Armagh title.
QuoteWhat do you mean it by "it should not be prohibited"?
As it says, that ay relationships should not be prohibited. The impression is sometimes given in this debate that people are prevented in some way from conducting same sex relationships and this isn't true, nor should it be.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 09, 2015, 11:55:17 PM
If the referendum passes than the government can promote the state of marriage and can confer the benefits of that state on both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - thus promoting social stability. And for those who have been in marriages that have broken down there are supports and legal recourse available.
The scale of government intervention is only warranted to protect children, it should not be overly involved in the conduct of adult sexual relationships.
QuoteThese benefits are not available to single people or those who chose not to get married whilst in a relationship. So everyone does not get the same.
No, these people just get to pay for it.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 12:32:35 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 09, 2015, 11:55:17 PM
If the referendum passes than the government can promote the state of marriage and can confer the benefits of that state on both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - thus promoting social stability. And for those who have been in marriages that have broken down there are supports and legal recourse available.
The scale of government intervention is only warranted to protect children, it should not be overly involved in the conduct of adult sexual relationships.
QuoteThese benefits are not available to single people or those who chose not to get married whilst in a relationship. So everyone does not get the same.
No, these people just get to pay for it.
No the scale of government intervention is warranted to promote a family as the most stable social unit to base our society on. Our constitution currently defines a family as a married heterosexual couple. The referendum may extend that to same sex couples. The benefits of basing our society on this unit includes and goes beyond the nurturing of children (as it must as not every marriage is capable of or chooses to procreate). A marriage commitment between people is widely considered to promote social cohesion, separate of the issue of children.
And "no these people just pay for it" indicates a staggering ignorance of the family law and taxation system. The entire edifice is designed to keep couples (whether they have children or not) together in the form of free mediation and counselling services. Married couples have responsibilities to each other that are not dissolved by a break up and must be resolved through mediation or judicial separation. The tax system confers benefits on married couples (whether they have children or not) which will always be unavailable to single people. So, no, they can't pay for it, unless you're talking in a general sense, where wealth makes things easier for people. Which it does. But is doesn't buy you the place a married couple holds in the constitution, which is different to, and not available to single people.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 01:38:04 AM
No the scale of government intervention is warranted to promote a family as the most stable social unit to base our society on. Our constitution currently defines a family as a married heterosexual couple. The referendum may extend that to same sex couples. The benefits of basing our society on this unit includes and goes beyond the nurturing of children (as it must as not every marriage is capable of or chooses to procreate). A marriage commitment between people is widely considered to promote social cohesion, separate of the issue of children.
The scale of support for marriage is justified by the existence of children resulting from the relationship. Civil partnership already confers any required state support for adult relationships.
QuoteThe tax system confers benefits on married couples (whether they have children or not) which will always be unavailable to single people.
So the single people pay for it, as I said. What is the public policy reason why a single person incurring the expenses of a household on their own has to pay more tax to support a single sex couple sharing their household expenses?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 01:53:18 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 01:38:04 AM
No the scale of government intervention is warranted to promote a family as the most stable social unit to base our society on. Our constitution currently defines a family as a married heterosexual couple. The referendum may extend that to same sex couples. The benefits of basing our society on this unit includes and goes beyond the nurturing of children (as it must as not every marriage is capable of or chooses to procreate). A marriage commitment between people is widely considered to promote social cohesion, separate of the issue of children.
The scale of support for marriage is justified by the existence of children resulting from the relationship. Civil partnership already confers any required state support for adult relationships.
QuoteThe tax system confers benefits on married couples (whether they have children or not) which will always be unavailable to single people.
So the single people pay for it, as I said. What is the public policy reason why a single person incurring the expenses of a household on their own has to pay more tax to support a single sex couple sharing their household expenses?
Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true. The scale of support for marriage is justified because as we a democracy, like most of the other Western countries, decided that marriage was the best arrangement to promote stability and social cohesion, whether children were involved or not. Look up the definition of a family in our constitution.
You're also selectively quoting - I also cited the family law system, which confers both rights and responsibilities on married partners which it does not to single people. These rights and responsibilities cannot be paid for.
As to your specific point on tax - as above, we have decided as a society that married families are the most stable unit to build our society upon ( not a point I am sold on, as my previous posts will attest, as i don't believe in ideal families - but as citizen i am required to live by our laws). As such, if the referendum goes through, same sex couples will have the same rights as hetero married couples and will accrue the same benefits. As there has not been a clamour to change our tax system to so that singles do not support hetero married couples, I can only assume that any objections brought up re same sex couples and tax is because of the sexuality of the couples involved.
Either marriage is stable, socially cohesive institution, with or without children, or it is not. If it is, and marriage is extended to same sex couples, then fairness dictates they should benefit for contributing to that social cohesion.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 02:24:10 AM
Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true. The scale of support for marriage is justified because as we a democracy, like most of the other Western countries, decided that marriage was the best arrangement to promote stability and social cohesion, whether children were involved or not. Look up the definition of a family in our constitution.
This is not true because I repeat it, it is true because that is the understanding of marriage in every society of the world.
And as for the constitution, when this was written there would have no need to spell out the association of marriage and children as the bizarre arguments you are advancing would not have been anticipated.
QuoteYou're also selectively quoting - I also cited the family law system, which confers both rights and responsibilities on married partners which it does not to single people. These rights and responsibilities cannot be paid for.
Fair enough, civil partnership provides these things.
QuoteAs to your specific point on tax - as above, we have decided as a society that married families are the most stable unit to build our society upon ( not a point I am sold on, as my previous posts will attest, as i don't believe in ideal families - but as citizen i am required to live by our laws). As such, if the referendum goes through, same sex couples will have the same rights as hetero married couples and will accrue the same benefits. As there has not been a clamour to change our tax system to so that singles do not support hetero married couples, I can only assume that any objections brought up re same sex couples and tax is because of the sexuality of the couples involved.
Indeed you don't believe in ideal families, or families at all, that much is obvious.
When families are referred to in the context of taxes, welfare payments, etc. there is an implicit association of children. As the majority of married couples do have children, then no clamour arises. The addition of combinations where zero percent of them can have children is breaking this association and can only lead to less generous treatment of marriage in the tax code in the future. If marriage has no particular status and is only associated with adults then in the interests of "equality" there is no reason for unmarried people to subsidise married ones.
Quote from: easytiger95Either marriage is stable, socially cohesive institution, with or without children, or it is not. If it is, and marriage is extended to same sex couples, then fairness dictates they should benefit for contributing to that social cohesion.
Same sex couples as a class do not contribute children being brought up by their parents and so should receive less benefit for less contribution.
QuoteThis is not true because I repeat it, it is true because that is the understanding of marriage in every society of the world.
And as for the constitution, when this was written there would have no need to spell out the association of marriage and children as the bizarre arguments you are advancing would not have been anticipated.
That understanding may be in
religions throughout the world, but as I pointed out earlier, that cannot hold true for civil law, and does not hold true in our constitution, because married people sometimes do not have children. If knowing the law and its implications is bizarre, then fine, in a logic free universe, I need a strait jacket.
QuoteIndeed you don't believe in ideal families, or families at all, that much is obvious.
You know nothing about my attitudes. My family is the most important thing in my life. But I don't think that gives me the right to judge or circumscribe how other people organise their families, through choice or situation.
QuoteWhen families are referred to in the context of taxes, welfare payments, etc. there is an implicit association of children. As the majority of married couples do have children, then no clamour arises. The addition of combinations where zero percent of them can have children is breaking this association and can only lead to less generous treatment of marriage in the tax code in the future. If marriage has no particular status and is only associated with adults then in the interests of "equality" there is no reason for unmarried people to subsidise married ones.
As soon as you get married, your tax status changes. If you have children, they can then increase the benefits that accrue, but there is a reason on all the forms that they ask "married or single?" first and then ask "if married, do you have any dependants?" Your argument all along has been that same sex couples erodes the status of marriage - but nothing in the civil law or taxation code changes. Not one benefit is taken away from heterosexual couples. The status of marriage remains above that of single people, as it always has. And the status of children, adoption and parents access to their child has already been dealt with by the Oireachtas. You have no argument.
QuoteSame sex couples as a class do not contribute children being brought up by their parents and so should receive less benefit for less contribution.
They can of course, either through adoption or fertility treatment, be parents to children, give them a stable, loving home and receive any tax benefits that accrue. Provided that firstly, they get married.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2015, 06:10:20 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:55:22 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:48:44 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:45:38 PM
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 09, 2015, 05:40:17 PM
I will be voting NO because I don't believe believe aberrant dispositions and behaviours should be normalised as it is not in the greater interests of society. I appreciate that homosexuals don't choose their sexual orientation and would not think any less of a man or woman because they are gay.
I don't understand how I can be labelled homophobic - I neither fear nor hate gay people.
To evaluate your argument, such as it is I would have to explore
1) Why you believe that gay marriage is not in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why you believe homosexuality is not normal (it would have to something more valid than "most people are not gay therefore its not normal")
1) Why do you believe that gay marriage is in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why do you believe homosexuality is normal (it would have to something more valid than "the odd male dog bangs the odd other male dog")
Simple really
1) There is zero evidence that it will any harm. If presented the opportunity to treat people equal and it will do nor harm it is a very easy decision - Vote Yes.
2) Homosexuality occurs naturally in homo sapiens sapiens as it does in the wider animal kingdom. Its not even confined to mamals. Things naturally arising in nature are normal. Paedophilia is normal. Its is non-consenual and harmful and there we try to prohibit it. Consenting homosexual behaviour presents no problems that need regulated.
Exactly. Homosexual behaviour should not be regulated, it should not be prohibited, it should not be promoted.
Regulated in what way? Enforcement of performance standards? Money back or another go if not satisfied?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 06:16:16 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 06:03:58 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 05:57:12 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 09, 2015, 05:50:55 PM
Religious belief is one.
Please be specific. I have dealt with the biblical arguments previously but if you have something new that has not previously been exploded then please present it
You asked for a non homophobic reason to vote No , a religious belief is such a reason.
Not really. You need to explain the religious belief. To date those have used this argement have said their religious belief is informed by scripture. If its in scripture its the word of god and must be obeyed. They then accept that they do not accept other things in the bible. Therefore they have made a choice to believe this particular bit of the bible. The decision to accept the anti-gay bits but reject other bits couldn't really be used as evidence of not being homophobic.
Therefore much more detail than "religious belief" is needed
No there isn't, if people have a religious belief to vote No on same sex marriage, that is a spiritual reason for themselves, you need no other detail and people need to offer no other detail. Religion is a highly personal thing for billions of people, are you in your wisdom classifying ANYONE from any world religion who would vote no on same sex marriage homophobic, as I say you are truly pathetic. I am not religious but if God said the word, man wrote it, so invariable any religious's scripture can be hole picked, but you know that, you just want to berate and castigate anyone who doesn't pander to your views on gay marriage.
By all means correct me if I am misinterpreting your line of argument but it strikes me that you are contending if someone is against equality that they can simply say that it is their religious belief and, without further explanation of their specific grounds, happily continue to deny equality. That strikes as a wholly inadequate argument and has no place in a grown up society or in a single grown up mind.
Religion can be as personal as it likes but once someone quotes religion as their motivating factor they can be rightly asked to explain it.
If anyone from a religious faith points to an ancient text and says they are bound by it on one issue but not on another then they have made that decision (not god) and are not immune from being asked to explain it.
The argument here seems to be, "it's not me that's homophobic, it's my religion."
The Nuremberg Defence.
Quote from: Hardy on May 10, 2015, 04:51:20 PM
The argument here seems to be, "it's not me that's homophobic, it's my religion."
The Nuremberg Defence.
In a nutshell.
Mind you are not accused of being pathetic (incidently my least favourite word)
The "i'm not homopobic, i'm only following my faith" does seem to imply either an incapacity for or an aversion to rational thought.
Quote from: LCohen on May 10, 2015, 03:33:29 PM
Regulated in what way? Enforcement of performance standards? Money back or another go if not satisfied?
As I said, neither prohibited nor promoted. There is no reason for the State to promote same sex relationships, but cunningly people haven't attempted to argue that they should but are simply attempting to freeload on the long established institution of marriage.
Quote from: screenexileIndeed! My favourite is the "baby needs its mother" defence... I don't remember too many mentioning that when the Magdalene's were doing their thing!!
A noble piece of whataboutery. "They" did something wrong 50 or 100 years ago. so let's get them back now by a similar wrong.
Last magdalene laundry closed in 1996, less than 20 years ago. And speaking of whataboutery - "similar wrong?" I really hope you're not comparing one of the most grievous crimes against humanity, mothers and children, ever committed in this country, with the possible provision of gay marriage?
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 07:24:30 PM
Last magdalene laundry closed in 1996, less than 20 years ago. And speaking of whataboutery - "similar wrong?" I really hope you're not comparing one of the most grievous crimes against humanity, mothers and children, ever committed in this country, with the possible provision of gay marriage?
Perhaps similar was not appropriate, but both are the application of dogma by people more interested in the dogma than the care of children.
Quote from: LCohen on May 10, 2015, 05:33:34 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 10, 2015, 04:51:20 PM
The argument here seems to be, "it's not me that's homophobic, it's my religion."
The Nuremberg Defence.
In a nutshell.
Mind you are not accused of being pathetic (incidently my least favourite word)
The "i'm not homopobic, i'm only following my faith" does seem to imply either an incapacity for or an aversion to rational thought.
I don't believe in God, and if you read back I do support gay marriage, but you asked for a reason to say no that wasn't homophobic and I give you religious belief, but that doesn't satisfy your need to berate and castigate anyone doesn't hold your moral view on gay marriage. For that reason the word pathetic resonates quite appropriately in your direction.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 07:29:33 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 07:24:30 PM
Last magdalene laundry closed in 1996, less than 20 years ago. And speaking of whataboutery - "similar wrong?" I really hope you're not comparing one of the most grievous crimes against humanity, mothers and children, ever committed in this country, with the possible provision of gay marriage?
Perhaps similar was not appropriate FULL STOP
Corrected that for you.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 07:39:02 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 07:29:33 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 07:24:30 PM
Last magdalene laundry closed in 1996, less than 20 years ago. And speaking of whataboutery - "similar wrong?" I really hope you're not comparing one of the most grievous crimes against humanity, mothers and children, ever committed in this country, with the possible provision of gay marriage?
Perhaps similar was not appropriate FULL STOP
Corrected that for you.
Punctuation is all very fine, but the fact remains that you cannot justify a wrong in the present by reference to a wrong in the past.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 07:17:44 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 10, 2015, 03:33:29 PM
Regulated in what way? Enforcement of performance standards? Money back or another go if not satisfied?
As I said, neither prohibited nor promoted. There is no reason for the State to promote same sex relationships, but cunningly people haven't attempted to argue that they should but are simply attempting to freeload on the long established institution of marriage.
Marriage encourages stable relationships. This is good for wider society, whether there are children involved or not. Any 'cost' of you 'subsidising' gay marriage will be negligible - you won't notice any difference in your finances - but the benefits to those allowed to marry will be immeasurable.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 08:06:48 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 07:39:02 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 07:29:33 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 07:24:30 PM
Last magdalene laundry closed in 1996, less than 20 years ago. And speaking of whataboutery - "similar wrong?" I really hope you're not comparing one of the most grievous crimes against humanity, mothers and children, ever committed in this country, with the possible provision of gay marriage?
Perhaps similar was not appropriate FULL STOP
Corrected that for you.
Punctuation is all very fine, but the fact remains that you cannot justify a wrong in the present by reference to a wrong in the past.
It's the No campaign who keep bringing same sex parenting into the debate when its not even the issue at hand... I'm arguing against the whataboutery that has already been introduced!
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 10, 2015, 08:12:36 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 07:17:44 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 10, 2015, 03:33:29 PM
Regulated in what way? Enforcement of performance standards? Money back or another go if not satisfied?
As I said, neither prohibited nor promoted. There is no reason for the State to promote same sex relationships, but cunningly people haven't attempted to argue that they should but are simply attempting to freeload on the long established institution of marriage.
Marriage encourages stable relationships. This is good for wider society, whether there are children involved or not. Any 'cost' of you 'subsidising' gay marriage will be negligible - you won't notice any difference in your finances - but the benefits to those allowed to marry will be immeasurable.
The cost of subsiding dole spongers is negligible, but that is no reason to expect someone to agree to it. What actual benefits do people get from having their relationship described as marriage rather than civil partnership?
Quote from: screenexileIt's the No campaign who keep bringing same sex parenting into the debate when its not even the issue at hand...
It is the yes campaign that continues to put forward the dishonest and destructive contention that parenting has nothing to do with marriage.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 08:22:40 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 10, 2015, 08:12:36 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 07:17:44 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 10, 2015, 03:33:29 PM
Regulated in what way? Enforcement of performance standards? Money back or another go if not satisfied?
As I said, neither prohibited nor promoted. There is no reason for the State to promote same sex relationships, but cunningly people haven't attempted to argue that they should but are simply attempting to freeload on the long established institution of marriage.
Marriage encourages stable relationships. This is good for wider society, whether there are children involved or not. Any 'cost' of you 'subsidising' gay marriage will be negligible - you won't notice any difference in your finances - but the benefits to those allowed to marry will be immeasurable.
The cost of subsiding dole spongers is negligible, but that is no reason to expect someone to agree to it.
I wouldn't equate the two myself. As i've said, marriage equality does have benefits for wider society.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 08:22:40 PM
What actual benefits do people get from having their relationship described as marriage rather than civil partnership?
I'm sure you could provide all the same benefits and call it civil partnership, but it seems important to many people that it is called marriage, so I don't see any argument for denying them that. But I thought your argument was against granting them equality based on benefits to wider society, rather than what their partnership is called?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 08:06:48 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 07:39:02 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 07:29:33 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 07:24:30 PM
Last magdalene laundry closed in 1996, less than 20 years ago. And speaking of whataboutery - "similar wrong?" I really hope you're not comparing one of the most grievous crimes against humanity, mothers and children, ever committed in this country, with the possible provision of gay marriage?
Perhaps similar was not appropriate FULL STOP
Corrected that for you.
Punctuation is all very fine, but the fact remains that you cannot justify a wrong in the present by reference to a wrong in the past.
I don't feel gay couples bringing up children, either biological or adopted, in a loving and supportive home to be a wrong. And even as I accept that other people may have a different opinion than me on that subject, I certainly vehemently object to anyone comparing it to events that have been aptly described before as an Irish Holocaust.
So you see, it is not about punctuation. It is about intellectual honesty.
If you really felt that children being raised by gay couples was comparable with a century long orgy of child abuse, separation and physical/sexual violence against young women, perhaps you should have been protesting at the gates of the Dail when the Children and Family relationships Act was passed? Rather than using it as a bogus argument in a completely different constitutional issue?
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 08:31:42 PM
I don't feel gay couples bringing up children, either biological or adopted, in a loving and supportive home to be a wrong.
I don't think it is wrong either. I do think that public policy should encourage children to be brought up by their own parents.
QuoteAnd even as I accept that other people may have a different opinion than me on that subject, I certainly vehemently object to anyone comparing it to events that have been aptly described before as an Irish Holocaust.
In a country where Cromwell killed one quarter of the population and a million plus died in the famine, it is these events should be described as an Irish Holocaust, so you too are guilty of overstatement. The point is that you cannot justify one wrong by reference to another, even if they are not on the same scale, I cannot go and beat up an English person because of Cromwell and justify it that it wasn't as bad as Cromwell.
[/quote]
In your first post on the subject you said
QuoteA noble piece of whataboutery. "They" did something wrong 50 or 100 years ago. so let's get them back now by a similar wrong.]
Now you want me to classify the Famine and Cromwell as bigger disasters? More cul de sacs and red herrings from a man who cannot face up to the illogic of his own position. the Magdalenes were part of a century long system of state and church oppression where tens of thousands of children were raped and abused, separated from their parents by the self same church and state, and where young women were treated as slaves, and they were open up to 1996. Please look at the link below - that is from last year. And read the Murphy and Ryan reports. I did not describe it as a Holocaust, i said it had been described as such. And I don't disagree with the description. And far more effecting for the fact that it happened in my, and i assume your, lifetime.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26044852
QuoteI don't think it is wrong either. I do think that public policy should encourage children to be brought up by their own parents.
Public policy does do this by adding to the benfits accrued when couples marry, as we discussed last night. The Children and Family relationships act is also another way the government seeks to keep children with parents (as evidenced by the new rights conferred on fathers not married to their partners at time of separation, and the outlining of rights for grandparents). It also settled once and for all whether gay children had the right to adopt children - which they do.
So, given that horse has left the stable, and the child rearing issue is settled, would you like to discuss the marriage referendum on its own merits? This is the thread for it, you know.
Or maybe we just set up a thread called "Straw Men" and have done with it. Because you're certainly not discussing marriage honestly.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 09:18:28 PM
QuoteI don't think it is wrong either. I do think that public policy should encourage children to be brought up by their own parents.
Public policy does do this by adding to the benfits accrued when couples marry, as we discussed last night.
So if it does this, why on earth are we proposing to extend marriage to a set of couples who do not require this benefit?
Because marriage is not just about children, as we discussed last night. Do you want me to post the conversation again where you were unable to come up with any kind of a convincing argument as to why the state should prohibit marriage? I might just do that.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 12:32:35 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 09, 2015, 11:55:17 PM
If the referendum passes than the government can promote the state of marriage and can confer the benefits of that state on both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - thus promoting social stability. And for those who have been in marriages that have broken down there are supports and legal recourse available.
The scale of government intervention is only warranted to protect children, it should not be overly involved in the conduct of adult sexual relationships.
QuoteThese benefits are not available to single people or those who chose not to get married whilst in a relationship. So everyone does not get the same.
No, these people just get to pay for it.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 01:38:04 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 12:32:35 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 09, 2015, 11:55:17 PM
If the referendum passes than the government can promote the state of marriage and can confer the benefits of that state on both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - thus promoting social stability. And for those who have been in marriages that have broken down there are supports and legal recourse available.
The scale of government intervention is only warranted to protect children, it should not be overly involved in the conduct of adult sexual relationships.
QuoteThese benefits are not available to single people or those who chose not to get married whilst in a relationship. So everyone does not get the same.
No, these people just get to pay for it.
No the scale of government intervention is warranted to promote a family as the most stable social unit to base our society on. Our constitution currently defines a family as a married heterosexual couple. The referendum may extend that to same sex couples. The benefits of basing our society on this unit includes and goes beyond the nurturing of children (as it must as not every marriage is capable of or chooses to procreate). A marriage commitment between people is widely considered to promote social cohesion, separate of the issue of children.
And "no these people just pay for it" indicates a staggering ignorance of the family law and taxation system. The entire edifice is designed to keep couples (whether they have children or not) together in the form of free mediation and counselling services. Married couples have responsibilities to each other that are not dissolved by a break up and must be resolved through mediation or judicial separation. The tax system confers benefits on married couples (whether they have children or not) which will always be unavailable to single people. So, no, they can't pay for it, unless you're talking in a general sense, where wealth makes things easier for people. Which it does. But is doesn't buy you the place a married couple holds in the constitution, which is different to, and not available to single people.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 01:53:18 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 01:38:04 AM
No the scale of government intervention is warranted to promote a family as the most stable social unit to base our society on. Our constitution currently defines a family as a married heterosexual couple. The referendum may extend that to same sex couples. The benefits of basing our society on this unit includes and goes beyond the nurturing of children (as it must as not every marriage is capable of or chooses to procreate). A marriage commitment between people is widely considered to promote social cohesion, separate of the issue of children.
The scale of support for marriage is justified by the existence of children resulting from the relationship. Civil partnership already confers any required state support for adult relationships.
QuoteThe tax system confers benefits on married couples (whether they have children or not) which will always be unavailable to single people.
So the single people pay for it, as I said. What is the public policy reason why a single person incurring the expenses of a household on their own has to pay more tax to support a single sex couple sharing their household expenses?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 07:36:13 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 02:24:10 AM
Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true. The scale of support for marriage is justified because as we a democracy, like most of the other Western countries, decided that marriage was the best arrangement to promote stability and social cohesion, whether children were involved or not. Look up the definition of a family in our constitution.
This is not true because I repeat it, it is true because that is the understanding of marriage in every society of the world.
And as for the constitution, when this was written there would have no need to spell out the association of marriage and children as the bizarre arguments you are advancing would not have been anticipated.
QuoteYou're also selectively quoting - I also cited the family law system, which confers both rights and responsibilities on married partners which it does not to single people. These rights and responsibilities cannot be paid for.
Fair enough, civil partnership provides these things.
QuoteAs to your specific point on tax - as above, we have decided as a society that married families are the most stable unit to build our society upon ( not a point I am sold on, as my previous posts will attest, as i don't believe in ideal families - but as citizen i am required to live by our laws). As such, if the referendum goes through, same sex couples will have the same rights as hetero married couples and will accrue the same benefits. As there has not been a clamour to change our tax system to so that singles do not support hetero married couples, I can only assume that any objections brought up re same sex couples and tax is because of the sexuality of the couples involved.
Indeed you don't believe in ideal families, or families at all, that much is obvious.
When families are referred to in the context of taxes, welfare payments, etc. there is an implicit association of children. As the majority of married couples do have children, then no clamour arises. The addition of combinations where zero percent of them can have children is breaking this association and can only lead to less generous treatment of marriage in the tax code in the future. If marriage has no particular status and is only associated with adults then in the interests of "equality" there is no reason for unmarried people to subsidise married ones.
Quote from: easytiger95Either marriage is stable, socially cohesive institution, with or without children, or it is not. If it is, and marriage is extended to same sex couples, then fairness dictates they should benefit for contributing to that social cohesion.
Same sex couples as a class do not contribute children being brought up by their parents and so should receive less benefit for less contribution.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 10, 2015, 09:10:01 AM
QuoteThis is not true because I repeat it, it is true because that is the understanding of marriage in every society of the world.
And as for the constitution, when this was written there would have no need to spell out the association of marriage and children as the bizarre arguments you are advancing would not have been anticipated.
That understanding may be in religions throughout the world, but as I pointed out earlier, that cannot hold true for civil law, and does not hold true in our constitution, because married people sometimes do not have children. If knowing the law and its implications is bizarre, then fine, in a logic free universe, I need a strait jacket.
QuoteIndeed you don't believe in ideal families, or families at all, that much is obvious.
You know nothing about my attitudes. My family is the most important thing in my life. But I don't think that gives me the right to judge or circumscribe how other people organise their families, through choice or situation.
QuoteWhen families are referred to in the context of taxes, welfare payments, etc. there is an implicit association of children. As the majority of married couples do have children, then no clamour arises. The addition of combinations where zero percent of them can have children is breaking this association and can only lead to less generous treatment of marriage in the tax code in the future. If marriage has no particular status and is only associated with adults then in the interests of "equality" there is no reason for unmarried people to subsidise married ones.
As soon as you get married, your tax status changes. If you have children, they can then increase the benefits that accrue, but there is a reason on all the forms that they ask "married or single?" first and then ask "if married, do you have any dependants?" Your argument all along has been that same sex couples erodes the status of marriage - but nothing in the civil law or taxation code changes. Not one benefit is taken away from heterosexual couples. The status of marriage remains above that of single people, as it always has. And the status of children, adoption and parents access to their child has already been dealt with by the Oireachtas. You have no argument.
QuoteSame sex couples as a class do not contribute children being brought up by their parents and so should receive less benefit for less contribution.
They can of course, either through adoption or fertility treatment, be parents to children, give them a stable, loving home and receive any tax benefits that accrue. Provided that firstly, they get married.
Apologies to all others on the thread - Armaghniac has a goldfish like level of attention span. But i think it is even more annoying to let troll like behaviour go, such as having the same argument over and over again, when the answers you have received have been reasoned, and you have failed to provide an justification for your own position.
I've been on here and have argued é case in logical terms with 10 people continually calling for No arguments and then ignoring what Í have said. But for having the audacity to oppose the groupthink I am characterised as a troll! This is illustrative of the entire campaign where every effort is made to stifle debate. Good night!
Whereas you characterised me as someone who called you a homophobe, which never happened, someone who did not believe in family in any shape or form, and now someone who refuses to engage in debate and is in thrall to group think (despite me posting the entirety of our back and forth from last night). However, I feel my beliefs are my beliefs, no matter how many or how few agree with them.
I have debated you, and in my own opinion, I think that my argument was more convincing. I have given my opinions openly and they are free to examine - unfortunately you do not feel the same about your own views.
If you don't have the facts to back up your argument it is always easy to blame others for "stifling" debate. Should you source these facts and come up with the answers to the questions I and others have been asking you, I hope you feel free to re engage.
Good night.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 11, 2015, 01:32:08 AM
I have debated you, and in my own opinion, I think that my argument was more convincing. I have given my opinions openly and they are free to examine - unfortunately you do not feel the same about your own views.
Self praise is no praise!
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 11, 2015, 01:32:08 AM
Whereas you characterised me as someone who called you a homophobe, which never happened, someone who did not believe in family in any shape or form, and now someone who refuses to engage in debate and is in thrall to group think (despite me posting the entirety of our back and forth from last night). However, I feel my beliefs are my beliefs, no matter how many or how few agree with them.
I stated that those supporting this campaign had called people homophobes, I accept that the actions of others do not imply that you agree with this. However, you did call me a troll and something about a goldfish, and the basis for calling me a troll was that I was still here, which does suggest a refusal to engage in debate.
Quote
I have debated you, and in my own opinion, I think that my argument was more convincing. I have given my opinions openly and they are free to examine - unfortunately you do not feel the same about your own views.
I do not share your opinions that your argument was convincing.
QuoteIf you don't have the facts to back up your argument it is always easy to blame others for "stifling" debate. Should you source these facts and come up with the answers to the questions I and others have been asking you, I hope you feel free to re engage.
I do not know what "facts" you wish to see. One might be that 75%+ of marriages have children of that marriage, and you are proposing to redefine marriage to a group who have 0% children of the marriage. Do I need to use some statistical technique to show that these are different populations?
The only fact you will find here armaghniac, is these self appointed intellectual guardians of homosexuality will lambaste and berate anyone who questions any facet of gay society and brand them homophobic. You are totally correct as is Eamon Martin when you say that this mass hysteria and collective moral outrage at anyone daring to have an opinion at odds with the gay moral conscious of these people is stifling debate and for that very reason the outcome of the referendum will have no reflection on current polling.
Probably homophobic
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/marriage-referendum-about-family-not-equality-archbishop-1.2206825 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/marriage-referendum-about-family-not-equality-archbishop-1.2206825)!
Quote from: topcuppla on May 11, 2015, 09:29:40 AM
Probably homophobic
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/marriage-referendum-about-family-not-equality-archbishop-1.2206825 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/marriage-referendum-about-family-not-equality-archbishop-1.2206825)!
What a nonsense... maybe we shouldn't let infertile couples get Married either!!
Ridiculous argument!
What you have not shown is what adverse effect allowing same sex couples to marry will have on that 75%, despite nearly every post you have made decrying the deterioration this would cause.
what you have not accounted for is what position the 25% hold if marriage is only intrinsically a marriage when it is intended for procreation?
What you have not answered is why, given the fact that the Children and Family relationship Act explicitly gives gay couples the right to adopt and raise children, why you continually raise the welfare of children as a significant factor in opposing same sex marriage.
I called you a troll because you acted like a troll. You weren't able to answer for yourself two nights ago and instead have chosen to ignore that exchange completely and ask contributors exactly the same questions and detour the debate into the same cul de sacs. And you conveniently ignore the attack you made on my values re families, a hateful thing to say, especially as you know nothing of my background.
That is trolling - as are ad hominem attacks you have made on me by saying I called you a homophobe when I didn't. Saying you have the attention span of a goldfish (which is being kind, I actually think all your actions are deliberate) does not compare.
in the name of Equality, Dignity and partity of esteem Ive decided to become 7 foot tall.
in order to achieve this the Foot will now be 11 inches long
this will not affect tape measures in any way, rulers will remain what they alway have been,
I hope none of you cavemen measureaphobic bastards will object to this
Quote from: rosnarun on May 12, 2015, 02:14:36 PM
in the name of Equality, Dignity and partity of esteem Ive decided to become 7 foot tall.
in order to achieve this the Foot will now be 11 inches long
this will not affect tape measures in any way, rulers will remain what they alway have been,
I hope none of you cavemen measureaphobic b**tards will object to this
If it makes you happy go for it :)
Just remember to bring a conversion calculator if you are buying a pair of shoes.
Any truth in this Noel Whelan craic about Catholic agencies such as Trocaire and St Vincent de Paul losing government funding if the Yes vote goes though?
Since the yes campaign has little time for either logic or right, anything is possible. I'm not sure about Trocaire, but the likes of marriage guidance could be coerced to guide those making a mockery of marriage as well as real married people.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 12, 2015, 04:48:50 PM
Since the yes campaign has little time for either logic or right, anything is possible. I'm not sure about Trocaire, but the likes of marriage guidance could be coerced to guide those making a mockery of marriage as well as real married people.
Who would they be? Married people who have had affairs?
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 12, 2015, 06:17:35 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 12, 2015, 04:48:50 PM
Since the yes campaign has little time for either logic or right, anything is possible. I'm not sure about Trocaire, but the likes of marriage guidance could be coerced to guide those making a mockery of marriage as well as real married people.
Who would they be? Married people who have had affairs?
I think he's talking about people who get married in Vegas and get it annulled the following day.
Just looking at this from perspective of practicing Christians who make up a significant percentage of the population
- a proportion of these, including clergy and members of religious orders have no problem voting YES to same-sex marriage
- a proportion will vote NO as they do have genuine problems of conscience.
There is no "right" way to vote on this issue - each person should vote according to their conscience and we all obviously have a duty to be as fully informed as possible and not let any personal prejudice affect our decision.
One of the reasons that many practicing Christians will vote NO is as follows :
Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church, sodomy as practiced by many same-sex partners is a sin in the eyes of the Church so some Christians will see marriage being tainted by opening it up to same-sex couples.
People holding this viewpoint will be castigated as homophobic but this does not necessarily follow. Whether you want to take my word or not I can assure you that I neither judge nor condemn any person because they are gay.
I appreciate this viewpoint will be lambasted by some, derided by others and I will be amused by the reaction of some trolls on here.
Of course a large segment of the population are not practicing Christians and I am not for a minute denying the validity of their input to this debate.
I recognise and agree with many of the strong arguments for a YES vote but we all have our beliefs, ideals and values and in my case I'm on the NO side. Equality is a word that is bandied about a lot - let's have tolerance too.
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 12, 2015, 06:51:22 PM
Just looking at this from perspective of practicing Christians who make up a significant percentage of the population
- a proportion of these, including clergy and members of religious orders have no problem voting YES to same-sex marriage
- a proportion will vote NO as they do have genuine problems of conscience.
There is no "right" way to vote on this issue - each person should vote according to their conscience and we all obviously have a duty to be as fully informed as possible and not let any personal prejudice affect our decision.
One of the reasons that many practicing Christians will vote NO is as follows :
Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church, sodomy as practiced by many same-sex partners is a sin in the eyes of the Church so some Christians will see marriage being tainted by opening it up to same-sex couples.
People holding this viewpoint will be castigated as homophobic but this does not necessarily follow. Whether you want to take my word or not I can assure you that I neither judge nor condemn any person because they are gay.
I appreciate this viewpoint will be lambasted by some, derided by others and I will be amused by the reaction of some trolls on here.
Of course a large segment of the population are not practicing Christians and I am not for a minute denying the validity of their input to this debate.
I recognise and agree with many of the strong arguments for a YES vote but we all have our beliefs, ideals and values and in my case I'm on the NO side. Equality is a word that is bandied about a lot - let's have tolerance too.
The referendum is about CIVIL marriage, it does not impact religious marriage.
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 12, 2015, 06:51:22 PM
Just looking at this from perspective of practicing Christians who make up a significant percentage of the population
- a proportion of these, including clergy and members of religious orders have no problem voting YES to same-sex marriage
- a proportion will vote NO as they do have genuine problems of conscience.
There is no "right" way to vote on this issue - each person should vote according to their conscience and we all obviously have a duty to be as fully informed as possible and not let any personal prejudice affect our decision.
One of the reasons that many practicing Christians will vote NO is as follows :
Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church, sodomy as practiced by many same-sex partners is a sin in the eyes of the Church so some Christians will see marriage being tainted by opening it up to same-sex couples.
People holding this viewpoint will be castigated as homophobic but this does not necessarily follow. Whether you want to take my word or not I can assure you that I neither judge nor condemn any person because they are gay.
I appreciate this viewpoint will be lambasted by some, derided by others and I will be amused by the reaction of some trolls on here.
Of course a large segment of the population are not practicing Christians and I am not for a minute denying the validity of their input to this debate.
I recognise and agree with many of the strong arguments for a YES vote but we all have our beliefs, ideals and values and in my case I'm on the NO side. Equality is a word that is bandied about a lot - let's have tolerance too.
This has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage. It's about civil marriage. Unless the churches change their minds, the sacrament will remain restricted as it is now.
Yes - I understand the distinction. Was just expressing how marriage is viewed from one particular perspective.
If the Church outlaws sodomy does that mean Lesbianism is OK??
Quote from: Ulick on May 12, 2015, 02:53:53 PM
Any truth in this Noel Whelan craic about Catholic agencies such as Trocaire and St Vincent de Paul losing government funding if the Yes vote goes though?
How does this even make sense?
If the Yes vote goes through the Government will be extremely happy. Unless it is the charities refusing the funding, which would be insane, it is hardly going to be stopped by a happy Government in election year.
Of course a link might help.
http://www.con-telegraph.ie/news/roundup/articles/2015/05/06/4037499-fr-standn-im-voting-yes/ (http://www.con-telegraph.ie/news/roundup/articles/2015/05/06/4037499-fr-standn-im-voting-yes/)
Fr. Standún: I'm voting 'Yes'
Wednesday, 6th May, 2015 3:33pm
'WE don't do God' is a phrase attributed to Alastair Campbell, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesperson and spin-doctor. 'We don't do equality' is a phrase some might use with regard to the church to which I have given more than 50 years of my life since going to Maynooth in 1964.
The Roman Catholic Church does not have gender equality behind its altars, and its leadership is not in favour of a yes vote in the marriage equality or same sex marriage referendum. Leading Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin have been careful to ask voters to think seriously about changing the traditional meaning of marriage, rather than asking them to oppose the change that is proposed by the government.
This is fair enough, even though I suspect that more Roman Catholics will in practice support the proposal than vote against. The sensus fidelium, the view from the pew, which is as powerful as any other church infallibility, says that now is the right time. The people of God have moved on. Leaders please follow.
I am one of those clergy-persons who intends to vote yes, not to c**k a snoot at the leadership of my church, or to jump on a popular bandwagon, but because I think it is the right thing to do. As a follower of Jesus, the a lá carte Jew who recognised when certain laws had run their courses, I am convinced that now is the right time to have marriage equality.
Perhaps it is the end of marriage as we knew it in relatively recent times, but marriage has gone through many changes down through the centuries. In the lifetime of the Bible itself, marriage changed greatly from Abraham to Jesus despite our emphasis on certain quotes that back up particular arguments.
We are discussing changes in the civil law in the forthcoming referendum. Churches can and will retain their own emphases in the celebration of marriage, but in a pluralist, live and let live society, I have no problem with the law of the land being more inclusive.
Right now I think the Roman Catholic Church and other churches and religions should be devising appropriate liturgies for the blessing of gay and lesbian marriages of those who would welcome such ceremonies. Many people who choose civil marriage for one reason or another still request and appreciate blessings on such important milestones in their lives. Could any clergyman or woman refuse a blessing asked for in sincerity?
Groupthink was one of those words applied to RTÉ executives in the wake of the defamation of Father Kevin Reynolds a couple of years ago. It can equally be applied to clericalist acceptance of certain arguments without question or proper theological examination.
We in the Roman Catholic Church have made so many mistakes in the past half century or so that we need to stand back and question our motives in taking certain stances, in fighting unnecessary battles with outdated catchphrases.
It is time to be positive, to welcome gay, lesbian and transgender to the top table.
* Fr. Pádraig Standún, writing in this week's column, Standún's Station, in The Connaught Telegraph
- See more at: http://www.con-telegraph.ie/news/roundup/articles/2015/05/06/4037499-fr-standn-im-voting-yes/#sthash.6zcnQ51k.dpuf
I've absolutely no problem with Fr. Standún's views quoted above - he has obviously given thorough consideration to the issue.
There's no Right or Wrong way to vote - if we all vote conscientiously then whatever the outcome it will reflect majority thinking.
Seeking clarification:
Firstly, pardon my ignorance on the matter.
Does passing constitution change on allowing gay marriage change gay couples adoptive rights? Most of the arguments on the 'No' side seem to be focusing on children having a mother and a father.
Can gay couples adopt at present? And will this change under the proposed change?
Quote from: Keyboard Warrior on May 13, 2015, 01:23:56 PM
Does passing constitution change on allowing gay marriage change gay couples adoptive rights? Most of the arguments on the 'No' side seem to be focusing on children having a mother and a father.
Can gay couples adopt at present? And will this change under the proposed change?
In short No, there will be no change to adoption rights.
Up until a couple of months ago, any married couple or single (homosexual or heterosexual) person was allowed to adopt a child. If an unmarried (opposite or same-sex) couple adopted a child, only one of the couple could be recognised as the legal guardian and their partner had no rights.
Under The Children and Family Relationships Bill 2015, this was changed such that both unmarried persons in an adopting couple could be recognised as parents.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/family-law-bill-hailed-as-major-step-1.2107649
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 13, 2015, 02:38:38 PM
Quote from: Keyboard Warrior on May 13, 2015, 01:23:56 PM
Does passing constitution change on allowing gay marriage change gay couples adoptive rights? Most of the arguments on the 'No' side seem to be focusing on children having a mother and a father.
Can gay couples adopt at present? And will this change under the proposed change?
In short No, there will be no change to adoption rights.
Up until a couple of months ago, any married couple or single (homosexual or heterosexual) person was allowed to adopt a child. If an unmarried (opposite or same-sex) couple adopted a child, only one of the couple could be recognised as the legal guardian and their partner had no rights.
Under The Children and Family Relationships Bill 2015, this was changed such that both unmarried persons in an adopting couple could be recognised as parents.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/family-law-bill-hailed-as-major-step-1.2107649
And even if that was the issue, was it better to leave the child in an orphanage?
The bogus argument from the No side is that it will somehow adversely affect children that would otherwise be in a 'normal' family. How does allowing a gay couple adopt, remove children from a 'normal' environment?
(By normal I mean the happily-ever-after married man-woman dream pushed by the No side).
This is a really interesting referendum. Unimaginable 20 years ago.
Bringing gay people out of the shadows and treating them as normal citizens. That's a big change.
and the other thing is the pressure on catholicism to declare its position. Saw an issue of Alive! today and it was like reading something out of the Bible Belt. The problem with the change in the status of the Church as "ours" to something relevant to a much smaller subgroup than the general population is the change in the memes- far less tolerant and looks much more extremist.
Very little dúthracht. Not much confidence either I would say.
Any opinion polls recently or due? Would have thought YES would have been 80-20 at least a few weeks ago but can see it being a little bit more twitchy as it gets closer....silent NO vote might be larger than anticipated.
The last one I saw was roughly 78% - 15% with the rest undecided.
It'll be interesting to see if there's a "shy Tory" vote
I see the Church out scaremongering again this morning (What the Church scaremongering? That's never happened before).
Obviously the Yes vote means that Accord have had their funding cut... If we're going to deal in facts let's not talk about the fact they cost €200 per couple and are a pile of absolute shite then!!
No money better spent than listening to a celibate tell me how communication and compromise will be the two most important things in my relationship... aye big lad I can read books too and I'm actually in a proper relationship unlike yourself!!!
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 13, 2015, 03:55:16 PM
The last one I saw was roughly 78% - 15% with the rest undecided.
It'll be interesting to see if there's a "shy Tory" vote
Course there will be, YES is all over social media but older/silent vote must be there. It'll be interesting to see the turn out, will the youth vote and actually get off their arses? Happened in Scotland for the indy ref there, will it happen in Ireland?
Quote from: ballinaman on May 13, 2015, 03:49:59 PM
Any opinion polls recently or due? Would have thought YES would have been 80-20 at least a few weeks ago but can see it being a little bit more twitchy as it gets closer....silent NO vote might be larger than anticipated.
Will depend on % in age groups voting. Older voters are more likely to vote no and more likely to vote.
But maybe women are more likely to vote yes.
Quote from: screenexile on May 13, 2015, 03:55:32 PM
I see the Church out scaremongering again this morning (What the Church scaremongering? That's never happened before).
Obviously the Yes vote means that Accord have had their funding cut... If we're going to deal in facts let's not talk about the fact they cost €200 per couple and are a pile of absolute shite then!!
No money better spent than listening to a celibate tell me how communication and compromise will be the two most important things in my relationship... aye big lad I can read books too and I'm actually in a proper relationship unlike yourself!!!
have this shite to do myself in a couple of months but ours is 120 euro. Between that and registering out intent to marry we are out 320 quid for no good reason. And thats before we even borrow the church for an hour. Another 350 quid!!
Quote from: andoireabu on May 13, 2015, 04:21:09 PM
Quote from: screenexile on May 13, 2015, 03:55:32 PM
I see the Church out scaremongering again this morning (What the Church scaremongering? That's never happened before).
Obviously the Yes vote means that Accord have had their funding cut... If we're going to deal in facts let's not talk about the fact they cost €200 per couple and are a pile of absolute shite then!!
No money better spent than listening to a celibate tell me how communication and compromise will be the two most important things in my relationship... aye big lad I can read books too and I'm actually in a proper relationship unlike yourself!!!
have this shite to do myself in a couple of months but ours is 120 euro. Between that and registering out intent to marry we are out 320 quid for no good reason. And thats before we even borrow the church for an hour. Another 350 quid!!
Now you see why Eamon Martin's threat of not facilitating the civil registration at church marriages, will never happen.
Also why should the State pay for a course, forced upon couples by the church, in return for allowing the couple the privilege of renting a church?
The most recent opinion poll I could locate said 72% Yes 20% No (http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/poll-shows-jump-in-sf-support-and-72-yes-vote-in-marriage-referendum-674434.html). I think people lie to opinion pollsters, we saw it in the recent UK elections. God knows why... But it would take an astonishing level of mendacity for this to be anything other than a thumping Yes vote. The worries of the Yes campaign are more about maximising the scale of that victory lest we be seen as The Laughing Stock Of Europe™ once again.
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2015, 04:38:26 PM
Also why should the State pay for a course, forced upon couples by the church, in return for allowing the couple the privilege of renting a church?
Viewed through prism of marriage in a church being about the privilege of renting the building, it is inevitable that there will be a separation of church and civil marriage at some point in the future. Someone will take a test case about the prohibition on them getting married in a church, and they will win.
Quote from: deiseach on May 13, 2015, 04:53:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2015, 04:38:26 PM
Also why should the State pay for a course, forced upon couples by the church, in return for allowing the couple the privilege of renting a church?
Viewed through prism of marriage in a church being about the privilege of renting the building, it is inevitable that there will be a separation of church and civil marriage at some point in the future. Someone will take a test case about the prohibition on them getting married in a church, and they will win.
In fairness, on that one surely you are entitled to withdraw services if they decide a couple doesn't meet the criteria? For example if a couple of Bible Thumpers from Armagh wanted Sean Brady to celebrate their ceremony in my house, would I have to acquiesce?
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2015, 05:22:20 PM
In fairness, on that one surely you are entitled to withdraw services if they decide a couple doesn't meet the criteria? For example if a couple of Bible Thumpers from Armagh wanted Sean Brady to celebrate their ceremony in my house, would I have to acquiesce?
If you make your house available for weddings, and Seán Brady is in the business of being a registrar, then you and he can't turn down a gay couple on the basis that they don't meet the criteria. I'm assuming here the criteria is being heterosexual. That defence doesn't work for B&B owners, and it won't work for churches if they want to fold civil services into church services.
Quote from: deiseach on May 13, 2015, 05:29:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2015, 05:22:20 PM
In fairness, on that one surely you are entitled to withdraw services if they decide a couple doesn't meet the criteria? For example if a couple of Bible Thumpers from Armagh wanted Sean Brady to celebrate their ceremony in my house, would I have to acquiesce?
If you make your house available for weddings, and Seán Brady is in the business of being a registrar, then you and he can't turn down a gay couple on the basis that they don't meet the criteria. I'm assuming here the criteria is being heterosexual. That defence doesn't work for B&B owners, and it won't work for churches if they want to fold civil services into church services.
I see your point, but what if a Muslim/Jewish etc couple want a wedding in a Catholic church?
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2015, 04:38:26 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on May 13, 2015, 04:21:09 PM
Quote from: screenexile on May 13, 2015, 03:55:32 PM
I see the Church out scaremongering again this morning (What the Church scaremongering? That's never happened before).
Obviously the Yes vote means that Accord have had their funding cut... If we're going to deal in facts let's not talk about the fact they cost €200 per couple and are a pile of absolute shite then!!
No money better spent than listening to a celibate tell me how communication and compromise will be the two most important things in my relationship... aye big lad I can read books too and I'm actually in a proper relationship unlike yourself!!!
have this shite to do myself in a couple of months but ours is 120 euro. Between that and registering out intent to marry we are out 320 quid for no good reason. And thats before we even borrow the church for an hour. Another 350 quid!!
Now you see why Eamon Martin's threat of not facilitating the civil registration at church marriages, will never happen.
Also why should the State pay for a course, forced upon couples by the church, in return for allowing the couple the privilege of renting a church?
In France you can't have the legal ceremony in a church - it has to be at the town hall. Works fine.
My Accord class last year was taken by two lay people, not a priest in sight, and Catholic teachings were mentioned but not dwelled upon. I was pleasantly surprised - that was the Accord course in Ardmore in Derry.
Quote from: Rois on May 13, 2015, 05:49:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2015, 04:38:26 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on May 13, 2015, 04:21:09 PM
Quote from: screenexile on May 13, 2015, 03:55:32 PM
I see the Church out scaremongering again this morning (What the Church scaremongering? That's never happened before).
Obviously the Yes vote means that Accord have had their funding cut... If we're going to deal in facts let's not talk about the fact they cost €200 per couple and are a pile of absolute shite then!!
No money better spent than listening to a celibate tell me how communication and compromise will be the two most important things in my relationship... aye big lad I can read books too and I'm actually in a proper relationship unlike yourself!!!
have this shite to do myself in a couple of months but ours is 120 euro. Between that and registering out intent to marry we are out 320 quid for no good reason. And thats before we even borrow the church for an hour. Another 350 quid!!
Now you see why Eamon Martin's threat of not facilitating the civil registration at church marriages, will never happen.
Also why should the State pay for a course, forced upon couples by the church, in return for allowing the couple the privilege of renting a church?
In France you can't have the legal ceremony in a church - it has to be at the town hall. Works fine.
My Accord class last year was taken by two lay people, not a priest in sight, and Catholic teachings were mentioned but not dwelled upon. I was pleasantly surprised - that was the Accord course in Ardmore in Derry.
Was it compulsory though?
Quote from: ballinaman on May 13, 2015, 03:49:59 PM
Any opinion polls recently or due? Would have thought YES would have been 80-20 at least a few weeks ago but can see it being a little bit more twitchy as it gets closer....silent NO vote might be larger than anticipated.
I know some people are getting fed up with having the viewpoint of the Yes campaign rammed down their throats at every turn (no pun intended).
Anyone who dare express a dissenting viewpoint is shouted down or ridiculed.
There are lots of older people who are silently planning to vote no and are saying nothing publicly, but they're all speaking privately with like minded folks.
Anyone who thinks this is a foregone conclusion is only codding themselves. Referenda typically have had very low turnout and no one can take this for granted
I predict 65 - 35 yes.
I still haven't found out what rights we will be giving gay couples mind you. Either I'm thick, or this is like the third secret of Fatima.
Quote from: whitey on May 13, 2015, 09:56:44 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on May 13, 2015, 03:49:59 PM
Any opinion polls recently or due? Would have thought YES would have been 80-20 at least a few weeks ago but can see it being a little bit more twitchy as it gets closer....silent NO vote might be larger than anticipated.
I know some people are getting fed up with having the viewpoint of the Yes campaign rammed down their throats at every turn (no pun intended).
Anyone who dare express a dissenting viewpoint is shouted down or ridiculed.
There are lots of older people who are silently planning to vote no and are saying nothing publicly, but they're all speaking privately with like minded folks.
Anyone who thinks this is a foregone conclusion is only codding themselves. Referenda typically have had very low turnout and no one can take this for granted
I agree that it will be closer than the polls are making out but I can't see any way that the No vote wins.
"Children Deserve a Mother and a Father Vote No"
Came across this nonsense as I'm working in Dublin for a few days... sorry neanderthals this is a vote about Marriage not children!!!
What rights would a gay couple gain that they do not already have?
Quote from: andoireabu on May 13, 2015, 04:21:09 PM
Quote from: screenexile on May 13, 2015, 03:55:32 PM
I see the Church out scaremongering again this morning (What the Church scaremongering? That's never happened before).
Obviously the Yes vote means that Accord have had their funding cut... If we're going to deal in facts let's not talk about the fact they cost €200 per couple and are a pile of absolute shite then!!
No money better spent than listening to a celibate tell me how communication and compromise will be the two most important things in my relationship... aye big lad I can read books too and I'm actually in a proper relationship unlike yourself!!!
have this shite to do myself in a couple of months but ours is 120 euro. Between that and registering out intent to marry we are out 320 quid for no good reason. And thats before we even borrow the church for an hour. Another 350 quid!!
Dont get married in the church then if you dont want to pay ffs. I got married in the church because the wife wanted to, we didnt have to pay but if we did I wouldnt have complained. Id say you are paying a lot more to the hotel for the reception!
As for the pre-marital course, I haven't heard of one being run by a priest in years. Either way, if you want to get arried in the church you have to do it. If you dont want to, you can get married somewhere else, simple.
Quote from: screenexile on May 13, 2015, 10:08:26 PM
Came across this nonsense as I'm working in Dublin for a few days... sorry neanderthals this is a vote about Marriage not children!!!
I think this illustrates the nature of this campaign, the notion that children are in any way connected to marriage being characterised as Neanderthal. Whatever the outcome of this referendum, great damage has been done as we have the leader of the country promoting the ideas that adults just suit themselves and that children are irrelevant.
Is this whole thing a definition issue?
I'd consult the Oxford Dicktionery
Quote from: whitey on May 13, 2015, 09:56:44 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on May 13, 2015, 03:49:59 PM
Any opinion polls recently or due? Would have thought YES would have been 80-20 at least a few weeks ago but can see it being a little bit more twitchy as it gets closer....silent NO vote might be larger than anticipated.
I know some people are getting fed up with having the viewpoint of the Yes campaign rammed down their throats at every turn (no pun intended).
Anyone who dare express a dissenting viewpoint is shouted down or ridiculed.
There are lots of older people who are silently planning to vote no and are saying nothing publicly, but they're all speaking privately with like minded folks.
Anyone who thinks this is a foregone conclusion is only codding themselves. Referenda typically have had very low turnout and no one can take this for granted
When were you last in Ireland?
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2015, 10:51:39 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 13, 2015, 09:56:44 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on May 13, 2015, 03:49:59 PM
Any opinion polls recently or due? Would have thought YES would have been 80-20 at least a few weeks ago but can see it being a little bit more twitchy as it gets closer....silent NO vote might be larger than anticipated.
I know some people are getting fed up with having the viewpoint of the Yes campaign rammed down their throats at every turn (no pun intended).
Anyone who dare express a dissenting viewpoint is shouted down or ridiculed.
There are lots of older people who are silently planning to vote no and are saying nothing publicly, but they're all speaking privately with like minded folks.
Anyone who thinks this is a foregone conclusion is only codding themselves. Referenda typically have had very low turnout and no one can take this for granted
When were you last in Ireland?
August 2014
Quote from: armaghniac on May 13, 2015, 10:24:13 PM
Quote from: screenexile on May 13, 2015, 10:08:26 PM
Came across this nonsense as I'm working in Dublin for a few days... sorry neanderthals this is a vote about Marriage not children!!!
I think this illustrates the nature of this campaign, the notion that children are in any way connected to marriage being characterised as Neanderthal. Whatever the outcome of this referendum, great damage has been done as we have the leader of the country promoting the ideas that adults just suit themselves and that children are irrelevant.
It illustrates the nature of the No campaign! The reality is they have no argument based in fact other than they don't like the gays and they know the general populus aren't pro gay but if it doesn't affect them they'll probably say "oh well it's no skin off my nose if gay people want to get married let them at it"
The no campaign sat and thought... "How can we win over/scare the crap out of the average person to convinve them that this is bad. . . I know we'll bring the kids into it". Now if gay people are allowed to marry, children all over Ireland are going to grow up abused either by their parents or the mean people who make fun of and bully those with same sex parents!!!
AHAAAAAA now there's an argument that will scare the shit out the average joe and get him to vote no!! QED
Quote from: whitey on May 13, 2015, 10:58:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2015, 10:51:39 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 13, 2015, 09:56:44 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on May 13, 2015, 03:49:59 PM
Any opinion polls recently or due? Would have thought YES would have been 80-20 at least a few weeks ago but can see it being a little bit more twitchy as it gets closer....silent NO vote might be larger than anticipated.
I know some people are getting fed up with having the viewpoint of the Yes campaign rammed down their throats at every turn (no pun intended).
Anyone who dare express a dissenting viewpoint is shouted down or ridiculed.
There are lots of older people who are silently planning to vote no and are saying nothing publicly, but they're all speaking privately with like minded folks.
Anyone who thinks this is a foregone conclusion is only codding themselves. Referenda typically have had very low turnout and no one can take this for granted
When were you last in Ireland?
August 2014
And when did you speak to the above people?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2015, 12:18:51 AM
The point is of course that these legalities could easily be added to civil partnerships if they is case for them or civil partnership itself could be added to the constitution. But this is not so much about getting things for homosexuals as taking things from everyone else.
For the billionth time, exactly how is marriage equality "taking things from everyone else?"
I don't think people in the public eye should mention which way they would vote, but that is my personal opinion and I can say that because I don't have a vote in this or any referendum or election!! I would go with what I think is right in my heart regardless of outside influences. If anyone wants to question my feelings and beliefs, I'm a heterosexual male, Catholic have three children never been married because I believe that when I make that promise I not only make it to the person stood next to me but to God as well so why can't everyone have that chance to be happy. We all deserve love both to give and receive!!!!
Government must be delighted that this sideshow is diverting attention away from the real issues and their mismanagement of the country.
No better way to distract than pit 2 sides against each other.
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2015, 11:43:28 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 13, 2015, 10:58:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2015, 10:51:39 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 13, 2015, 09:56:44 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on May 13, 2015, 03:49:59 PM
Any opinion polls recently or due? Would have thought YES would have been 80-20 at least a few weeks ago but can see it being a little bit more twitchy as it gets closer....silent NO vote might be larger than anticipated.
I know some people are getting fed up with having the viewpoint of the Yes campaign rammed down their throats at every turn (no pun intended).
Anyone who dare express a dissenting viewpoint is shouted down or ridiculed.
There are lots of older people who are silently planning to vote no and are saying nothing publicly, but they're all speaking privately with like minded folks.
Anyone who thinks this is a foregone conclusion is only codding themselves. Referenda typically have had very low turnout and no one can take this for granted
When were you last in Ireland?
August 2014
And when did you speak to the above people?
There are such things as telephones and I heard just this past weekend (from 3 separate individuals) that there is much more support for the No vote than meets the eye.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/silent-no-fears-of-shock-defeat-in-marriage-referendum-grow-31211350.html
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 14, 2015, 12:28:29 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2015, 12:18:51 AM
The point is of course that these legalities could easily be added to civil partnerships if they is case for them or civil partnership itself could be added to the constitution. But this is not so much about getting things for homosexuals as taking things from everyone else.
For the billionth time, exactly how is marriage equality "taking things from everyone else?"
My point was that the campaigners preferred to interfere with an existing institution, one that they didn't want to avail of, rather than simply make a case for further legal changes in civil partnership. It isn't rocket science.
Quote
Can I appeal to you to do some reading up on the topic and open your mind. The world will not cave in if gay people are allowed to marry. Children will not be impacted. Society can only improve as a whole from this.
The world will not "cave in", but damage does not have to catastrophic to be real. What could I read, there is no place in the world where this has gone on for more than decade, how can that period of time show anything useful? How can children fail to be impacted by a redefinition of marriage, this "no impact" is one of big lies of this campaign? Even on the most optimistic scenario society is unlikely to improve much from this, but the scope for damage is much greater.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2015, 12:52:56 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 14, 2015, 12:28:29 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2015, 12:18:51 AM
The point is of course that these legalities could easily be added to civil partnerships if they is case for them or civil partnership itself could be added to the constitution. But this is not so much about getting things for homosexuals as taking things from everyone else.
For the billionth time, exactly how is marriage equality "taking things from everyone else?"
My point was that the campaigners preferred to interfere with an existing institution, one that they didn't want to avail of, rather than simply make a case for further legal changes in civil partnership. It isn't rocket science.
"Interfere?" How does a gay wedding "interfere" with anyone else's marriage?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2015, 12:52:56 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 14, 2015, 12:28:29 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2015, 12:18:51 AM
The point is of course that these legalities could easily be added to civil partnerships if they is case for them or civil partnership itself could be added to the constitution. But this is not so much about getting things for homosexuals as taking things from everyone else.
For the billionth time, exactly how is marriage equality "taking things from everyone else?"
My point was that the campaigners preferred to interfere with an existing institution, one that they didn't want to avail of, rather than simply make a case for further legal changes in civil partnership. It isn't rocket science.
Quote
Can I appeal to you to do some reading up on the topic and open your mind. The world will not cave in if gay people are allowed to marry. Children will not be impacted. Society can only improve as a whole from this.
The world will not "cave in", but damage does not have to catastrophic to be real. What could I read, there is no place in the world where this has gone on for more than decade, how can that period of time show anything useful? How can children fail to be impacted by a redefinition of marriage, this "no impact" is one of big lies of this campaign? Even on the most optimistic scenario society is unlikely to improve much from this, but the scope for damage is much greater.
I really have no idea what the words in bold mean, not that the rest of it actually makes sense. Your scare scenario would be more convincing if you could actually give one concrete example, just one, of how children will be "impacted". Yet months on and 89 pages in, still none. It's like debating with Helen Lovejoy - "won't someone think of the children!!"
QuoteThe world will not "cave in", but damage does not have to catastrophic to be real. What could I read, there is no place in the world where this has gone on for more than decade, how can that period of time show anything useful? How can children fail to be impacted by a redefinition of marriage, this "no impact" is one of big lies of this campaign? Even on the most optimistic scenario society is unlikely to improve much from this, but the scope for damage is much greater.
No campaigners, how can you be expected to be taken seriously if this is an example of your reasoned debate. Sentence by sentence this is as dumb a paragraph as has been written on this board. I'm really not trying to get at Armagniac here, but just parse it. It has no logic, whatsoever. Let me translate.
"Ok, the effects may not be visible, but that doesn't mean they are not there. Everyone knows there is no empirical evidence to make any judgment on, so I will assume when that evidence is gathered it will show that there will be a harmful impact on children, though I can't say what that will be. The Yes campaign are using a big lie by saying there will be no impact, as no one knows what the impact will be, except me, and i know it will be bad, though I can't say whether it will be much of an improvement from the current situation, though it probably will be worse."
Good Jaysis.
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 12, 2015, 06:51:22 PM
Just looking at this from perspective of practicing Christians who make up a significant percentage of the population
- a proportion of these, including clergy and members of religious orders have no problem voting YES to same-sex marriage
- a proportion will vote NO as they do have genuine problems of conscience.
There is no "right" way to vote on this issue - each person should vote according to their conscience and we all obviously have a duty to be as fully informed as possible and not let any personal prejudice affect our decision.
One of the reasons that many practicing Christians will vote NO is as follows :
Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church, sodomy as practiced by many same-sex partners is a sin in the eyes of the Church so some Christians will see marriage being tainted by opening it up to same-sex couples.
People holding this viewpoint will be castigated as homophobic but this does not necessarily follow. Whether you want to take my word or not I can assure you that I neither judge nor condemn any person because they are gay.
I appreciate this viewpoint will be lambasted by some, derided by others and I will be amused by the reaction of some trolls on here.
Of course a large segment of the population are not practicing Christians and I am not for a minute denying the validity of their input to this debate.
I recognise and agree with many of the strong arguments for a YES vote but we all have our beliefs, ideals and values and in my case I'm on the NO side. Equality is a word that is bandied about a lot - let's have tolerance too.
I see what you mean TBW and it's a fair point of view if you consider this question to be one of conscience.
If however, you consider it to be a question of equality, then you can see where the intolerance stems from.
For me, it's the latter - I don't consider it to be a question of conscience because it's simply extending a state (not religious) ceremony to same-sex couples. It neither extends nor changes any rights in relation to children whatsoever. If the issue was something like abortion or surrogacy, I could definitely see how it would be a matter of conscience but this is simply a matter of right and wrong IMO.
The proposed changes is to that
QuoteMarriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.
In a hypothetical world (or within the last century in some countries), if the wording were
QuoteMarriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their race
- would this be a matter of conscience? For some, no doubt it might be but from my point of view, it certainly wouldn't.
Armaghniac raised the point about why Civil Partnerships couldn't be extended to include the same rights as marriage (couldn't find a link to exactly what the 21 specific changes are AZ) and while this would technically make it the same as marriage, we would still be creating a distinct division between homosexual and heterosexual couples which obviously carries with it the implication that they're not equal. For me, they should be 100% equal.
It's a bit of a bizarre referendum to be honest. I think the Yes side are doing a very poor job in articulating what we are voting *FOR*. 'Vote YES for Equality' is a very pat slogan, and of course it makes you naturally inclined towards yes. Who could possibly vote against equality. But what exactly is inequitable?
Apparently there are 21 differences between civil partnership and marriage, but I can't understand why those differences are not in our face 24/7.
I must admit that at the start of this campaign, I was under the impression that gay couples could not adopt a child as a 'couple' and therefore there were legal issues in the event of death or abandonment. That in itself would have made me vote Yes.
But now that that loophole, and a lot of others related to inheritance, legal standing, tax entitlements etc have been resolved, I find myself wondering what exactly is the difference between my marriage, and the civil partnership of the lesbian couple in our estate. If it's simply semantics, then I'm not sure that's reason to change the constitution. If there are tangible, real areas of difference, and apparently there are these 21, then tell us what they are, so that nobody can have any doubts.
The NO campaign have deliberately fought a campaign based on misinformation about the child. As it stands today a Child can be legally adopted by a gay couple, and that couple have the same rights and role as a hetero couple in the child's life. In the event of separation or death, the child will be treated just the same as any other child in similar circumstances in Ireland. Therefore all this 'He needs a Mom and a Dad' is as irrelevant as it is emotive.
But surely the Yes side can come out and say
'This has nothing to do with the Child of a gay partnership, as this legislation is already passed and there. However it is about
1. Gay partners do not have the right to ......
2. Married couples can do this ......
etc etc. I don't understand why it is not everywhere.
OK, so that's one difference. What are the other 20? :)
I'm not sure why this has to be so difficult. And I have done a bit of searching, but the best I can find is vague references to differences in the definition of family versus partnership. What does that mean tangibly, or is it a matter of semantics?
Thanks for that ML. This is useful, assuming it's still in date.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/separation_and_divorce/family_home.html (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/separation_and_divorce/family_home.html)
SO the argument seems to be . we have already introduced the bits that you really would have ocjected to and are leaving you to vote on an administrsative issue in which you will be protrayed a a hateful fundementalist religious mental facist if you vote NO.
this is basixly the same logic they have made for every euroean referendum since Maastrict, ie all the big issues have been solved and this is just to make you feel included in the process and people bought this for years.
This is one referendum where a No Vote is a waste of time as even if defeated it will be brought back again and again untill people get it right,
its making us look bad infront of the neighbours
So far we seem to have 2 differences.
1 - A civil partnership has the same rights of adoption as a married couple, but they have to wait 3 years.
2 - The home is only the family home if married, otherwise a shared home. All same rights EXCEPT a child doesn't have the RIGHT to stay in a shared home until they are 18. In a family home, all children have the right to stay there in the event of a separation until the youngest is 18 or 23.
Any others? And are those above still correct?
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 14, 2015, 07:36:37 AM
QuoteThe world will not "cave in", but damage does not have to catastrophic to be real. What could I read, there is no place in the world where this has gone on for more than decade, how can that period of time show anything useful? How can children fail to be impacted by a redefinition of marriage, this "no impact" is one of big lies of this campaign? Even on the most optimistic scenario society is unlikely to improve much from this, but the scope for damage is much greater.
No campaigners, how can you be expected to be taken seriously if this is an example of your reasoned debate. Sentence by sentence this is as dumb a paragraph as has been written on this board. I'm really not trying to get at Armagniac here, but just parse it. It has no logic, whatsoever. Let me translate.
"Ok, the effects may not be visible, but that doesn't mean they are not there. Everyone knows there is no empirical evidence to make any judgment on, so I will assume when that evidence is gathered it will show that there will be a harmful impact on children, though I can't say what that will be. The Yes campaign are using a big lie by saying there will be no impact, as no one knows what the impact will be, except me, and i know it will be bad, though I can't say whether it will be much of an improvement from the current situation, though it probably will be worse."
Good Jaysis.
My sentence, written close to bed time, was not the clearest I have ever written but it is a bit harsh to claim that it was a "as dumb a paragraph as has been written on this board".
But the rewording is clearer and in this the logic is also clearer, even if you choose to ignore it.
This is a change in the constitution, the fundamental legal basis of the State. The constitution should not changed trivially but only after a thorough investigation of all of the issues. So if you believe there is no evidence then you cannot proceed.
This is proposing a change in a legal concept of marriage, which underpins a great deal of other law. I do think it is a lie to say that a change of this magnitude causes no impact. There was an excellent post from Wobbler in the Brolly thread about the interlocking nature of rule changes in Gaelic football and the legal structure of family is an even more complex matter, yet anyone who suggests this is characterised as distracting the issue. One could say (to borrow Wobbler's phrase) that there is a galling, myopic and even dangerous failure among people who have ideas to "improve" the constitution, to recognise that every change brings unexpected outcomes. But there is probably a more mature discussion about Brolly's proposals than the general tone of the public debate on this referendum.
I've put forward a coherent and logical proposition that society supports marriage, and has so many laws etc relating to it, because it is in society's interest to bring men and women together in stable relationships to nurture (thanks Hardy) children. Passing this referendum on the basis that marriage has nothing to do with children greatly damages this and greatly damages marriage itself, as it then becomes about adults and the State has no real business having a lot of rules and regulations about adult relationships.
Of course the mother and father poster is simplistic, but the tone of the debate was set by misleading simplicities from the Yes campaign. The issue of adoption is not the simple one, but whether any setting of adoption priorities to favour children being placed with different sex couples will be possible in the future. There are complex issues down the line about surrogacy and the like. But to my mind the damage done here is that State will feel that it cannot promote marriage of men and women and consequently future generations of children will have a reduced probability of being brought up in situation where their live with their parents. The likelihood is that there will be more children brought in less optimal situations and that there will be less children generally.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 14, 2015, 10:17:38 AM
Thanks for that ML. This is useful, assuming it's still in date.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/separation_and_divorce/family_home.html (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/separation_and_divorce/family_home.html)
This is fine as far as it goes. But if two adults live in a house they should be allowed make any arrangement they want about it, this is not a reason to change the constitution.
Not sure what you're saying there armaghniac? I think what I'm saying is that they already have the same rights, by and large, apart from the right of the children of the partnership to stay in the house until the youngest reached 18.
All I'm trying to do is document in one list the actual discrepancies between civil partnerships and marriage. At least in that way we'll know what we are actually voting for or against.
Your reasons for voting either way might not change, but at least if we have an accurate list, it might crystalise the issue for some people.
Quote from: whitey on May 14, 2015, 12:50:13 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2015, 11:43:28 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 13, 2015, 10:58:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 13, 2015, 10:51:39 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 13, 2015, 09:56:44 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on May 13, 2015, 03:49:59 PM
Any opinion polls recently or due? Would have thought YES would have been 80-20 at least a few weeks ago but can see it being a little bit more twitchy as it gets closer....silent NO vote might be larger than anticipated.
I know some people are getting fed up with having the viewpoint of the Yes campaign rammed down their throats at every turn (no pun intended).
Anyone who dare express a dissenting viewpoint is shouted down or ridiculed.
There are lots of older people who are silently planning to vote no and are saying nothing publicly, but they're all speaking privately with like minded folks.
Anyone who thinks this is a foregone conclusion is only codding themselves. Referenda typically have had very low turnout and no one can take this for granted
When were you last in Ireland?
August 2014
And when did you speak to the above people?
There are such things as telephones and I heard just this past weekend (from 3 separate individuals) that there is much more support for the No vote than meets the eye.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/silent-no-fears-of-shock-defeat-in-marriage-referendum-grow-31211350.html
Ah right. 3 people.
This will be a very close run thing imo.
Low turnout, younger voters less likely to vote, complacency,Polls pointing only one way, perception of hectoring, anger with the current government, alot of people keeping their opinions to themselves,main political parties going through the motions with canvassing etc. All the classic signs of an upset.
Not too bothered either way but result will be very intersting snapshot of Irish society in the newish millenium.
Quote from: Canalman on May 14, 2015, 11:36:09 AM
This will be a very close run thing imo.
Low turnout, younger voters less likely to vote, complacency,Polls pointing only one way, hectoring, anger with the current government, alot of people keeping their opinions to themselves,main political parties going through the motions with canvassing etc. All the classic signs of an upset.
Not too bothered either way but result will be very intersting snapshot of Irish society in the newish millenium.
Bookies odds and the over/under moving in the no direction. Still looks a decisive (58-60%) Yes but politically informed guys I know reckon the Yes campaign are in panic.
QuoteThis is a change in the constitution, the fundamental legal basis of the State. The constitution should not changed trivially but only after a thorough investigation of all of the issues. So if you believe there is no evidence then you cannot proceed.
I don't really want to get into this with you armaghniac, because you have chosen to ignore my logic in all my posts. But it was you who suggested that there was no way to measure the impact of gay marriage
QuoteWhat could I read, there is no place in the world where this has gone on for more than decade, how can that period of time show anything useful?
before in the very next sentence suggesting that the impact would be harmful
QuoteHow can children fail to be impacted by a redefinition of marriage, this "no impact" is one of big lies of this campaign?
. You do see, don't you, how the two points of view are mutually exclusive, yes?
Now, if there is no evidence (which is not true, there are plenty of studies suggesting that children of same sex couples are not disadvantaged by their upbringing), then how can you automatically make the assumption that when any such evidence comes to light, it will be negative? But the crux of your argument seems to be unless the Yes side can make a case for a positive impact then the constitution should not be changed. That for me, fails on many points.
Firstly, as I've said above there are plenty of studies suggesting that children of same sex couples suffer no disadvantage.
Secondly, if you apply your logic to one end of the argument it must apply at the other - you have not been able once to clearly elucidate what shape or form the disadvantageous impact will have on children, or on the institution of heterosexual marriage which you also claim to be at risk.
Thirdly, the issue of children has been largely dealt with by the Children and Family Relationships Bill, so any misgivings you have about the upbringing of children by gay couples, married or not, should be directed to the repeal of that law, not the the blocking of this amendment,
Fourthly, the "unexpected outcomes" argument has been used against every major social change since the Renaissance - including the abolition of slavery, the suffragettes, the Indian Independence movement,the civil rights movements in the USA and Northern Ireland, and the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the liberalising of our laws on contraception and family planning. "Unexpected outcomes" is no excuse to not right a wrong or remove a social inequality. If there was an expected outcome which was demonstrably disadvantageous to the State and the institution of marriage, than it would be madness to pass it. Since the No side have been unable to name this, then it has no weight in the argument, when set against the injustice of a large minority of the people in our Republic being unable to access all the rights available to others through marriage.
Fifthly,
Quote've put forward a coherent and logical proposition that society supports marriage, and has so many laws etc relating to it, because it is in society's interest to bring men and women together in stable relationships to nurture (thanks Hardy) children.
this is untrue within the constitution. Although I agree that the State uses marriage as a primary method of social cohesion, procreation is only one of the benefits it brings. There are married couples who choose not to have children or are unable to do so. Thus the State cannot make a distinction between a marriage without children and a marriage with children, and does not within our constitution - and to remind you again, it is the constitution we are being asked to amend.
Leading to sixthly,
QuotePassing this referendum on the basis that marriage has nothing to do with children greatly damages this and greatly damages marriage itself, as it then becomes about adults and the State has no real business having a lot of rules and regulations about adult relationships.
as stated above, marriage within the constitution is only about the adults - a family is currently defined as a married couple, not a married couple with children. And just to let you know, your view that, without children, the state should not interfere in adult relationships, is far more damaging to the institution of marriage than anything proposed in this referendum. The institution of civil marriage as currently constituted caters for a far wider variety of people than is currently acknowledged by the No side - heterosexual couples are not just one heterogeneous mass of identikit people. There are the childless by choice, there are the childless by situation, there are mixed religion couples, there are mixed race couples ( a situation which was also illegal in many so-called civilized countries before reform happened). By asking the institution to evolve further (though not the religious aspect of it) we are merely continuing a long history of gradual change, begun when secular and social values began to be separated from religious ones.
AZ Offaly said something quite interesting on the other page, along the lines of if the change was mostly semantic, then he couldn't justify voting for it (apologies if I am misquoting you AZ). But for me, this is the very best reason for doing it. We live our lives through symbols and their interpretation, we always have done, and with technological advances do so more now than at any other time. For me, a Yes vote, is as powerful a symbol of compassion and reconciliation as has ever been seen in our state or this Island. This is not about what other people think of us, which is what the No side keep insinuating, this is about what we aspire for our country and ourselves. A Yes vote will be a moment that will be remembered in the same breath as Dev's reply to Churchill,Mary Robinson's election, the Good Friday agreement - moments when we expanded the concept of what Irishness can and should be. That, as much as anything else (and God knows, everyone knows I'm prepared to argues the intricacies of the case) is why I'm voting YES.
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 14, 2015, 11:45:08 AM
Quote from: Canalman on May 14, 2015, 11:36:09 AM
This will be a very close run thing imo.
Low turnout, younger voters less likely to vote, complacency,Polls pointing only one way, hectoring, anger with the current government, alot of people keeping their opinions to themselves,main political parties going through the motions with canvassing etc. All the classic signs of an upset.
Not too bothered either way but result will be very intersting snapshot of Irish society in the newish millenium.
Bookies odds and the over/under moving in the no direction. Still looks a decisive (58-60%) Yes but politically informed guys I know reckon the Yes campaign are in panic.
The only problem is getting voters out. Old people always vote in numbers which distorts things. The Church position will compound this. But if there is any decent turnout at all from the U-50s it should be easily carried.
easytiger, that's not exactly what I said. I said if it was just a question of semantics, it would be hard to justify changing the constitution. However if those semantics have a direct and tangible effect on peoples lives then that is a perfect reason to vote yes to iron out inequalities.
If there were no inequality, and it was literally the ability to say we are married, rather than we are in a partnership, then that to me is more of a 'nice to have' rather than inequality.
Quote from: muppet on May 14, 2015, 11:47:25 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 14, 2015, 11:45:08 AM
Quote from: Canalman on May 14, 2015, 11:36:09 AM
This will be a very close run thing imo.
Low turnout, younger voters less likely to vote, complacency,Polls pointing only one way, hectoring, anger with the current government, alot of people keeping their opinions to themselves,main political parties going through the motions with canvassing etc. All the classic signs of an upset.
Not too bothered either way but result will be very intersting snapshot of Irish society in the newish millenium.
Bookies odds and the over/under moving in the no direction. Still looks a decisive (58-60%) Yes but politically informed guys I know reckon the Yes campaign are in panic.
The only problem is getting voters out. Old people always vote in numbers which distorts things. The Church position will compound this. But if there is any decent turnout at all from the U-50s it should be easily carried.
I don't think that is the only problem. The Yes side need to clarify their rationale for voting Yes. And don't just spout phrases like 'Yes for Equality'. Show EXACTLY why and where there are inequalities. ML and myself are rooting around this morning, and I still think we have only found 2. There are apparently 21. Those inequalities should be front and centre of this debate.
The position Easytiger puts is compelling as well, and as I've said before, I am predisposed to voting yes. But we are being told this referendum is about equality, so that should be very easy to itemise or identify. Easytiger's rationale is, with all due respect, slightly different than why we are being asked to vote Yes.
If the referendum boils down to 'vote Yes because Gay People should be able to introduce their husband rather than their partner' then I think it will be very close. I'd still probably vote yes for the reasons Easytiger outlines, but it wouldn't be a given. However if there are real, tangible, inequalities that are clearly explained, then it should be a slam dunk.
And I'd say that it is hard for us as heterosexuals just how much "nice to have" means to people who can't have it. Symbols and status are hugely important, but can be intangible at times. A constitution is an attempt to make our intangible values substantial - I'd say the words on the line mean a lot more to people excluded from the sentence.
One of the upsides of this referendum is the amount of thought we've all had to do about what constitutes family and the ties that bind us. Win or lose, I think it has been healthy for the nation's pysche.
I know I've never thought as much about this as over the last couple of weeks, that's for sure. But I do find it depressing that the No campaign have managed to steer this debate in a certain way, and the Yes campaign can't just put out a concise list of real differences.
You could probably even list your position as a 'real' difference Easytiger. I wouldn't call that inequality per se, but more of a 'differentiation'. So remove the differences, rather than remove the inequality.
Quote from: muppet on May 14, 2015, 11:47:25 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 14, 2015, 11:45:08 AM
Quote from: Canalman on May 14, 2015, 11:36:09 AM
This will be a very close run thing imo.
Low turnout, younger voters less likely to vote, complacency,Polls pointing only one way, hectoring, anger with the current government, alot of people keeping their opinions to themselves,main political parties going through the motions with canvassing etc. All the classic signs of an upset.
Not too bothered either way but result will be very intersting snapshot of Irish society in the newish millenium.
Bookies odds and the over/under moving in the no direction. Still looks a decisive (58-60%) Yes but politically informed guys I know reckon the Yes campaign are in panic.
The only problem is getting voters out. Old people always vote in numbers which distorts things. The Church position will compound this. But if there is any decent turnout at all from the U-50s it should be easily carried.
Yeah - they should only get a half a vote if they're not going to vote the right way.
Ger Brennan has taken some very unfair flak on it. Only person who seems to have addressed his comments any way as they where intended was Conor Cusack.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 14, 2015, 11:45:50 AM
QuoteThis is a change in the constitution, the fundamental legal basis of the State. The constitution should not changed trivially but only after a thorough investigation of all of the issues. So if you believe there is no evidence then you cannot proceed.
I don't really want to get into this with you armaghniac, because you have chosen to ignore my logic in all my posts.
I didn't find your posts convincing, which is not the same as ignoring them.
QuoteBut it was you who suggested that there was no way to measure the impact of gay marriage QuoteWhat could I read, there is no place in the world where this has gone on for more than decade, how can that period of time show anything useful?
before in the very next sentence suggesting that the impact would be harmfulQuoteHow can children fail to be impacted by a redefinition of marriage, this "no impact" is one of big lies of this campaign?
. You do see, don't you, how the two points of view are mutually exclusive, yes?
Now, if there is no evidence (which is not true, there are plenty of studies suggesting that children of same sex couples are not disadvantaged by their upbringing), then how can you automatically make the assumption that when any such evidence comes to light, it will be negative? But the crux of your argument seems to be unless the Yes side can make a case for a positive impact then the constitution should not be changed. That for me, fails on many points.
Firstly, as I've said above there are plenty of studies suggesting that children of same sex couples suffer no disadvantage.
Secondly, if you apply your logic to one end of the argument it must apply at the other - you have not been able once to clearly elucidate what shape or form the disadvantageous impact will have on children, or on the institution of heterosexual marriage which you also claim to be at risk.
Thirdly, the issue of children has been largely dealt with by the Children and Family Relationships Bill, so any misgivings you have about the upbringing of children by gay couples, married or not, should be directed to the repeal of that law, not the the blocking of this amendment,
A couple of points here. In this discussion everyone has been trying to make me condemn same sex couples having children. My concern is to encourage people to have their own children, a positive aim, not find fault with others. This reflects that society has evolved an understanding of things that blood bonds are important, and that men and women both have a contribution to make, including to parenting. There has been much talk of "studies", but I don't believe these are conclusive as they usually compare a very particular and untypical set of people with the whole population.
QuoteFourthly, the "unexpected outcomes" argument has been used against every major social change since the Renaissance - including the abolition of slavery, the suffragettes, the Indian Independence movement,the civil rights movements in the USA and Northern Ireland, and the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the liberalising of our laws on contraception and family planning. "Unexpected outcomes" is no excuse to not right a wrong or remove a social inequality. If there was an expected outcome which was demonstrably disadvantageous to the State and the institution of marriage, than it would be madness to pass it. Since the No side have been unable to name this, then it has no weight in the argument, when set against the injustice of a large minority of the people in our Republic being unable to access all the rights available to others through marriage.
This would mean that all change is good, which is not true. And there has been an unhelpful association of this campaign with issues such as slavery, civil rights in NI, interracial marriage and a whole rake of things. These issues were not comparable, most of them were confined to one region or group, and said nothing about society generally.
QuoteFifthly, Quote've put forward a coherent and logical proposition that society supports marriage, and has so many laws etc relating to it, because it is in society's interest to bring men and women together in stable relationships to nurture (thanks Hardy) children.
this is untrue within the constitution. Although I agree that the State uses marriage as a primary method of social cohesion, procreation is only one of the benefits it brings. There are married couples who choose not to have children or are unable to do so. Thus the State cannot make a distinction between a marriage without children and a marriage with children, and does not within our constitution - and to remind you again, it is the constitution we are being asked to amend.
Procreation is only one of the benefits it brings, but it is an important one and it should be relegated to an importance of zero as those who claim "this has nothing to do with children" would contend. The State cannot make a distinction between a marriage without children and a marriage with children, which is why it should not extend the possibility of marriage to class of relationship for whom having children from the relationship is impossible.
QuoteLeading to sixthly, QuotePassing this referendum on the basis that marriage has nothing to do with children greatly damages this and greatly damages marriage itself, as it then becomes about adults and the State has no real business having a lot of rules and regulations about adult relationships.
as stated above, marriage within the constitution is only about the adults - a family is currently defined as a married couple, not a married couple with children. And just to let you know, your view that, without children, the state should not interfere in adult relationships, is far more damaging to the institution of marriage than anything proposed in this referendum.
My point was that the scale of legal intervention in marriage reflects the importance of children, not the adults. If children are now considered irrelevant than that scale of legal intervention is inappropriate and will probably be scaled back over time.
QuoteThe institution of civil marriage as currently constituted caters for a far wider variety of people than is currently acknowledged by the No side - heterosexual couples are not just one heterogeneous mass of identikit people. There are the childless by choice, there are the childless by situation, there are mixed religion couples, there are mixed race couples ( a situation which was also illegal in many so-called civilized countries before reform happened). By asking the institution to evolve further (though not the religious aspect of it) we are merely continuing a long history of gradual change, begun when secular and social values began to be separated from religious ones.
Mixed race couples and mixed religion couple are a complete distraction.
As for the others, in any situation there will be individual variation, this does not undermine the validity of the general thrust of the policy. The GAA may promote underage development squads to improve the quality of senior players, this policy is not invalidated by the fact the some of the these people do not choose to play in later life.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2015, 12:17:39 PM
And there has been an unhelpful association of this campaign with issues such as slavery, civil rights in NI, interracial marriage and a whole rake of things. These issues were not comparable, most of them were confined to one region or group, and said nothing about society generally.
Those issues said a LOT about the societies in which they existed.
Bizarre answer Armaghniac.
QuoteI didn't find your posts convincing, which is not the same as ignoring them.
So, the reason I don't find your points convincing is because I'm ignoring them??? You're very confident in yourself. Just to be clear, I've read all your points, and addressed them one after one, which is the very opposite of ignoring them. And I don't find your posts convincing in any way.
Quotecouple of points here. In this discussion everyone has been trying to make me condemn same sex couples having children. My concern is to encourage people to have their own children, a positive aim, not find fault with others. This reflects that society has evolved an understanding of things that blood bonds are important, and that men and women both have a contribution to make, including to parenting. There has been much talk of "studies", but I don't believe these are conclusive as they usually compare a very particular and untypical set of people with the whole population.
I'm not trying to get you to do anything - you do it to yourself as Radiohead would say. It was you who said that children from same sex couples would be excluded from enjoying the full human experience because of their parents. Own your words, Armaghniac. Blood bonds are of course, hugely important, but they are only one way that families are now organised and as has been made clear, abundantly now, that was a debate to be had before the passing of the Children and Family relationship act. You also dismiss the evidence on none side of the debate without producng any evidence on the impact that you say same sex marriage will have on children or even being able to articulate any of the disadvantages it will bring to heterosexual marriages, though you have clearly stated it will.
QuoteThis would mean that all change is good, which is not true. And there has been an unhelpful association of this campaign with issues such as slavery, civil rights in NI, interracial marriage and a whole rake of things. These issues were not comparable, most of them were confined to one region or group, and said nothing about society generally.
Clearly not all change is good. But in the cases I cited, change clearly was good. And the issues are all clearly comparable - the ending of discrimination based on race, gender or sexuality in any region has clear implications for society as a whole. There is a direct line in inspiration and example say from Gandhi, to Martin Luther King to John Hume. A match struck in one region can flame across the globe and across generations. To say that is not true is to simply try and remove this debate from its rightful context - because who'd like to be on the wrong side of the arguments and icons above?
QuoteProcreation is only one of the benefits it brings, but it is an important one and it should be relegated to an importance of zero as those who claim "this has nothing to do with children" would contend. The State cannot make a distinction between a marriage without children and a marriage with children, which is why it should not extend the possibility of marriage to class of relationship for whom having children from the relationship is impossible.
Sorry armaghniac, but this is becoming embarassing - and these are your words!! If the State cannot make a distinction between childless marriages and ones with children, then it directly follows that there should be no exclusion based on the ability to have children. Going by your logic, the possibility of procreation is the criteria (which it is not under our constitution)- good luck with getting newly weds to do fertility tests before they sign the register.
QuoteMy point was that the scale of legal intervention in marriage reflects the importance of children, not the adults. If children are now considered irrelevant than that scale of legal intervention is inappropriate and will probably be scaled back over time.
the scale of legal intervention in marriage reflects the importance of marriage as an institution. The first legal interventions come long before children or the possibility of children. Registering, name changes, tax status - all become available whether children are there or not. That has always been the way. Saying that this is changing, when it is not, is untrue and scaremongering.
QuoteMixed race couples and mixed religion couple are a complete distraction.
No they are not - both were examples of marriages that were either not sanctioned by the catholic church (eg. Fethard) or banned by the state. They are completely relevant to the debate. Ignoring examples which detract from your argument is not honest debate.
QuoteAs for the others, in any situation there will be individual variation, this does not undermine the validity of the general thrust of the policy. The GAA may promote underage development squads to improve the quality of senior players, this policy is not invalidated by the fact the some of the these people do not choose to play in later life.
I literally do not have a clue what you mean.
Quote from: muppet on May 14, 2015, 11:47:25 AMThe only problem is getting voters out. Old people always vote in numbers which distorts things. The Church position will compound this. But if there is any decent turnout at all from the U-50s it should be easily carried.
I'm not sure the "older vote" especially the Church going crowd is as conservative as people think or as inclined to blindly follow what the bishops say as previously - have actually met a lot of older traditional weekly church going folk in the last few weeks and it's come up a fair amount that they are voting yes - been genuinely surprised by a couple of them. Even one old woman in her eighties who basically lives in the Church and kept referring to them as "the gays" who was adamant she's be voting Yes. (There was no malice or anything it's just that she hadn't the lingo down but I was cringing a bit.) The likes of that priest in Donegal voting Yes and Sr Stan saying she is voting yes have made a massive difference to a lot of these folk. If the Yes campaign had any sense, they would give the likes of these as much coverage as possible.
So is the way democracy works, if a No vote is passed there will there be another referendum this year to get it passed?
Quote from: easytiger95I'm not trying to get you to do anything - you do it to yourself as Radiohead would say. It was you who said that children from same sex couples would be excluded from enjoying the full human experience because of their parents. Own your words, Armaghniac. Blood bonds are of course, hugely important, but they are only one way that families are now organised and as has been made clear, abundantly now, that was a debate to be had before the passing of the Children and Family relationship act. You also dismiss the evidence on none side of the debate without producng any evidence on the impact that you say same sex marriage will have on children or even being able to articulate any of the disadvantages it will bring to heterosexual marriages, though you have clearly stated it will.
The Children and Family Relationship Act is concerned with regulating things after event and protecting children in all situations, some of them less than optimal. As you yourself say, the benefits of marriage come into operation from day 1. Marriage is intended to bring men and women together, most of these have children but some do not for individual reasons. The existence of some marriages with these individual reasons are no justification for extending marriage to sterile combinations which are unable to produce children from the relationship regardless of what the individuals do or think.
As for the evidence, the proposed change dilutes marriage which means that it will have less status and less public support in the future which does very much affect children. If this change proceeds than there can be no reason other than prejudice for opposing polygamous marriages and there is no valid reason for taxing single people more to allow married people pay less.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 14, 2015, 03:40:51 PM
So is the way democracy works, if a No vote is passed there will there be another referendum this year to get it passed?
Worked for the Lisbon and Nice treaties.
QuoteAs you yourself say, the benefits of marriage come into operation from day 1. Marriage is intended to bring men and women together, most of these have children but some do not for individual reasons. The existence of some marriages with these individual reasons are no justification for extending marriage to sterile combinations which are unable to produce children from the relationship regardless of what the individuals do or think.
Nor is it any reason not to.
QuoteAs for the evidence, the proposed change dilutes marriage which means that it will have less status and less public support in the future which does very much affect children. If this change proceeds than there can be no reason other than prejudice for opposing polygamous marriages and there is no valid reason for taxing single people more to allow married people pay less.
Dilutes how? Answer the question we've asked of you since the beginning of this. "Dilute" means nothing. What are your concrete examples of this "dilution" which is a metaphor in itself?
What reason would there be for promoting polygamous marriage? Has the existence of civil partnerships for same sex couples led to the promotion of polygamous civil partnerships? Careful Armaghniac, your next example will be "sure what will stop them marrying dogs?"
If this change proceeds, the vaild reason for taxing single people more to allow married people to pay less, is that they are married. Gay or straight, childless or not, the state will value and put a premium on marriage as an essential tool for social cohesion.
Also, just to say, calling gay partnerships sterile combinations completely ignores that fact that same sex partnerships can have children, through adoption, or other fertility treatments.
You ask, Eamonn asks, just about everyone else asks, so I will too. What is being taken from everyone else!
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 14, 2015, 07:47:14 PM
You ask, Eamonn asks, just about everyone else asks, so I will too. What is being taken from everyone else!
Groupthink!
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 13, 2015, 10:06:43 PM
I predict 65 - 35 yes.
I still haven't found out what rights we will be giving gay couples mind you. Either I'm thick, or this is like the third secret of Fatima.
If no-one knows exactly what this referendum is for maybe the government will use the confusion to add one of their wishes in the smallprint.
Vote 'YES' on referendum day for equality
[and for Irish Water to directly debit your wages/welfare]/[You agree to microchipping]Wouldn't put it past them.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 14, 2015, 03:40:51 PM
So is the way democracy works, if a No vote is passed there will there be another referendum this year to get it passed?
I doubt it would be this year, but it probably would be run again at some point. And why not? The electorate changes and opinion changes. To argue against another referendum is like arguing against another General Election - sure the people voted in 2011, let's just leave it at that!
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2015, 06:57:01 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 14, 2015, 03:40:51 PM
So is the way democracy works, if a No vote is passed there will there be another referendum this year to get it passed?
I doubt it would be this year, but it probably would be run again at some point. And why not? The electorate changes and opinion changes. To argue against another referendum is like arguing against another General Election - sure the people voted in 2011, let's just leave it at that!
So is the way democracy works, if a Yes vote is passed there will there be another referendum this year?
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 14, 2015, 11:58:37 AM
One of the upsides of this referendum is the amount of thought we've all had to do about what constitutes family and the ties that bind us. Win or lose, I think it has been healthy for the nation's pysche.
I thought of what you say here yesterday after reading an article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/13/conservatives-say-marriage-has-always-been-between-a-man-and-a-woman-theyre-wrong/) about the case before the US Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. What struck me was the absurdity of having the validity of laws determined by nine people parsing a text written by a bunch of slave-owning white men from the late 18th century. As you say, whatever the result there is virtue in having a public airing of opinions on the matter.
Quote from: deiseach on May 15, 2015, 10:24:01 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 14, 2015, 11:58:37 AM
One of the upsides of this referendum is the amount of thought we've all had to do about what constitutes family and the ties that bind us. Win or lose, I think it has been healthy for the nation's pysche.
I thought of what you say here yesterday after reading an article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/13/conservatives-say-marriage-has-always-been-between-a-man-and-a-woman-theyre-wrong/) about the case before the US Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. What struck me was the absurdity of having the validity of laws determined by nine people parsing a text written by a bunch of slave-owning white men from the late 18th century. As you say, whatever the result there is virtue in having a public airing of opinions on the matter.
The irony of these posts are unreal, you can air your opinion as long as you are on the YES side, on the NO side you are homophobic, Jesus wept!
Quote from: topcuppla on May 15, 2015, 10:38:48 AM
Quote from: deiseach on May 15, 2015, 10:24:01 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 14, 2015, 11:58:37 AM
One of the upsides of this referendum is the amount of thought we've all had to do about what constitutes family and the ties that bind us. Win or lose, I think it has been healthy for the nation's pysche.
I thought of what you say here yesterday after reading an article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/13/conservatives-say-marriage-has-always-been-between-a-man-and-a-woman-theyre-wrong/) about the case before the US Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. What struck me was the absurdity of having the validity of laws determined by nine people parsing a text written by a bunch of slave-owning white men from the late 18th century. As you say, whatever the result there is virtue in having a public airing of opinions on the matter.
The irony of these posts are unreal, you can air your opinion as long as you are on the YES side, on the NO side you are homophobic, Jesus wept!
I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I do not think advocating a No vote makes you a homophobe. I think it takes a particularly twisted mindset to read the contrary into what I posted.
Quote from: deiseach on May 15, 2015, 10:24:01 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 14, 2015, 11:58:37 AM
One of the upsides of this referendum is the amount of thought we've all had to do about what constitutes family and the ties that bind us. Win or lose, I think it has been healthy for the nation's pysche.
I thought of what you say here yesterday after reading an article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/13/conservatives-say-marriage-has-always-been-between-a-man-and-a-woman-theyre-wrong/) about the case before the US Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. What struck me was the absurdity of having the validity of laws determined by nine people parsing a text written by a bunch of slave-owning white men from the late 18th century. As you say, whatever the result there is virtue in having a public airing of opinions on the matter.
While conditioned by the circumstances of the time, I suspect the bunch of slave-owning white men from the late 18th century took their duties seriously. The same cannot be said of the "leaders", the Kennys, Gilmores and the like, of today.
Quote from: deiseach on May 15, 2015, 10:45:41 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 15, 2015, 10:38:48 AM
Quote from: deiseach on May 15, 2015, 10:24:01 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 14, 2015, 11:58:37 AM
One of the upsides of this referendum is the amount of thought we've all had to do about what constitutes family and the ties that bind us. Win or lose, I think it has been healthy for the nation's pysche.
I thought of what you say here yesterday after reading an article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/13/conservatives-say-marriage-has-always-been-between-a-man-and-a-woman-theyre-wrong/) about the case before the US Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. What struck me was the absurdity of having the validity of laws determined by nine people parsing a text written by a bunch of slave-owning white men from the late 18th century. As you say, whatever the result there is virtue in having a public airing of opinions on the matter.
The irony of these posts are unreal, you can air your opinion as long as you are on the YES side, on the NO side you are homophobic, Jesus wept!
I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I do not think advocating a No vote makes you a homophobe. I think it takes a particularly twisted mindset to read the contrary into what I posted.
Not on this board - time and time again it has been stated here that the only reason one can vote NO is because they are homophobic, appreciate you are not one of the protagonists but you can appreciate the the irony in the above posts in the context of the mass hysteria from the YES campaign on this board.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 10:52:00 AM
While conditioned by the circumstances of the time, I suspect the bunch of slave-owning white men from the late 18th century took their duties seriously. The same cannot be said of the "leaders", the Kennys, Gilmores and the like, of today.
Conditioned as they were by the circumstances of the times, they had no opinion one way or another on gay marriage, or at least they didn't leave anything behind in the Constitution about it. I think it is misconceived to ask for their opinion through the medium of that text rather than canvassing the electorate of today, whatever the outcome might be.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 15, 2015, 10:57:31 AM
Quote from: deiseach on May 15, 2015, 10:45:41 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 15, 2015, 10:38:48 AM
Quote from: deiseach on May 15, 2015, 10:24:01 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 14, 2015, 11:58:37 AM
One of the upsides of this referendum is the amount of thought we've all had to do about what constitutes family and the ties that bind us. Win or lose, I think it has been healthy for the nation's pysche.
I thought of what you say here yesterday after reading an article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/13/conservatives-say-marriage-has-always-been-between-a-man-and-a-woman-theyre-wrong/) about the case before the US Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. What struck me was the absurdity of having the validity of laws determined by nine people parsing a text written by a bunch of slave-owning white men from the late 18th century. As you say, whatever the result there is virtue in having a public airing of opinions on the matter.
The irony of these posts are unreal, you can air your opinion as long as you are on the YES side, on the NO side you are homophobic, Jesus wept!
I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I do not think advocating a No vote makes you a homophobe. I think it takes a particularly twisted mindset to read the contrary into what I posted.
Not on this board - time and time again it has been stated here that the only reason one can vote NO is because they are homophobic, appreciate you are not one of the protagonists but you can appreciate the the irony in the above posts in the context of the mass hysteria from the YES campaign on this board.
(http://i1257.photobucket.com/albums/ii509/WinfreeMMA/inigo-montoya-word-gif.gif)
Can someone in the yes camp clarify if they believe that there are any reasons for voting no other than being a rampant homophobe?
I dont have a vote but would in all likelihood be a yes voter.
Quote from: Franko on May 15, 2015, 11:18:03 AM
Can someone in the yes camp clarify if they believe that there are any reasons for voting no other than being a rampant homophobe?
I dont have a vote but would in all likelihood be a yes voter.
On this board everyone is entitled to an opinion unless that opinion is different to the herd and then you are homophobic.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 15, 2015, 11:20:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on May 15, 2015, 11:18:03 AM
Can someone in the yes camp clarify if they believe that there are any reasons for voting no other than being a rampant homophobe?
I dont have a vote but would in all likelihood be a yes voter.
On this board everyone is entitled to an opinion unless that opinion is different to the herd and then you are homophobic.
Well . . . Yes!
You are voting to deny homosexuals equal rights to everyone else/
Definition of homophobia
Quote
homo|pho¦bia
Pronunciation: /ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə/ /ˌhəʊmə-/
Definition of homophobia in English:
noun
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
I think that a lot of people are getting overly pushed on the definition of homophobia and think it means you abuse or hate homosexuals or its something akin to racism when I don't think it is and has more layers than that. A dislike of homosexuals is the dictionary definition and I think that generally those voting no have that.
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 11:35:06 AM
I think that a lot of people are getting overly pushed on the definition of homophobia and think it means you abuse or hate homosexuals or its something akin to racism when I don't think it is and has more layers than that. A dislike of homosexuals is the dictionary definition and I think that generally those voting no have that.
By the same token the yes side are heterophobic as they wish to devalue the heterosexual instution of marriage.
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 11:35:06 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 15, 2015, 11:20:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on May 15, 2015, 11:18:03 AM
Can someone in the yes camp clarify if they believe that there are any reasons for voting no other than being a rampant homophobe?
I dont have a vote but would in all likelihood be a yes voter.
On this board everyone is entitled to an opinion unless that opinion is different to the herd and then you are homophobic.
Well . . . Yes!
You are voting to deny homosexuals equal rights to everyone else/
Definition of homophobia
Quote
homo|pho¦bia
Pronunciation: /ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə/ /ˌhəʊmə-/
Definition of homophobia in English:
noun
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
I think that a lot of people are getting overly pushed on the definition of homophobia and think it means you abuse or hate homosexuals or its something akin to racism when I don't think it is and has more layers than that. A dislike of homosexuals is the dictionary definition and I think that generally those voting no have that.
Just to be clear once again, I would vote yes, but if people want to vote no for whatever reason that is their democratic right and they should not be branded homophobic by the gay right activists on this board.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 11:50:57 AM
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 11:35:06 AM
I think that a lot of people are getting overly pushed on the definition of homophobia and think it means you abuse or hate homosexuals or its something akin to racism when I don't think it is and has more layers than that. A dislike of homosexuals is the dictionary definition and I think that generally those voting no have that.
By the same token the yes side are heterophobic as they wish to devalue the heterosexual instution of marriage.
Aye but there's no definition of that!!
Also as has been asked on numerous occasions on this board by a number of posters to anybody advocating the No vote can you please tell me how allowing Gay people to marry impacts on my marriage in the slightest??!!??!!
If you can find a way that my marriage is devalued by this I will certainly change my opinion to the No campaign as I would hate for my marriage to be devalued in any way!!!!
Whatever about the actual referendum this is very funny!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jp1g2UIm4s
I think if the institution that is marriage could survive the mockery of it that was Elton John marrying a woman, it'll cope with him marrying a man.
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 12:08:11 PM
Whatever about the actual referendum this is very funny!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jp1g2UIm4s
I'd sooner marry Donal Óg than talk to him about hurling.
Me, bitter? You'd better believe it!
Quote from: deiseach on May 15, 2015, 12:21:15 PM
I think if the institution that is marriage could survive the mockery of it that was Elton John marrying a woman, it'll cope with him marrying a man.
And buying a couple of kids!
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 12:04:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 11:50:57 AM
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 11:35:06 AM
I think that a lot of people are getting overly pushed on the definition of homophobia and think it means you abuse or hate homosexuals or its something akin to racism when I don't think it is and has more layers than that. A dislike of homosexuals is the dictionary definition and I think that generally those voting no have that.
By the same token the yes side are heterophobic as they wish to devalue the heterosexual instution of marriage.
Aye but there's no definition of that!!
Also as has been asked on numerous occasions on this board by a number of posters to anybody advocating the No vote can you please tell me how allowing Gay people to marry impacts on my marriage in the slightest??!!??!!
If you can find a way that my marriage is devalued by this I will certainly change my opinion to the No campaign as I would hate for my marriage to be devalued in any way!!!!
(http://media.giphy.com/media/VqYyKYygtFvz2/giphy.gif)
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 12:04:42 PM
If you can find a way that my marriage is devalued by this I will certainly change my opinion to the No campaign as I would hate for my marriage to be devalued in any way!!!!
I suspect you live in the North, so have the DUP defending your marriage.
Marriage has been understood as having a strong association with children, this will now be removed if there is a yes on the basis that this association does not exist.
But there is a general point here. You have the Gilmore defence, that his marriage will be as strong the day after the referendum as before and this is true as a limited point. Marriages conducted in the understanding of the time will not be quickly affected and many marriages will not be affected at all. In a similar way, someone might come on here and say that the welfare system is a disincentive to work, and I might post that the my incentive to work is unaffected by the welfare system. But I have an interesting well paid job, other people in the workforce are influenced in their willingness to work by the welfare system and a badly designed welfare system may well do damage to society as a whole, damage that becomes apparent over time. A badly designed intervention in the meaning of marriage will do damage that is even more difficult to repair.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 01:33:34 PM
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 12:04:42 PM
If you can find a way that my marriage is devalued by this I will certainly change my opinion to the No campaign as I would hate for my marriage to be devalued in any way!!!!
I suspect you live in the North, so have the DUP defending your marriage.
Marriage has been understood as having a strong association with children, this will now be removed if there is a yes on the basis that this association does not exist.
But there is a general point here. You have the Gilmore defence, that his marriage will be as strong the day after the referendum as before and this is true as a limited point. Marriages conducted in the understanding of the time will not be quickly affected and many marriages will not be affected at all. In a similar way, someone might come on here and say that the welfare system is a disincentive to work, and I might post that the my incentive to work is unaffected by the welfare system. But I have an interesting well paid job, other people in the workforce are influenced in their willingness to work by the welfare system and a badly designed welfare system may well do damage to society as a whole, damage that becomes apparent over time. A badly designed intervention in the meaning of marriage will do damage that is even more difficult to repair.
Fair play armaghniac for at least trying to come back with an answer. It's very wishy washy though and I'm not buying it I'm afraid!
1. Marriage "is understood as having a strong association with children". Of course that is true for heterosexual couples who wish to conceive children but already there are couples who get married with no intention of having children and those that are unable to conceive for whatever reason so what separates them from a Gay couple in terms of the children point (which is moot in the first place as although marriage is understood to be associated with children, legally there is no such association).
2. You have identified that while some marriages won't be affected some will and then went on to explain something about the welfare system which I'm not really ... HOW will these marriages be affected is more the question I was looking the answer for!! Will there be less marriages/More marriages/more divorce? What is the symptom for Marriage as a whole should Gay people be allowed to wed?
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 11:35:06 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 15, 2015, 11:20:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on May 15, 2015, 11:18:03 AM
Can someone in the yes camp clarify if they believe that there are any reasons for voting no other than being a rampant homophobe?
I dont have a vote but would in all likelihood be a yes voter.
On this board everyone is entitled to an opinion unless that opinion is different to the herd and then you are homophobic.
Well . . . Yes!
You are voting to deny homosexuals equal rights to everyone else/
Definition of homophobia
Quote
homo|pho¦bia
Pronunciation: /ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə/ /ˌhəʊmə-/
Definition of homophobia in English:
noun
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
I think that a lot of people are getting overly pushed on the definition of homophobia and think it means you abuse or hate homosexuals or its something akin to racism when I don't think it is and has more layers than that. A dislike of homosexuals is the dictionary definition and I think that generally those voting no have that.
What Rights?!?!?
Caveat. We are asking the people who have voted in Fine Gael and Fianna Fail ad infinitum to decide. Is it still a good thing?
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 15, 2015, 01:53:48 PM
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 11:35:06 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 15, 2015, 11:20:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on May 15, 2015, 11:18:03 AM
Can someone in the yes camp clarify if they believe that there are any reasons for voting no other than being a rampant homophobe?
I dont have a vote but would in all likelihood be a yes voter.
On this board everyone is entitled to an opinion unless that opinion is different to the herd and then you are homophobic.
Well . . . Yes!
You are voting to deny homosexuals equal rights to everyone else/
Definition of homophobia
Quote
homo|pho¦bia
Pronunciation: /ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə/ /ˌhəʊmə-/
Definition of homophobia in English:
noun
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
I think that a lot of people are getting overly pushed on the definition of homophobia and think it means you abuse or hate homosexuals or its something akin to racism when I don't think it is and has more layers than that. A dislike of homosexuals is the dictionary definition and I think that generally those voting no have that.
What Rights?!?!?
The right to marry the person you love?
As opposed to the right to be in a civil partnership with the person you love? Is it really boiling down to that?
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 15, 2015, 02:43:34 PM
As opposed to the right to be in a civil partnership with the person you love? Is it really boiling down to that?
That's what it is for me anyway I think you should be able to marry the person you love and have that recognised by the constitution.
Also Civil Partnership between a same sex couple can be amended/taken away by a vote in the Oireachtas while a yes vote will mean this can only be decided by the people of Ireland.
This is quite an interesting Q&A as delivered by the NEUTRAL Referendum Commission Chairman who explains the whole situation succinctly!
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/marriage-referendum-q-a-what-you-need-to-know-1.2212840
Where is that screen?
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 01:45:30 PM
Fair play armaghniac for at least trying to come back with an answer. It's very wishy washy though and I'm not buying it I'm afraid!
1. Marriage "is understood as having a strong association with children". Of course that is true for heterosexual couples who wish to conceive children but already there are couples who get married with no intention of having children and those that are unable to conceive for whatever reason so what separates them from a Gay couple in terms of the children point (which is moot in the first place as although marriage is understood to be associated with children, legally there is no such association).
There is a difference between an impossibility for a group of people and some individuals choosing not to do something. Some women do not choose to become pregnant. No man becomes pregnant.
Quote from: screenexile2. You have identified that while some marriages won't be affected some will and then went on to explain something about the welfare system which I'm not really ... HOW will these marriages be affected is more the question I was looking the answer for!! Will there be less marriages/More marriages/more divorce? What is the symptom for Marriage as a whole should Gay people be allowed to wed?
There may be less marriage and more divorce and more children not being brought up by married parents. Now somebody will pipe up and say that this already happens, the divorce can be the best thing in some cases and so on. This does already happen and divorce is sometimes the only option, but you want as little of it as possible all the same.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 15, 2015, 03:03:29 PM
Where is that screen?
Sorry forgot to paste the link I've amended it above as well:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/marriage-referendum-q-a-what-you-need-to-know-1.2212840
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 02:56:56 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 15, 2015, 02:43:34 PM
As opposed to the right to be in a civil partnership with the person you love? Is it really boiling down to that?
That's what it is for me anyway I think you should be able to marry the person you love and have that recognised by the constitution.
What if you love your sister?
No, someone may pipe up and say, what is the causal link between same sex marriage and divorce in heterosexual marriage?
And someone else might say, there is absolutely none.
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 03:12:19 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 15, 2015, 03:03:29 PM
Where is that screen?
Sorry forgot to paste the link I've amended it above as well:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/marriage-referendum-q-a-what-you-need-to-know-1.2212840
Thanks screen, and that is probably the best I've seen of that. I still wish someone would just simply list the 21 differences between Civil Partnership and Marriage, so we can all clearly see the inequality, but this is pretty good. I hadn't thought of enshrining it in the constitution as opposed to simply having legislation. Legislation can change easier than the Constitution, so that in itself is worth noting.
In terms of the actual differences though, I now have 3 I think...
1 - Adopting in 3 years versus immediately.
2 - Status of the home, and how it relates to children of an ended relationship
3 - Constitutional protection versus Legislatively 'granted'.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 15, 2015, 03:13:31 PM
No, someone may pipe up and say, what is the causal link between same sex marriage and divorce in heterosexual marriage?
And someone else might say, there is absolutely none.
What are you claiming here? That a redefinition of marriage is not likely to affect the divorce rate or that this particular redefinition does not affect the divorce rate?
Quote
1 - Adopting in 3 years versus immediately.
2 - Status of the home, and how it relates to children of an ended relationship
3 - Constitutional protection versus Legislatively 'granted'
Marriage is not directly defined in the Constitution now and both groups will have an equal basis in this regard whether or not there is a Yes vote.
That is semantics. You say 'directly' because the family is protected constitutionally. This will allow a gay couple marry and become a 'family'.
If a person is truly bisexual should they be allowed to marry both a man and a woman?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 03:21:59 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 15, 2015, 03:13:31 PM
No, someone may pipe up and say, what is the causal link between same sex marriage and divorce in heterosexual marriage?
And someone else might say, there is absolutely none.
What are you claiming here? That a redefinition of marriage is not likely to affect the divorce rate or that this particular redefinition does not affect the divorce rate?
Quote
1 - Adopting in 3 years versus immediately.
2 - Status of the home, and how it relates to children of an ended relationship
3 - Constitutional protection versus Legislatively 'granted'
Marriage is not directly defined in the Constitution now and both groups will have an equal basis in this regard whether or not there is a Yes vote.
What I'm saying is that same sex marriage will not in anyway effect the divorce rate in heterosexual couples. It was fairly clear in my first post.
Now, if you're saying that same sex marriage will effect the overall divorce rate because they are less likely to stay together, all i can say to that is that we don't know what the divorce rate in same sex couples will be because we haven't allowed them to marry.
Marriage is directly defined in the constitution. you should try reading it some time.
Quote from: whitey on May 15, 2015, 03:28:14 PM
If a person is truly bisexual should they be allowed to marry both a man and a woman?
Not at the same time as that is illegal. But if a man is married to woman and they get divorced, and he subsequently gets married to another man, then he is doing nothing at all wrong legally and I would fail to see what the problem is.
easytiger, I don't think Marriage is directly defined in the constitution. It is mentioned 13 times in the Constitution, but is not actually defined as such. The Family is referred to as being based on Marriage, which is the key thing.
This is article 41.
ARTICLE 41
1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.
3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that –
i at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the previous five years,
ii there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
iii such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iv any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.
3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.
The referendum is to add a new line, section 4, which will specifically say that
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex."
This then means that all the bits pertaining to 'Family' in law and will now pertain to gay couples and their children.
So while Armaghniac is technically correct, that really is semantics.
Quote from: whitey on May 15, 2015, 03:28:14 PM
If a person is truly bisexual should they be allowed to marry both a man and a woman?
Should a heterosexual man be allowed to marry two woman. A straight woman, two men?
There is a word for that.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 15, 2015, 03:12:29 PM
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 02:56:56 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 15, 2015, 02:43:34 PM
As opposed to the right to be in a civil partnership with the person you love? Is it really boiling down to that?
That's what it is for me anyway I think you should be able to marry the person you love and have that recognised by the constitution.
What if you love your sister?
Ah now there's no need to be bringing poor Tyrone people into this!!
As mentioned in the article I quoted:
QuoteThere are prohibited degrees of relationships, as they are legally defined, in relation to close relatives. They apply to married persons. They apply at the moment to civil partners as well. Clearly, a same-sex married couple would be in precisely the same position as an opposite-sex married couple.
Sorry AZ and Armaghniac - you're correct - marriage is "defined" as being the foundation of the family, and the courts have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Yes. Actually another way of looking at this is that Marriage will be protected in the constitution for both hetero and gay couples!
:)
Quote from: AZOffalySo while Armaghniac is technically correct, that really is semantics.
Semantic indeed.
It is not stating the issue anyway. This is an attempt to conflate homosexual relationships with marriage, which as a fundamental building block of human society enjoys certain goodies. It is a form of free-loading where you latch on to something else rather than justify getting something in your own terms.
Quote from: AZOffaly.
Yes. Actually another way of looking at this is that Marriage will be protected in the constitution for both hetero and gay couples!
True, AZOffaly. But even I am not paranoid enough to believe that the ultimate objective is to prevent heterosexuals getting married, leaving only the same sex variant.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 04:01:49 PM
Quote from: AZOffalySo while Armaghniac is technically correct, that really is semantics.
Semantic indeed.
It is not stating the issue anyway. This is an attempt to conflate homosexual relationships with marriage, which as a fundamental building block of human society enjoys certain goodies. It is a form of free-loading where you latch on to something else rather than justify getting something in your own terms.
Quote from: AZOffaly.
Yes. Actually another way of looking at this is that Marriage will be protected in the constitution for both hetero and gay couples!
True, AZOffaly. But even I am not paranoid enough to believe that the ultimate objective is to prevent heterosexuals getting married, leaving only the same sex variant.
Which is your opposition in a nutshell, clearly stated..
It is not stating the issue anyway. This is an attempt to conflate homosexual relationships with marriage, which as a fundamental building block of human society enjoys certain goodies. It is a form of free-loading where you latch on to something else rather than justify getting something in your own terms.
From RTE today. I'm hugely confused Ted. Who's going to be paying for this?
A group of three senior lawyers has said if the referendum is passed, a same-sex married couple will have the same constitutional right as a married heterosexual couple to procreate.
They say that the chairman of the Referendum Commission, Mr Justice Kevin Cross, has said it would be difficult to imagine the legislature privileging an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple where accessing surrogacy services is concerned.
The lawyers concerned about the effects of a Yes vote are William Binchy and two senior counsel, Patrick Treacy and Shane Murphy.
In a statement they say that a female homosexual couple can only procreate with donor sperm and a male homosexual couple would require a donor egg and a surrogate mother.
They say there is a strong argument that these practices will enjoy constitutional protection if this referendum proposal is passed.
They say the Government intends to enact a surrogacy bill which will provide for surrogacy in accordance with the new constitutional right of two married men to procreate.
The lawyers say Mr Justice Cross has said it would not be impossible, but it would be difficult to imagine the legislature privileging an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple where accessing surrogacy services is concerned.
Could someone on here clear something up for me,
If a man and a woman had no intention of having children, would they still be allowed to get married in a church?
Reminds me of the scene in The Life of Brian
(http://www.myfconline.com/character_avatars/46428_45400.jpg)
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on May 15, 2015, 04:50:07 PM
Reminds me of the scene in The Life of Brian
(http://www.myfconline.com/character_avatars/46428_45400.jpg)
LOL
A film called Life of Enda is required. That would be a comedy classic.
Quote from: foxcommander on May 15, 2015, 04:39:13 PM
From RTE today. I'm hugely confused Ted. Who's going to be paying for this?
A group of three senior lawyers has said if the referendum is passed, a same-sex married couple will have the same constitutional right as a married heterosexual couple to procreate.
They say that the chairman of the Referendum Commission, Mr Justice Kevin Cross, has said it would be difficult to imagine the legislature privileging an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple where accessing surrogacy services is concerned.
The lawyers concerned about the effects of a Yes vote are William Binchy and two senior counsel, Patrick Treacy and Shane Murphy.
In a statement they say that a female homosexual couple can only procreate with donor sperm and a male homosexual couple would require a donor egg and a surrogate mother.
They say there is a strong argument that these practices will enjoy constitutional protection if this referendum proposal is passed.
They say the Government intends to enact a surrogacy bill which will provide for surrogacy in accordance with the new constitutional right of two married men to procreate.
The lawyers say Mr Justice Cross has said it would not be impossible, but it would be difficult to imagine the legislature privileging an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple where accessing surrogacy services is concerned.
I stopped reading when i saw who was concerned...
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 15, 2015, 05:33:52 PM
I stopped reading when i saw who was concerned...
ah yes, the ad hominem approach.
you would say that, wouldn't you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jp1g2UIm4s
Quote from: eddie d on May 15, 2015, 04:47:56 PM
Could someone on here clear something up for me,
If a man and a woman had no intention of having children, would they still be allowed to get married in a church?
I don't know where that one lands. Part of the vows/promises taken during the ceremony are to be open to life and whatever children God gives them. If they say no upfront then I dont know.
Good question!
William Binchy has a long and public history of Catholic conservative activism against social issues such as divorce, abortion, contraception. I'm not surprised he has found something to be concerned about. That is no ad hominem attack, and you should know, given your record in the area. Should you wish to go back through my posts and find an example of an ad hominem attack on you or others, feel free. I'll own up to any you find.
Quote from: foxcommander on May 15, 2015, 04:39:13 PM
From RTE today. I'm hugely confused Ted. Who's going to be paying for this?
A group of three senior lawyers has said if the referendum is passed, a same-sex married couple will have the same constitutional right as a married heterosexual couple to procreate.
They say that the chairman of the Referendum Commission, Mr Justice Kevin Cross, has said it would be difficult to imagine the legislature privileging an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple where accessing surrogacy services is concerned.
The lawyers concerned about the effects of a Yes vote are William Binchy and two senior counsel, Patrick Treacy and Shane Murphy.
In a statement they say that a female homosexual couple can only procreate with donor sperm and a male homosexual couple would require a donor egg and a surrogate mother.
They say there is a strong argument that these practices will enjoy constitutional protection if this referendum proposal is passed.
They say the Government intends to enact a surrogacy bill which will provide for surrogacy in accordance with the new constitutional right of two married men to procreate.
The lawyers say Mr Justice Cross has said it would not be impossible, but it would be difficult to imagine the legislature privileging an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple where accessing surrogacy services is concerned.
What exactly is these gentlemen ' s complaint?
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 06:12:49 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on May 15, 2015, 04:39:13 PM
From RTE today. I'm hugely confused Ted. Who's going to be paying for this?
A group of three senior lawyers has said if the referendum is passed, a same-sex married couple will have the same constitutional right as a married heterosexual couple to procreate.
They say that the chairman of the Referendum Commission, Mr Justice Kevin Cross, has said it would be difficult to imagine the legislature privileging an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple where accessing surrogacy services is concerned.
The lawyers concerned about the effects of a Yes vote are William Binchy and two senior counsel, Patrick Treacy and Shane Murphy.
In a statement they say that a female homosexual couple can only procreate with donor sperm and a male homosexual couple would require a donor egg and a surrogate mother.
They say there is a strong argument that these practices will enjoy constitutional protection if this referendum proposal is passed.
They say the Government intends to enact a surrogacy bill which will provide for surrogacy in accordance with the new constitutional right of two married men to procreate.
The lawyers say Mr Justice Cross has said it would not be impossible, but it would be difficult to imagine the legislature privileging an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple where accessing surrogacy services is concerned.
What exactly is these gentlemen ' s complaint?
I imagine one issue is that allowing or prohibiting certain types of surrogacy might favour regular or SS couples.
The difference here might lie in surrogacy where a woman carries a baby that is the genetic product of the couple, like the case of the woman's sister recently, versus surrogacy where a one biological parent plays no part in the child's life after conception or birth.
Quote from: eddie d on May 15, 2015, 04:47:56 PM
Could someone on here clear something up for me,
If a man and a woman had no intention of having children, would they still be allowed to get married in a church?
This came up when we got married actually, (not that we were intending not to have children).
You cannot get married in the church if you are not intending to have children.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 06:39:41 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 06:12:49 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on May 15, 2015, 04:39:13 PM
From RTE today. I'm hugely confused Ted. Who's going to be paying for this?
A group of three senior lawyers has said if the referendum is passed, a same-sex married couple will have the same constitutional right as a married heterosexual couple to procreate.
They say that the chairman of the Referendum Commission, Mr Justice Kevin Cross, has said it would be difficult to imagine the legislature privileging an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple where accessing surrogacy services is concerned.
The lawyers concerned about the effects of a Yes vote are William Binchy and two senior counsel, Patrick Treacy and Shane Murphy.
In a statement they say that a female homosexual couple can only procreate with donor sperm and a male homosexual couple would require a donor egg and a surrogate mother.
They say there is a strong argument that these practices will enjoy constitutional protection if this referendum proposal is passed.
They say the Government intends to enact a surrogacy bill which will provide for surrogacy in accordance with the new constitutional right of two married men to procreate.
The lawyers say Mr Justice Cross has said it would not be impossible, but it would be difficult to imagine the legislature privileging an opposite-sex couple over a same-sex couple where accessing surrogacy services is concerned.
What exactly is these gentlemen ' s complaint?
I imagine one issue is that allowing or prohibiting certain types of surrogacy might favour regular or SS couples.
The difference here might lie in surrogacy where a woman carries a baby that is the genetic product of the couple, like the case of the woman's sister recently, versus surrogacy where a one biological parent plays no part in the child's life after conception or birth.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what same-sex or heterosexual has to do with it. Two men - they need a surrogate, same as a straight couple where the woman can't bear children. Two women - they need a sperm donor, same as a straight couple where the man is shooting blanks. The rest is details that also apply regardless of whether it's same sex or straight.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 15, 2015, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 15, 2015, 04:47:56 PM
Could someone on here clear something up for me,
If a man and a woman had no intention of having children, would they still be allowed to get married in a church?
This came up when we got married actually, (not that we were intending not to have children).
You cannot get married in the church if you are not intending to have children.
The priest asks you that??
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 06:58:10 PM
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what same-sex or heterosexual has to do with it. Two men - they need a surrogate, same as a straight couple where the woman can't bear children. Two women - they need a sperm donor, same as a straight couple where the man is shooting blanks. The rest is details that also apply regardless of whether it's same sex or straight.
In my example, I distinguished between a surrogate to carry the child and one to conceive the child.
It is all a bit subtle, but then the whole referendum is a bit strange in that it appears to conflate black=white, so it is reasonable to wonder about strange outcomes resulting from it.
I think the Priest does/should ask the question. There are promises of marriage and conditions for marriage within the catholic church at least:
Free, total, faithful and fruitful (queue the jokes).....
It is free, "not...merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment." (Humanae Vitae, 9)
It is total, husband and wife generously share everything. "Whoever really loves their partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself." (Humanae Vitae, 9)
It is "faithful and exclusive of all others, until death... Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness." (Humanae Vitae, 9)
It is fruitful. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare." (Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 50: AAS 58 (1966), 1070-1072 [TPS XI, 292-293].*)
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 06:58:51 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 15, 2015, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 15, 2015, 04:47:56 PM
Could someone on here clear something up for me,
If a man and a woman had no intention of having children, would they still be allowed to get married in a church?
This came up when we got married actually, (not that we were intending not to have children).
You cannot get married in the church if you are not intending to have children.
The priest asks you that??
I can't remember for sure exactly how it came up but I think it was in a written document that you sign and then my wife got asking questions about chidren being raised in the faith and so on, so the priest explained.
I supose most people would just sign it and ask no questions
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 14, 2015, 12:06:33 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 14, 2015, 11:47:25 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 14, 2015, 11:45:08 AM
Quote from: Canalman on May 14, 2015, 11:36:09 AM
This will be a very close run thing imo.
Low turnout, younger voters less likely to vote, complacency,Polls pointing only one way, hectoring, anger with the current government, alot of people keeping their opinions to themselves,main political parties going through the motions with canvassing etc. All the classic signs of an upset.
Not too bothered either way but result will be very intersting snapshot of Irish society in the newish millenium.
Bookies odds and the over/under moving in the no direction. Still looks a decisive (58-60%) Yes but politically informed guys I know reckon the Yes campaign are in panic.
The only problem is getting voters out. Old people always vote in numbers which distorts things. The Church position will compound this. But if there is any decent turnout at all from the U-50s it should be easily carried.
Yeah - they should only get a half a vote if they're not going to vote the right way.
Ah now Seanie I never said that. But the older demographic always votes whether it is general elecions or referendums. As a result they tned to have a greater say in things than other age-groups.
For example in my own family I would guess 4 out of 5 would vote yes and 1 will vote no. Depending on work etc, only two will definitely vote and that could see 1 yes and 1 no. That is just the way it is.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 07:24:34 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 06:58:10 PM
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what same-sex or heterosexual has to do with it. Two men - they need a surrogate, same as a straight couple where the woman can't bear children. Two women - they need a sperm donor, same as a straight couple where the man is shooting blanks. The rest is details that also apply regardless of whether it's same sex or straight.
In my example, I distinguished between a surrogate to carry the child and one to conceive the child.
It is all a bit subtle, but then the whole referendum is a bit strange in that it appears to conflate black=white, so it is reasonable to wonder about strange outcomes resulting from it.
It only conflates black and white if you think heterosexuality and homosexuality to be diametrically opposed. A lot of us would hold the opinion that they are simply different aspects of a shared human condition.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 15, 2015, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 15, 2015, 04:47:56 PM
Could someone on here clear something up for me,
If a man and a woman had no intention of having children, would they still be allowed to get married in a church?
This came up when we got married actually, (not that we were intending not to have children).
You cannot get married in the church if you are not intending to have children.
By that standard they must really interrogate anyone over 50 presenting for marriage.
'Keep your drawers on and pray' doesn't cut it
Did you ever see those simulation games they use for training police officers in firearms? There's a realistic urban setting of crowded buildings in which bad guys are hiding. Images of people pop up and you have a split second to decide before you shoot – is that a bad guy with a gun or a kid with a lollipop? A crazed terrorist in an explosive vest or a pregnant woman?
Give that test to the No campaign in the marriage equality referendum and they just go Blam! Blam! Blam! They want to shoot their bad guys – gay men and lesbians – but they end up blasting away at everybody else as well. Kill them all and let God sort them out. The big problem for the No campaign is that it can't say what it actually thinks.
The core of that campaign is made up of conservative Christians who sincerely believe that gay men and lesbians should never, ever have sex. This view seems to me to border on the blasphemous, since it suggests that God is a sadist who created people with sexual desires that cannot, under any circumstances, be fulfilled.
If you hold to it, though, same-sex marriage is repellent because it gives social recognition to the idea that a man having sex with a man and a woman having sex with a woman can be normal and moral human acts.
But as a political argument, "Keep your drawers on and pray" doesn't cut it. You have to rationalise your distaste by coming up with some general principle that takes the bare look off mere revulsion. And this is where the No campaign has come to grief. For the general principle it has come up with is one that manages to insult, not just gay men and lesbians, but huge numbers of straight people as well.
That principle is that the Constitution must recognise only those marriages (and hence only those families) that are, in the words of the Catholic primate, Archbishop Eamon Martin, "the union between a man and a woman which is open to life" (ie open to the conception of a child).
I am married to a woman – full marks there. But I had a vasectomy 25 years ago, so our "union" has not been "open to life" for a quarter of a century. We're not a proper family.
My late mother-in-law married again (after the death of her first husband) when she was in her 60s. Her new husband was a delightful man and they were enormously happy together. But they apparently weren't a family either because God in his wisdom invented the menopause and she was not "open to life".
On the other hand, my lovely young niece has two gorgeous little daughters who, apart from everything else, brightened up my mother's last years with the joy of new life. But, sorry, she's not married so she and her babies and her boyfriend are not a family either.
This is the problem with the No campaign. In order to get to the tree it wants to chop down, it has to lay waste to a whole forest. In order to find an apparent principle on which it can reasonably deny equality to gay men and lesbians, it has to tell huge numbers of other people that their relationships are just not up to scratch.
It has set a gold standard for constitutional approval of a family relationship – a man who is not sterile having licensed sex with a woman who is still fertile, with neither of them using contraceptives. (Otherwise their pleasures would not be "open to life".)
It hits the target all right – gay men and lesbians in same-sex couplings don't meet this standard. But it's not an arrow, it's a multibore shotgun. It hits people who were not in its sights – at least not for now.
Any married woman who is using contraceptives or who cannot conceive is not really a proper married woman. Any man who is using contraceptives or who is infertile or who is married to such a woman is not a proper married man. Any single parent with his or her kids is not a family.
Rather amusingly, of course, there is one category of people whose marriages are saved by this definition – divorcees. Divorce, for the same people who are campaigning against same-sex marriage, used to be the abomination that was going to radically redefine marriage and have every fat middle-aged husband cavorting off into the sunset with a young floozy. But apparently, it's okay now – at least up to a point. If you're divorced and remarried and still fertile and not using contraceptives, you are now among the elect type A family of man and woman open to conception every time you have sex.
As a campaign strategy, telling straight people that their relationships are illegitimate is, shall we say, brave. But for most actual couples in Ireland, all of us fallen people whose families fall short of a narrow ideal, it has turned a Yes vote from an act of altruism to one of plain self-interest.
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-keep-your-drawers-on-and-pray-doesn-t-cut-it-1.2208497
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2015, 07:46:56 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 15, 2015, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 15, 2015, 04:47:56 PM
Could someone on here clear something up for me,
If a man and a woman had no intention of having children, would they still be allowed to get married in a church?
This came up when we got married actually, (not that we were intending not to have children).
You cannot get married in the church if you are not intending to have children.
By that standard they must really interrogate anyone over 50 presenting for marriage.
Just looking for holes to poke Maguire.... pardon the pun :P
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 15, 2015, 07:36:30 PM
It only conflates black and white if you think heterosexuality and homosexuality to be diametrically opposed. A lot of us would hold the opinion that they are simply different aspects of a shared human condition.
Heterosexuality and Homosexuality are orientations, my reference to black and white was opposite sex unions and same sex unions which are different actions with different potential and should be treated differently in legal terms. I may have a disposition towards multiple partners and you to monogamy, but in legal terms it is not our dispositions that is of interest but our conduct.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 01:33:34 PM
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 12:04:42 PM
If you can find a way that my marriage is devalued by this I will certainly change my opinion to the No campaign as I would hate for my marriage to be devalued in any way!!!!
I suspect you live in the North, so have the DUP defending your marriage.
Marriage has been understood as having a strong association with children, this will now be removed if there is a yes on the basis that this association does not exist.
But there is a general point here. You have the Gilmore defence, that his marriage will be as strong the day after the referendum as before and this is true as a limited point. Marriages conducted in the understanding of the time will not be quickly affected and many marriages will not be affected at all. In a similar way, someone might come on here and say that the welfare system is a disincentive to work, and I might post that the my incentive to work is unaffected by the welfare system. But I have an interesting well paid job, other people in the workforce are influenced in their willingness to work by the welfare system and a badly designed welfare system may well do damage to society as a whole, damage that becomes apparent over time. A badly designed intervention in the meaning of marriage will do damage that is even more difficult to repair.
I have absolutely no idea where you're going with that. What's the parallel with marriage?
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2015, 07:51:30 PM
'Keep your drawers on and pray' doesn't cut it
Did you ever see those simulation games they use for training police officers in firearms? There's a realistic urban setting of crowded buildings in which bad guys are hiding. Images of people pop up and you have a split second to decide before you shoot – is that a bad guy with a gun or a kid with a lollipop? A crazed terrorist in an explosive vest or a pregnant woman?
Give that test to the No campaign in the marriage equality referendum and they just go Blam! Blam! Blam! They want to shoot their bad guys – gay men and lesbians – but they end up blasting away at everybody else as well. Kill them all and let God sort them out. The big problem for the No campaign is that it can't say what it actually thinks.
The core of that campaign is made up of conservative Christians who sincerely believe that gay men and lesbians should never, ever have sex. This view seems to me to border on the blasphemous, since it suggests that God is a sadist who created people with sexual desires that cannot, under any circumstances, be fulfilled.
If you hold to it, though, same-sex marriage is repellent because it gives social recognition to the idea that a man having sex with a man and a woman having sex with a woman can be normal and moral human acts.
But as a political argument, "Keep your drawers on and pray" doesn't cut it. You have to rationalise your distaste by coming up with some general principle that takes the bare look off mere revulsion. And this is where the No campaign has come to grief. For the general principle it has come up with is one that manages to insult, not just gay men and lesbians, but huge numbers of straight people as well.
That principle is that the Constitution must recognise only those marriages (and hence only those families) that are, in the words of the Catholic primate, Archbishop Eamon Martin, "the union between a man and a woman which is open to life" (ie open to the conception of a child).
I am married to a woman – full marks there. But I had a vasectomy 25 years ago, so our "union" has not been "open to life" for a quarter of a century. We're not a proper family.
My late mother-in-law married again (after the death of her first husband) when she was in her 60s. Her new husband was a delightful man and they were enormously happy together. But they apparently weren't a family either because God in his wisdom invented the menopause and she was not "open to life".
On the other hand, my lovely young niece has two gorgeous little daughters who, apart from everything else, brightened up my mother's last years with the joy of new life. But, sorry, she's not married so she and her babies and her boyfriend are not a family either.
This is the problem with the No campaign. In order to get to the tree it wants to chop down, it has to lay waste to a whole forest. In order to find an apparent principle on which it can reasonably deny equality to gay men and lesbians, it has to tell huge numbers of other people that their relationships are just not up to scratch.
It has set a gold standard for constitutional approval of a family relationship – a man who is not sterile having licensed sex with a woman who is still fertile, with neither of them using contraceptives. (Otherwise their pleasures would not be "open to life".)
It hits the target all right – gay men and lesbians in same-sex couplings don't meet this standard. But it's not an arrow, it's a multibore shotgun. It hits people who were not in its sights – at least not for now.
Any married woman who is using contraceptives or who cannot conceive is not really a proper married woman. Any man who is using contraceptives or who is infertile or who is married to such a woman is not a proper married man. Any single parent with his or her kids is not a family.
Rather amusingly, of course, there is one category of people whose marriages are saved by this definition – divorcees. Divorce, for the same people who are campaigning against same-sex marriage, used to be the abomination that was going to radically redefine marriage and have every fat middle-aged husband cavorting off into the sunset with a young floozy. But apparently, it's okay now – at least up to a point. If you're divorced and remarried and still fertile and not using contraceptives, you are now among the elect type A family of man and woman open to conception every time you have sex.
As a campaign strategy, telling straight people that their relationships are illegitimate is, shall we say, brave. But for most actual couples in Ireland, all of us fallen people whose families fall short of a narrow ideal, it has turned a Yes vote from an act of altruism to one of plain self-interest.
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-keep-your-drawers-on-and-pray-doesn-t-cut-it-1.2208497
The article is bollox, if you are going to post something then let it be sensible at least. But it is par for the course for the Irish Times which is about as even handed as the TUV.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 15, 2015, 07:52:55 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2015, 07:46:56 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 15, 2015, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 15, 2015, 04:47:56 PM
Could someone on here clear something up for me,
If a man and a woman had no intention of having children, would they still be allowed to get married in a church?
This came up when we got married actually, (not that we were intending not to have children).
You cannot get married in the church if you are not intending to have children.
By that standard they must really interrogate anyone over 50 presenting for marriage.
Just looking for holes to poke Maguire.... pardon the pun :P
I am indeed, because if an argument is full of holes, it doesn't hold water.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 07:55:53 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2015, 07:51:30 PM
'Keep your drawers on and pray' doesn't cut it
Did you ever see those simulation games they use for training police officers in firearms? There's a realistic urban setting of crowded buildings in which bad guys are hiding. Images of people pop up and you have a split second to decide before you shoot – is that a bad guy with a gun or a kid with a lollipop? A crazed terrorist in an explosive vest or a pregnant woman?
Give that test to the No campaign in the marriage equality referendum and they just go Blam! Blam! Blam! They want to shoot their bad guys – gay men and lesbians – but they end up blasting away at everybody else as well. Kill them all and let God sort them out. The big problem for the No campaign is that it can't say what it actually thinks.
The core of that campaign is made up of conservative Christians who sincerely believe that gay men and lesbians should never, ever have sex. This view seems to me to border on the blasphemous, since it suggests that God is a sadist who created people with sexual desires that cannot, under any circumstances, be fulfilled.
If you hold to it, though, same-sex marriage is repellent because it gives social recognition to the idea that a man having sex with a man and a woman having sex with a woman can be normal and moral human acts.
But as a political argument, "Keep your drawers on and pray" doesn't cut it. You have to rationalise your distaste by coming up with some general principle that takes the bare look off mere revulsion. And this is where the No campaign has come to grief. For the general principle it has come up with is one that manages to insult, not just gay men and lesbians, but huge numbers of straight people as well.
That principle is that the Constitution must recognise only those marriages (and hence only those families) that are, in the words of the Catholic primate, Archbishop Eamon Martin, "the union between a man and a woman which is open to life" (ie open to the conception of a child).
I am married to a woman – full marks there. But I had a vasectomy 25 years ago, so our "union" has not been "open to life" for a quarter of a century. We're not a proper family.
My late mother-in-law married again (after the death of her first husband) when she was in her 60s. Her new husband was a delightful man and they were enormously happy together. But they apparently weren't a family either because God in his wisdom invented the menopause and she was not "open to life".
On the other hand, my lovely young niece has two gorgeous little daughters who, apart from everything else, brightened up my mother's last years with the joy of new life. But, sorry, she's not married so she and her babies and her boyfriend are not a family either.
This is the problem with the No campaign. In order to get to the tree it wants to chop down, it has to lay waste to a whole forest. In order to find an apparent principle on which it can reasonably deny equality to gay men and lesbians, it has to tell huge numbers of other people that their relationships are just not up to scratch.
It has set a gold standard for constitutional approval of a family relationship – a man who is not sterile having licensed sex with a woman who is still fertile, with neither of them using contraceptives. (Otherwise their pleasures would not be "open to life".)
It hits the target all right – gay men and lesbians in same-sex couplings don't meet this standard. But it's not an arrow, it's a multibore shotgun. It hits people who were not in its sights – at least not for now.
Any married woman who is using contraceptives or who cannot conceive is not really a proper married woman. Any man who is using contraceptives or who is infertile or who is married to such a woman is not a proper married man. Any single parent with his or her kids is not a family.
Rather amusingly, of course, there is one category of people whose marriages are saved by this definition – divorcees. Divorce, for the same people who are campaigning against same-sex marriage, used to be the abomination that was going to radically redefine marriage and have every fat middle-aged husband cavorting off into the sunset with a young floozy. But apparently, it's okay now – at least up to a point. If you're divorced and remarried and still fertile and not using contraceptives, you are now among the elect type A family of man and woman open to conception every time you have sex.
As a campaign strategy, telling straight people that their relationships are illegitimate is, shall we say, brave. But for most actual couples in Ireland, all of us fallen people whose families fall short of a narrow ideal, it has turned a Yes vote from an act of altruism to one of plain self-interest.
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-keep-your-drawers-on-and-pray-doesn-t-cut-it-1.2208497
The article is bollox, if you are going to post something then let it be sensible at least. But it is par for the course for the Irish Times which is about as even handed as the TUV.
Why is it "bollox"?
Learning about Fintan O'Bollox's tool... I mean Fintan O'Toole's bollox...there isn't enough Jameson's in the world to blot out that image.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 03:09:58 PM
Quote from: screenexile2. You have identified that while some marriages won't be affected some will and then went on to explain something about the welfare system which I'm not really ... HOW will these marriages be affected is more the question I was looking the answer for!! Will there be less marriages/More marriages/more divorce? What is the symptom for Marriage as a whole should Gay people be allowed to wed?
There may be less marriage and more divorce and more children not being brought up by married parents. Now somebody will pipe up and say that this already happens, the divorce can be the best thing in some cases and so on. This does already happen and divorce is sometimes the only option, but you want as little of it as possible all the same.
Equally, there may be more marriage, less divorce and less children not being brought up by married parents. But there's no evidence for your argument that this move will be detrimental - it's equally possible (in the absence of evidence to the contrary), that marriage (as an institution) will greatly benefit.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2015, 07:56:04 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 15, 2015, 07:52:55 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2015, 07:46:56 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 15, 2015, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 15, 2015, 04:47:56 PM
Could someone on here clear something up for me,
If a man and a woman had no intention of having children, would they still be allowed to get married in a church?
This came up when we got married actually, (not that we were intending not to have children).
You cannot get married in the church if you are not intending to have children.
By that standard they must really interrogate anyone over 50 presenting for marriage.
Just looking for holes to poke Maguire.... pardon the pun :P
I am indeed, because if an argument is full of holes, it doesn't hold water.
It isn't an argument - it's Church defined promises/conditions that should be in place for a Church marriage. The tangent has nothing to do with the referendum. If you want to take issue with the churches requirements for marriage go ahead
Well surely they are much closer together than you think.
Goals of marriage (in no particular order)
1. Commit yourself faithfully to an exclusive monogamous relationship to another person (surely not exclusive to heterosexuals?)
2. Raise a family (given how exercised yourself and people like William Binchy and David Quinn are over the prospect of gay people raising children, one thing we can all agree on is that both straight and gay people would like to have children)
3. Live a full loving life with your partner, supporting each other emotionally, financially. (Again, not exclusive to straight people)
So if we can agree that people, gay and straight, enter marriage for the same reasons, then how can they be "different actions with different potential"?
I'm genuinely interested to see your response to this. I hope you do.
As for the legal side of things, the referendum if passed will change the definition of a marriage to a union between two people irrespective of gender. So legally, there will be no difference. You've also spent the last month telling us that all the legal rights that gay people crave from marriage are available already or can be legislated for under civil partnership. So how can heterosexual unions and same sex unions be that different, as you conceive them to be.
Sorry all, the above post is directed towards armaghniac (if you hadn;t guessed already!!!!).
Quote from: The Iceman on May 15, 2015, 08:07:00 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2015, 07:56:04 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 15, 2015, 07:52:55 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2015, 07:46:56 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 15, 2015, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 15, 2015, 04:47:56 PM
Could someone on here clear something up for me,
If a man and a woman had no intention of having children, would they still be allowed to get married in a church?
This came up when we got married actually, (not that we were intending not to have children).
You cannot get married in the church if you are not intending to have children.
By that standard they must really interrogate anyone over 50 presenting for marriage.
Just looking for holes to poke Maguire.... pardon the pun :P
I am indeed, because if an argument is full of holes, it doesn't hold water.
It isn't an argument - it's Church defined promises/conditions that should be in place for a Church marriage. The tangent has nothing to do with the referendum. If you want to take issue with the churches requirements for marriage go ahead
It's clearly being discussed in the context of the wider argument from the NO side that marriage is about having children.
Letter to the Editor in today's Irish Independent
==============================
Different can't be equal
A "Marriage Equality Referendum" is what we were originally told we would vote on, and still is.
In the meantime, the Government conveniently brought in the Children and Family Relationship Bill, passing it into law without any public discussion and throwing a spanner in the works. This should have been held over until the equality of marriage' was first decided on. Now the main debate has swung from "marriage equality" to the composition of same-sex families - deliberately confusing the original issue.
Marriage is unique, and thus has no equal or no parallel. "Equality" means equal. A union of male and female could not be equal to a union of two men or a union of two women. Why? Because they are different. Only the male-female union is capable of procreating a natural family and has been so since time immemorial.
The unique marriage union between man and woman, in a loving relationship, to procreate a natural family, with maternal and paternal parents to rear, love and protect them, has no equal on earth. No composition of same-sex family could compare.
If there is anybody in a position to contradict this and provide something more sustainable, I will change my vote from 'No' to 'Yes'.
James Gleeson
Thurles, Co Tipperary
===================================================================================
I hope Mr Gleeson does not mind being quoted here but he succinctly expresses a common viewpoint on the NO side.
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 15, 2015, 08:13:08 PM
Letter to the Editor in today's Irish Independent
==============================
Different can't be equal
A "Marriage Equality Referendum" is what we were originally told we would vote on, and still is.
In the meantime, the Government conveniently brought in the Children and Family Relationship Bill, passing it into law without any public discussion and throwing a spanner in the works. This should have been held over until the equality of marriage' was first decided on. Now the main debate has swung from "marriage equality" to the composition of same-sex families - deliberately confusing the original issue.
Marriage is unique, and thus has no equal or no parallel. "Equality" means equal. A union of male and female could not be equal to a union of two men or a union of two women. Why? Because they are different. Only the male-female union is capable of procreating a natural family and has been so since time immemorial.
The unique marriage union between man and woman, in a loving relationship, to procreate a natural family, with maternal and paternal parents to rear, love and protect them, has no equal on earth. No composition of same-sex family could compare.
If there is anybody in a position to contradict this and provide something more sustainable, I will change my vote from 'No' to 'Yes'.
James Gleeson
Thurles, Co Tipperary
===================================================================================
I hope Mr Gleeson does not mind being quoted here but he succinctly expresses a common viewpoint on the NO side.
Which he is entitled to hold BW. To be honest with you, I find the argument from Faith for a No vote to be the most effective, on me as a Yes voter, because at least it has an internal coherency - I am a Catholic, this is my Faith, I cannot vote for this amendment. I don't classify this as homophobia, and i know a lot of Catholic No voters who are agonised by holding this line, whilst also worrying about the welfare of people who they know to be gay, even within their own families.
But I completely agree with Fintan O'Toole's article. I think the No side only has the argument from Faith to go with, but they know there are not enough committed Catholics left to win with this strategy. So they try and argue it legally and logically and fall into the trap he described.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 15, 2015, 08:08:00 PM
Well surely they are much closer together than you think.
Goals of marriage (in no particular order)
1. Commit yourself faithfully to an exclusive monogamous relationship to another person (surely not exclusive to heterosexuals?)
2. Raise a family (given how exercised yourself and people like William Binchy and David Quinn are over the prospect of gay people raising children, one thing we can all agree on is that both straight and gay people would like to have children)
3. Live a full loving life with your partner, supporting each other emotionally, financially. (Again, not exclusive to straight people)
So if we can agree that people, gay and straight, enter marriage for the same reasons, then how can they be "different actions with different potential"?
I'm genuinely interested to see your response to this. I hope you do.
As for the legal side of things, the referendum if passed will change the definition of a marriage to a union between two people irrespective of gender. So legally, there will be no difference. You've also spent the last month telling us that all the legal rights that gay people crave from marriage are available already or can be legislated for under civil partnership. So how can heterosexual unions and same sex unions be that different, as you conceive them to be.
The difference between regular and same sex unions is that those in marriage are willing to form a long term partnership with the other parent of the children, whereas the ssm makes use of a parent somewhere else and is not willing to form a long term relationship with that person, indeed they regard at least one of the children's parents as dispensable.
Ok, so you have a problem with surrogacy for same sex parents in certain situations.
I know a couple who went to the USA for surrogacy as it's illegal to pay for in the UK. The birth mother is referred to in the process merely as 'the carrier' which appears somewhat cold.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 15, 2015, 08:50:17 PM
Ok, so you have a problem with surrogacy for same sex parents in certain situations.
I also think there are issues with surrogacy for heterosexual parents in certain situations, there are going to be some tricky moral situations in the future. And there will be huge international issues, as are appearing already, like those Australians who left the kid in Thailand.
QuoteI also think there are issues with surrogacy for heterosexual parents in certain situations, there are going to be some tricky moral situations in the future. And there will be huge international issues, as are appearing already, like those Australians who left the kid in Thailand.
In the tens of thousands of surrogacies that take place each year, one that makes the headlines hardly represents "huge international issues". In fact it's no more of an issue than a domestic situation where the father walks away in similar circumstances unable to handle the birth of a severely disabled child, which happens quite regularly, it just isn't newsworthy.
Quote from: Over the Bar on May 15, 2015, 09:08:24 PM
In the tens of thousands of surrogacies that take place each year, one that makes the headlines hardly represents "huge international issues". In fact it's no more of an issue than a domestic situation where the father walks away unable to handle it, which happens every week somewhere, it just isn't newsworthy.
I think it is more complex than a domestic situation locally. If people are going from wealthy countries where certain procedures are not permitted to poorer countries where there is less regulation then there could be an element of exploitation about it.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 07:24:34 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 06:58:10 PM
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what same-sex or heterosexual has to do with it. Two men - they need a surrogate, same as a straight couple where the woman can't bear children. Two women - they need a sperm donor, same as a straight couple where the man is shooting blanks. The rest is details that also apply regardless of whether it's same sex or straight.
In my example, I distinguished between a surrogate to carry the child and one to conceive the child.
It is all a bit subtle, but then the whole referendum is a bit strange in that it appears to conflate black=white, so it is reasonable to wonder about strange outcomes resulting from it.
Again, unless I am still missing something, I don't see the relevance. Conceive or carry, same issue whether same sex or straight. Egg meets sperm and zygote needs a uterus in all cases!
Quote
In the tens of thousands of surrogacies that take place each year, one that makes the headlines hardly represents "huge international issues". In fact it's no more of an issue than a domestic situation where the father walks away unable to handle it, which happens every week somewhere, it just isn't newsworthy.
I think it is more complex than a domestic situation locally. If people are going from wealthy countries where certain procedures are not permitted to poorer countries where there is less regulation then there could be an element of exploitation about it.
Of course all such risks need to be considered. I don't think there was any suggestion of exploitation in the case you mentioned as I recall?
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 09:21:51 PM
Again, unless I am still missing something, I don't see the relevance. Conceive or carry, same issue whether same sex or straight. Egg meets sperm and zygote needs a uterus in all cases!
The difference is that the egg and sperm meeting in one case are those of the people raising the child and in the other case this is only partially true.
Watching the news now, there also seems to be a concern that a case for surrogacy can be made for same sex couples to vindicate their "right" to have children. I'm not sure that I buy this one.
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 09:21:51 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 07:24:34 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 06:58:10 PM
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what same-sex or heterosexual has to do with it. Two men - they need a surrogate, same as a straight couple where the woman can't bear children. Two women - they need a sperm donor, same as a straight couple where the man is shooting blanks. The rest is details that also apply regardless of whether it's same sex or straight.
In my example, I distinguished between a surrogate to carry the child and one to conceive the child.
It is all a bit subtle, but then the whole referendum is a bit strange in that it appears to conflate black=white, so it is reasonable to wonder about strange outcomes resulting from it.
Again, unless I am still missing something, I don't see the relevance. Conceive or carry, same issue whether same sex or straight. Egg meets sperm and zygote needs a uterus in all cases!
Is any of this relevant?
Its all just growing cells, multiplying and dividing. And if you still find that relevant then how about break it down another level, just floating atoms attracting and exchanging.
More to the point is any of this discussion relevant fullstop? Considering that yous have covered this subject in great detail that I am sure non of you were even aware of or thought of when you yous made up your mind, yet still refuse to give an inch to the other side? (AZOffally excluded)
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 09:31:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 09:21:51 PM
Again, unless I am still missing something, I don't see the relevance. Conceive or carry, same issue whether same sex or straight. Egg meets sperm and zygote needs a uterus in all cases!
The difference is that the egg and sperm meeting in one case are those of the people raising the child and in the other case this is only partially true.
Watching the news now, there also seems to be a concern that a case for surrogacy can be made for same sex couples to vindicate their "right" to have children. I'm not sure that I buy this one.
Can you not just buy a baby off the shelf in Tescos? It's like some sort of commodity, not a gift from god.
My local Tesco stocks pretty much everything.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 09:31:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 09:21:51 PM
Again, unless I am still missing something, I don't see the relevance. Conceive or carry, same issue whether same sex or straight. Egg meets sperm and zygote needs a uterus in all cases!
The difference is that the egg and sperm meeting in one case are those of the people raising the child and in the other case this is only partially true.
Watching the news now, there also seems to be a concern that a case for surrogacy can be made for same sex couples to vindicate their "right" to have children. I'm not sure that I buy this one.
I was under the impression surrogate parenthood didn't necessarily involve germ cell donations from the two parents to be.
I saw this elsewhere, an interesting perspective
------------------------------------
I know this is pointless. It is richly ironic that this debate drives the "No" argument underground - a vote that dare not speak its name. I post to get it off my chest, to releive my frustration at witnessing the obvious ignored or corrupted in the name of "equality" or religion.
I'm an ordinary 5/8th, straight middle-aged married with kids, card-carrying atheist who strives for understanding and enlightenment. I guess "Humanist". Not a member of or spokesperson for anything.
I'm voting no because
1. It makes sense to me that our constitution reflects the centrality and value of natural reproduction, and the associated long-term commitment of biological parents to the nuture of the resultant children as a basic building block of our society and culture.
2. I recognize that this has little or nothing to do with marriage candidates, married people, single parents, widows, widowers, LGBT or children that are already living. Their circumstances are what they are, other parts of the constitution deal with the living. Its how our constitution and culture properly addresses and provides for the next generation of Irish people yet to be born (LGBT or straight).
3. The debate is hopelessly confused with the GIANT emotional freight of words like "Love", "Marriage" and "Equality".
I'm voting no even though
4. I don't like the look of the spokespersons of the No campaign, who seem to be either gentle bloody Christians or serial contrarians. This is the 1st referendum I find myself on the opposite side to the "liberal media agenda".
5. I am conscious of the pressing need for our society to truly embrace and value our LGBT citizens and guests - and most of all LGBT children. I want to support the LGBT agenda in a concrete way and they are saying clearly that they think a "Yes" vote is such a way.
6. There are a vast array of people and organizations, many of whom I respect, clamouring for a "Yes" vote.
Regarding point 1,2 and 3, I look for an evolutionists view.
Romantic love is the psycological and artistic wrap we put on the extraordinarily strong bonding instint that humans exhibit. Why has have we evolved to have it? It is not necessary for procreation. No shortage of proof points for that. It is so strong, because ALL human children require a (uniquely) large and sustained nuturing from their parents. It is the genetic equity of the biological parents that nature has tested and proven over millenia to be the best basis for a family. You may disagree, but you put your opinion up against the weight of sexual reproduction across the majority of successful species on earth as tested and tuned over millions of years.
Marriage has served as a neccesary social milestone where a couple formalise their bonding before their community and (depressingly) before their god(s). Naturally, our constitution carries on the laws and customs of our ancestors in recognizing the importance of that contract for the future of our country. It excludes LGBTs, because it only exists to provide the naturally selected context for reproduction. If we were immortals, marriage would be inclusive.
Homosexuality, full or partial, remains a scientific enigma. It beggars beleif that such an enormous and influential factor in our society does not have an established consensus view from the scientific community. It is perhaps just more evidence of the dark power of human culture to suppress "awkward truth".
Homosexuality is not an accident or genetic error. A very substantial (10%-20%) of humans are LGBT. There are simply no such thing as errors in a zillion roles of the dice. Scientists have demonstrated models of extraordinary sophistication to illustrate how homosexuality CAN be positively selected via the maternal gene. Why would nature do that?
Has any other minority contributed more to the advancement of our civilisation than LGBT? Maybe I'm over-compensating for my vote? :-) Think about it though. The fields in which gay people excel, and are beleived to have excelled in the past, are the true engines of enlightenment. Could evolution be clever enough to provide LGBTs, largely free from the burden of nurture, free to realise their potential as individuals in order to advance the genetic success of the race/meme? I think so.
If I boil it back to me - if some or all of my childred are gay I will know how precious they are. I will know that from experience and history. But our job is to leave the world better than we found it. If my son has a gay child, that child should never have cause to doubt their value to the world or that they are loved.
A yes vote will be bad for the LGBT agenda in the long run, because it will be eventually reversed and the mistake will set their vital agenda back decades. Like it or not, marriage is for reproduction. The challenge is not to tear down the hetero world, it's to help our world TRULY understand the value of diversity, to be ready to love and value all equally.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 15, 2015, 09:34:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 09:21:51 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 07:24:34 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 06:58:10 PM
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what same-sex or heterosexual has to do with it. Two men - they need a surrogate, same as a straight couple where the woman can't bear children. Two women - they need a sperm donor, same as a straight couple where the man is shooting blanks. The rest is details that also apply regardless of whether it's same sex or straight.
In my example, I distinguished between a surrogate to carry the child and one to conceive the child.
It is all a bit subtle, but then the whole referendum is a bit strange in that it appears to conflate black=white, so it is reasonable to wonder about strange outcomes resulting from it.
Again, unless I am still missing something, I don't see the relevance. Conceive or carry, same issue whether same sex or straight. Egg meets sperm and zygote needs a uterus in all cases!
Is any of this relevant?
Its all just growing cells, multiplying and dividing. And if you still find that relevant then how about break it down another level, just floating atoms attracting and exchanging.
More to the point is any of this discussion relevant fullstop? Considering that yous have covered this subject in great detail that I am sure non of you were even aware of or thought of when you yous made up your mind, yet still refuse to give an inch to the other side? (AZOffally excluded)
What's it to you what people want or do not want to discuss?
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2015, 07:56:04 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 15, 2015, 07:52:55 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2015, 07:46:56 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 15, 2015, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 15, 2015, 04:47:56 PM
Could someone on here clear something up for me,
If a man and a woman had no intention of having children, would they still be allowed to get married in a church?
This came up when we got married actually, (not that we were intending not to have children).
You cannot get married in the church if you are not intending to have children.
By that standard they must really interrogate anyone over 50 presenting for marriage.
Just looking for holes to poke Maguire.... pardon the pun :P
I am indeed, because if an argument is full of holes, it doesn't hold water.
What argument? It was an honest question.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 09:54:59 PM
I saw this elsewhere, an interesting perspective
------------------------------------
I know this is pointless. It is richly ironic that this debate drives the "No" argument underground - a vote that dare not speak its name. I post to get it off my chest, to releive my frustration at witnessing the obvious ignored or corrupted in the name of "equality" or religion.
I'm an ordinary 5/8th, straight middle-aged married with kids, card-carrying atheist who strives for understanding and enlightenment. I guess "Humanist". Not a member of or spokesperson for anything.
I'm voting no because
1. It makes sense to me that our constitution reflects the centrality and value of natural reproduction, and the associated long-term commitment of biological parents to the nuture of the resultant children as a basic building block of our society and culture.
2. I recognize that this has little or nothing to do with marriage candidates, married people, single parents, widows, widowers, LGBT or children that are already living. Their circumstances are what they are, other parts of the constitution deal with the living. Its how our constitution and culture properly addresses and provides for the next generation of Irish people yet to be born (LGBT or straight).
3. The debate is hopelessly confused with the GIANT emotional freight of words like "Love", "Marriage" and "Equality".
I'm voting no even though
4. I don't like the look of the spokespersons of the No campaign, who seem to be either gentle bloody Christians or serial contrarians. This is the 1st referendum I find myself on the opposite side to the "liberal media agenda".
5. I am conscious of the pressing need for our society to truly embrace and value our LGBT citizens and guests - and most of all LGBT children. I want to support the LGBT agenda in a concrete way and they are saying clearly that they think a "Yes" vote is such a way.
6. There are a vast array of people and organizations, many of whom I respect, clamouring for a "Yes" vote.
Regarding point 1,2 and 3, I look for an evolutionists view.
Romantic love is the psycological and artistic wrap we put on the extraordinarily strong bonding instint that humans exhibit. Why has have we evolved to have it? It is not necessary for procreation. No shortage of proof points for that. It is so strong, because ALL human children require a (uniquely) large and sustained nuturing from their parents. It is the genetic equity of the biological parents that nature has tested and proven over millenia to be the best basis for a family. You may disagree, but you put your opinion up against the weight of sexual reproduction across the majority of successful species on earth as tested and tuned over millions of years.
Marriage has served as a neccesary social milestone where a couple formalise their bonding before their community and (depressingly) before their god(s). Naturally, our constitution carries on the laws and customs of our ancestors in recognizing the importance of that contract for the future of our country. It excludes LGBTs, because it only exists to provide the naturally selected context for reproduction. If we were immortals, marriage would be inclusive.
Homosexuality, full or partial, remains a scientific enigma. It beggars beleif that such an enormous and influential factor in our society does not have an established consensus view from the scientific community. It is perhaps just more evidence of the dark power of human culture to suppress "awkward truth".
Homosexuality is not an accident or genetic error. A very substantial (10%-20%) of humans are LGBT. There are simply no such thing as errors in a zillion roles of the dice. Scientists have demonstrated models of extraordinary sophistication to illustrate how homosexuality CAN be positively selected via the maternal gene. Why would nature do that?
Has any other minority contributed more to the advancement of our civilisation than LGBT? Maybe I'm over-compensating for my vote? :-) Think about it though. The fields in which gay people excel, and are beleived to have excelled in the past, are the true engines of enlightenment. Could evolution be clever enough to provide LGBTs, largely free from the burden of nurture, free to realise their potential as individuals in order to advance the genetic success of the race/meme? I think so.
If I boil it back to me - if some or all of my childred are gay I will know how precious they are. I will know that from experience and history. But our job is to leave the world better than we found it. If my son has a gay child, that child should never have cause to doubt their value to the world or that they are loved.
A yes vote will be bad for the LGBT agenda in the long run, because it will be eventually reversed and the mistake will set their vital agenda back decades. Like it or not, marriage is for reproduction. The challenge is not to tear down the hetero world, it's to help our world TRULY understand the value of diversity, to be ready to love and value all equally.
Interesting reading there. None of this really matters really when we boil down to it - we are all just atoms, expanding further and further away since the big bang....meaningless....
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 10:47:38 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 15, 2015, 09:34:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 09:21:51 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 07:24:34 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 15, 2015, 06:58:10 PM
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what same-sex or heterosexual has to do with it. Two men - they need a surrogate, same as a straight couple where the woman can't bear children. Two women - they need a sperm donor, same as a straight couple where the man is shooting blanks. The rest is details that also apply regardless of whether it's same sex or straight.
In my example, I distinguished between a surrogate to carry the child and one to conceive the child.
It is all a bit subtle, but then the whole referendum is a bit strange in that it appears to conflate black=white, so it is reasonable to wonder about strange outcomes resulting from it.
Again, unless I am still missing something, I don't see the relevance. Conceive or carry, same issue whether same sex or straight. Egg meets sperm and zygote needs a uterus in all cases!
Is any of this relevant?
Its all just growing cells, multiplying and dividing. And if you still find that relevant then how about break it down another level, just floating atoms attracting and exchanging.
More to the point is any of this discussion relevant fullstop? Considering that yous have covered this subject in great detail that I am sure non of you were even aware of or thought of when you yous made up your mind, yet still refuse to give an inch to the other side? (AZOffally excluded)
What's it to you what people want or do not want to discuss?
Oh I have nothing against people discussing it.
I have been observing this thread for a while and don't have alot of opinion on it but find it very interesting none the less. I was kind of the opinion for a while that you lot seem to coming around now too, that the vote is actually about nothing tangible, rather its all about semantics.
But the most striking thing to me about it is that most of the participants discussing (if you call constantly trying to deliver one knockout blow discussing), when you already have made your mind up
with other people who have also so clearly made their mind up seems a bit pointless, at least for you as individuals and has left me wondering what you are hoping to get out it?
Although in saying that you have all raised some interesting points and concepts.
Its seems like marriage means different things to different people and people are going to vote as to what it means for them
AZOffally seems to be the only person who is getting something out of it which is information to make a decision.
Look, lets be honest. Most people , instinctively, want to vote yes but , at the same time, instinctively, want to vote no due to that inherently conservative Irish gene in us that wants to spite those insufferable lefty, self-righteous bollixes that have been braying in our faces these last few weeks.
What we need to do is gently ,but at the same time , forcefully, tell them that, yes, we get it...our sisters are gay , our brothers are gay, our best friends are gay....we get it.........we know the way forward but it kills us to be on the same side of this issue as you pricks so just shut the f**k up , get out of the way, and let us us vote yes.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 09:54:59 PM
I saw this elsewhere, an interesting perspective
------------------------------------
I know this is pointless. It is richly ironic that this debate drives the "No" argument underground - a vote that dare not speak its name. I post to get it off my chest, to releive my frustration at witnessing the obvious ignored or corrupted in the name of "equality" or religion.
I'm an ordinary 5/8th, straight middle-aged married with kids, card-carrying atheist who strives for understanding and enlightenment. I guess "Humanist". Not a member of or spokesperson for anything.
I'm voting no because
1. It makes sense to me that our constitution reflects the centrality and value of natural reproduction, and the associated long-term commitment of biological parents to the nuture of the resultant children as a basic building block of our society and culture.
2. I recognize that this has little or nothing to do with marriage candidates, married people, single parents, widows, widowers, LGBT or children that are already living. Their circumstances are what they are, other parts of the constitution deal with the living. Its how our constitution and culture properly addresses and provides for the next generation of Irish people yet to be born (LGBT or straight).
3. The debate is hopelessly confused with the GIANT emotional freight of words like "Love", "Marriage" and "Equality".
I'm voting no even though
4. I don't like the look of the spokespersons of the No campaign, who seem to be either gentle bloody Christians or serial contrarians. This is the 1st referendum I find myself on the opposite side to the "liberal media agenda".
5. I am conscious of the pressing need for our society to truly embrace and value our LGBT citizens and guests - and most of all LGBT children. I want to support the LGBT agenda in a concrete way and they are saying clearly that they think a "Yes" vote is such a way.
6. There are a vast array of people and organizations, many of whom I respect, clamouring for a "Yes" vote.
Regarding point 1,2 and 3, I look for an evolutionists view.
Romantic love is the psycological and artistic wrap we put on the extraordinarily strong bonding instint that humans exhibit. Why has have we evolved to have it? It is not necessary for procreation. No shortage of proof points for that. It is so strong, because ALL human children require a (uniquely) large and sustained nuturing from their parents. It is the genetic equity of the biological parents that nature has tested and proven over millenia to be the best basis for a family. You may disagree, but you put your opinion up against the weight of sexual reproduction across the majority of successful species on earth as tested and tuned over millions of years.
Marriage has served as a neccesary social milestone where a couple formalise their bonding before their community and (depressingly) before their god(s). Naturally, our constitution carries on the laws and customs of our ancestors in recognizing the importance of that contract for the future of our country. It excludes LGBTs, because it only exists to provide the naturally selected context for reproduction. If we were immortals, marriage would be inclusive.
Homosexuality, full or partial, remains a scientific enigma. It beggars beleif that such an enormous and influential factor in our society does not have an established consensus view from the scientific community. It is perhaps just more evidence of the dark power of human culture to suppress "awkward truth".
Homosexuality is not an accident or genetic error. A very substantial (10%-20%) of humans are LGBT. There are simply no such thing as errors in a zillion roles of the dice. Scientists have demonstrated models of extraordinary sophistication to illustrate how homosexuality CAN be positively selected via the maternal gene. Why would nature do that?
Has any other minority contributed more to the advancement of our civilisation than LGBT? Maybe I'm over-compensating for my vote? :-) Think about it though. The fields in which gay people excel, and are beleived to have excelled in the past, are the true engines of enlightenment. Could evolution be clever enough to provide LGBTs, largely free from the burden of nurture, free to realise their potential as individuals in order to advance the genetic success of the race/meme? I think so.
If I boil it back to me - if some or all of my childred are gay I will know how precious they are. I will know that from experience and history. But our job is to leave the world better than we found it. If my son has a gay child, that child should never have cause to doubt their value to the world or that they are loved.
A yes vote will be bad for the LGBT agenda in the long run, because it will be eventually reversed and the mistake will set their vital agenda back decades. Like it or not, marriage is for reproduction. The challenge is not to tear down the hetero world, it's to help our world TRULY understand the value of diversity, to be ready to love and value all equally.
Where did you copy this one from?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 15, 2015, 09:54:59 PM
I saw this elsewhere, an interesting perspective
------------------------------------
I know this is pointless. It is richly ironic that this debate drives the "No" argument underground - a vote that dare not speak its name. I post to get it off my chest, to releive my frustration at witnessing the obvious ignored or corrupted in the name of "equality" or religion.
I'm an ordinary 5/8th, straight middle-aged married with kids, card-carrying atheist who strives for understanding and enlightenment. I guess "Humanist". Not a member of or spokesperson for anything.
I'm voting no because
1. It makes sense to me that our constitution reflects the centrality and value of natural reproduction, and the associated long-term commitment of biological parents to the nuture of the resultant children as a basic building block of our society and culture.
2. I recognize that this has little or nothing to do with marriage candidates, married people, single parents, widows, widowers, LGBT or children that are already living. Their circumstances are what they are, other parts of the constitution deal with the living. Its how our constitution and culture properly addresses and provides for the next generation of Irish people yet to be born (LGBT or straight).
3. The debate is hopelessly confused with the GIANT emotional freight of words like "Love", "Marriage" and "Equality".
I'm voting no even though
4. I don't like the look of the spokespersons of the No campaign, who seem to be either gentle bloody Christians or serial contrarians. This is the 1st referendum I find myself on the opposite side to the "liberal media agenda".
5. I am conscious of the pressing need for our society to truly embrace and value our LGBT citizens and guests - and most of all LGBT children. I want to support the LGBT agenda in a concrete way and they are saying clearly that they think a "Yes" vote is such a way.
6. There are a vast array of people and organizations, many of whom I respect, clamouring for a "Yes" vote.
Regarding point 1,2 and 3, I look for an evolutionists view.
Romantic love is the psycological and artistic wrap we put on the extraordinarily strong bonding instint that humans exhibit. Why has have we evolved to have it? It is not necessary for procreation. No shortage of proof points for that. It is so strong, because ALL human children require a (uniquely) large and sustained nuturing from their parents. It is the genetic equity of the biological parents that nature has tested and proven over millenia to be the best basis for a family. You may disagree, but you put your opinion up against the weight of sexual reproduction across the majority of successful species on earth as tested and tuned over millions of years.
Marriage has served as a neccesary social milestone where a couple formalise their bonding before their community and (depressingly) before their god(s). Naturally, our constitution carries on the laws and customs of our ancestors in recognizing the importance of that contract for the future of our country. It excludes LGBTs, because it only exists to provide the naturally selected context for reproduction. If we were immortals, marriage would be inclusive.
Homosexuality, full or partial, remains a scientific enigma. It beggars beleif that such an enormous and influential factor in our society does not have an established consensus view from the scientific community. It is perhaps just more evidence of the dark power of human culture to suppress "awkward truth".
Homosexuality is not an accident or genetic error. A very substantial (10%-20%) of humans are LGBT. There are simply no such thing as errors in a zillion roles of the dice. Scientists have demonstrated models of extraordinary sophistication to illustrate how homosexuality CAN be positively selected via the maternal gene. Why would nature do that?
Has any other minority contributed more to the advancement of our civilisation than LGBT? Maybe I'm over-compensating for my vote? :-) Think about it though. The fields in which gay people excel, and are beleived to have excelled in the past, are the true engines of enlightenment. Could evolution be clever enough to provide LGBTs, largely free from the burden of nurture, free to realise their potential as individuals in order to advance the genetic success of the race/meme? I think so.
If I boil it back to me - if some or all of my childred are gay I will know how precious they are. I will know that from experience and history. But our job is to leave the world better than we found it. If my son has a gay child, that child should never have cause to doubt their value to the world or that they are loved.
A yes vote will be bad for the LGBT agenda in the long run, because it will be eventually reversed and the mistake will set their vital agenda back decades. Like it or not, marriage is for reproduction. The challenge is not to tear down the hetero world, it's to help our world TRULY understand the value of diversity, to be ready to love and value all equally.
The very definition of passive/aggressive. The piece in bold is jaw dropping in its two facedness. They should have titled it "Gay lads - yisser great but...."
The Yes side retains a commanding lead in the referendum campaign on same-sex marriage, according to the latest Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll, but the gap has narrowed since the last poll in March.
When undecided voters are excluded, the poll indicates that 70 per cent of voters intend to vote Yes (down four points since March) and 30 per cent say they will vote No (up four points).
The poll was taken last Wednesday and Thursday, with a just a little over a week to go before the vote.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/seismic-shift-needed-for-no-side-to-carry-referendum-1.2214674
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 15, 2015, 08:13:08 PM
Letter to the Editor in today's Irish Independent
==============================
Different can't be equal
A "Marriage Equality Referendum" is what we were originally told we would vote on, and still is.
In the meantime, the Government conveniently brought in the Children and Family Relationship Bill, passing it into law without any public discussion and throwing a spanner in the works. This should have been held over until the equality of marriage' was first decided on. Now the main debate has swung from "marriage equality" to the composition of same-sex families - deliberately confusing the original issue.
Marriage is unique, and thus has no equal or no parallel. "Equality" means equal. A union of male and female could not be equal to a union of two men or a union of two women. Why? Because they are different. Only the male-female union is capable of procreating a natural family and has been so since time immemorial.
The unique marriage union between man and woman, in a loving relationship, to procreate a natural family, with maternal and paternal parents to rear, love and protect them, has no equal on earth. No composition of same-sex family could compare.
If there is anybody in a position to contradict this and provide something more sustainable, I will change my vote from 'No' to 'Yes'.
James Gleeson
Thurles, Co Tipperary
===================================================================================
I hope Mr Gleeson does not mind being quoted here but he succinctly expresses a common viewpoint on the NO side.
What a load of complete nonsense.
Men and women are completely different, yet we (belatedly) managed to convey equal rights on each. Black skinned people are 'different' to white skinned people but again we (again belatedly) managed to allow equal rights. A black man and a white woman are completely different yet...........
As for the remarkable statement 'Marriage is unique, and thus has no equal or no parallel', wtf? This sounds all very grand but it doesn't mean anything. Unique to what? Who decides whether is is unique or not? Can we get a ruling on this, and who would make such a ruling? And what would be the point anyway?
Even if the statement did mean something how does this prove the case for a No vote?
This is a Fearonesque 'fact', confidently presented as an irrefutable truth, but when examined proves to have more holes than swiss cheese.
It may be no harm to remind people what we are voting on next week :
ARTICLE 41
3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".
The purpose of this amendment is to redefine the accepted meaning of "the institution of marriage" as referenced in Article 41.
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 16, 2015, 01:51:47 PM
It may be no harm to remind people what we are voting on next week :
ARTICLE 41
3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
It isn't doing a great job.
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 16, 2015, 01:51:47 PM
It may be no harm to remind people what we are voting on next week :
ARTICLE 41
3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".
The purpose of this amendment is to redefine the accepted meaning of "the institution of marriage" as referenced in Article 41.
The purpose of this amendment is to destroy Article 41. What is left to protect after a YES vote? Marriage and Family are intrinsically linked in the Article, a point which the YES campaign fail to acknowledge. Families are broken and lives are destroyed everyday but that doesn't mean we vote to create more broken families. That is what should be defended. Article 41 is not fulfilliing it's purpose. The family and marriage are under attack....the state is rolling over
Quote from: The Iceman on May 16, 2015, 03:04:27 PM
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 16, 2015, 01:51:47 PM
It may be no harm to remind people what we are voting on next week :
ARTICLE 41
3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".
The purpose of this amendment is to redefine the accepted meaning of "the institution of marriage" as referenced in Article 41.
The purpose of this amendment is to destroy Article 41. What is left to protect after a YES vote? Marriage and Family are intrinsically linked in the Article, a point which the YES campaign fail to acknowledge. Families are broken and lives are destroyed everyday but that doesn't mean we vote to create more broken families. That is what should be defended. Article 41 is not fulfilliing it's purpose. The family and marriage are under attack....the state is rolling over
I really don't see how voting to extend the right to marry to same sex couples will create more broken families? Could you enlighten me Iceman? Please lay out the process you see unfolding from this vote, because I honestly cannot see the connection you are making.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 16, 2015, 03:04:27 PM
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 16, 2015, 01:51:47 PM
It may be no harm to remind people what we are voting on next week :
ARTICLE 41
3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".
The purpose of this amendment is to redefine the accepted meaning of "the institution of marriage" as referenced in Article 41.
The purpose of this amendment is to destroy Article 41. What is left to protect after a YES vote? Marriage and Family are intrinsically linked in the Article, a point which the YES campaign fail to acknowledge. Families are broken and lives are destroyed everyday but that doesn't mean we vote to create more broken families. That is what should be defended. Article 41 is not fulfilliing it's purpose. The family and marriage are under attack....the state is rolling over
A married couple is a family, regardless of whether they have children. This will allow a same sex couple to be regarded as a family, regardless of whether they have children.
As has been said countless times, this is NOT about children, but that makes it very inconvenient for the No camp. This does not create any broken families. You might consider that adoption or surrogacy would, but that's separate from the issue of marriage.
"on which the family is founded" has to make it about children. Marriage is the foundation of family.
There have been countless posts that argue the other side from the perspective of the child that have swept under the carpet as "nothing to do with marriage"
Quote from: easytiger95all others on the thread - Armaghniac has a goldfish like level of attention span
Sorry to go back to an earlier part of the thread, but research shows that my attention span is in fact above the average human
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/our-attention-span-is-now-less-than-that-of-a-goldfish-microsoft-study-finds-10247553.html
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 16, 2015, 03:25:10 PM
A married couple is a family, regardless of whether they have children. This will allow a same sex couple to be regarded as a family, regardless of whether they have children.
As has been said countless times, this is NOT about children
You've quoted the legal definition, but the fact that most marriages have children and most children are brought up by married people means that any attempt to say, in BLOCK CAPS or not, that this is not about children is either an attempt to deliberately mislead or to restrict debate. Either way, it is a disgrace that this nonsense is repeated by otherwise intelligent people.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 16, 2015, 03:04:27 PM
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 16, 2015, 01:51:47 PM
It may be no harm to remind people what we are voting on next week :
ARTICLE 41
3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".
The purpose of this amendment is to redefine the accepted meaning of "the institution of marriage" as referenced in Article 41.
The purpose of this amendment is to destroy Article 41. What is left to protect after a YES vote? Marriage and Family are intrinsically linked in the Article, a point which the YES campaign fail to acknowledge. Families are broken and lives are destroyed everyday but that doesn't mean we vote to create more broken families. That is what should be defended. Article 41 is not fulfilliing it's purpose. The family and marriage are under attack....the state is rolling over
On the contrary, this amendment gives Constitutional protection to same-sex couples, which isn't there currently. It does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to everyone else.
There is legislative protection currently in place, but that can be amended on the whim of a Government majority. After an amendment it can't. Legislatively nothing changes, but constitutionally it does and thus can only be further changed by an amendment to the constitution.
Gay couples raise children now. Gay couples will raise children regardless of whether the referendum is passed or not. That's what makes the children arguments irrelevant to this referendum.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 16, 2015, 03:45:59 PM
Gay couples raise children now. Gay couples will raise children regardless of whether the referendum is passed or not. That's what makes the children arguments irrelevant to this referendum.
Article 29 also says " Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination." Perhaps they should take that out as not all outer countries agree with the pacific settlement of international disputes. Then again you have " The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law", but since some are then there is no need for that.
It is bit like saying in GAA terms that there is no use in arguing over the definition of black card as Tyrone will dive anyway.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 16, 2015, 03:34:27 PM
Quote from: easytiger95all others on the thread - Armaghniac has a goldfish like level of attention span
Sorry to go back to an earlier part of the thread, but research shows that my attention span is in fact above the average human
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/our-attention-span-is-now-less-than-that-of-a-goldfish-microsoft-study-finds-10247553.html
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 16, 2015, 03:25:10 PM
A married couple is a family, regardless of whether they have children. This will allow a same sex couple to be regarded as a family, regardless of whether they have children.
As has been said countless times, this is NOT about children
You've quoted the legal definition, but the fact that most marriages have children and most children are brought up by married people means that any attempt to say, in BLOCK CAPS or not, that this is not about children is either an attempt to deliberately mislead or to restrict debate. Either way, it is a disgrace that this nonsense is repeated by otherwise intelligent people.
I certainly feel that asking a goldfish to answer the simple questions i have put on numerous occasions would be more productive - but here we go again.
How will voting yes weaken the institution of marriage? How will it contribute to more broken marriages? How will this referendum in any way affect children?
The fact that otherwise intelligent people have all asserted the above to be true, without giving any evidence whatsoever to back it up, is a disgrace. And I consider that to be an attempt (unsuccessful as it is) to avoid debate and obscure the facts in the service of a socially conservative agenda. And I find that to be disgraceful.
But please feel free to prove me wrong by answering those questions.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 16, 2015, 03:59:50 PM
I certainly feel that asking a goldfish to answer the simple questions i have put on numerous occasions would be more productive - but here we go again.
How will voting yes weaken the institution of marriage? How will it contribute to more broken marriages? How will this referendum in any way affect children?
The fact that otherwise intelligent people have all asserted the above to be true, without giving any evidence whatsoever to back it up, is a disgrace. And I consider that to be an attempt (unsuccessful as it is) to avoid debate and obscure the facts in the service of a socially conservative agenda. And i find that to be disgraceful.
But please feel free to prove me wrong by answering those questions.
Go back and read through the thread - you can't join 50 pages in then complain nobody answers the questions you pose that have already been answered. There have been multiple statements published and posted from children of same sex parents who are stressing we should vote NO. Go back and read them and get your answers....
Quote from: armaghniac on May 16, 2015, 03:55:39 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 16, 2015, 03:45:59 PM
Gay couples raise children now. Gay couples will raise children regardless of whether the referendum is passed or not. That's what makes the children arguments irrelevant to this referendum.
Article 29 also says " Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination." Perhaps they should take that out as not all outer countries agree with the pacific settlement of international disputes. Then again you have " The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law", but since some are then there is no need for that.
It is bit like saying in GAA terms that there is no use in arguing over the definition of black card as Tyrone will dive anyway.
I don't understand where you're going with any of that. Are you saying the constitution is meaningless? If so, why are you getting worked up over a change to it?
Either way, your response did nothing to address my post - that as children will be raised by gay couples whether the referendum is passed or not, debating the merits of gay parents is irrelevant to the referendum debate.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 16, 2015, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 16, 2015, 03:59:50 PM
I certainly feel that asking a goldfish to answer the simple questions i have put on numerous occasions would be more productive - but here we go again.
How will voting yes weaken the institution of marriage? How will it contribute to more broken marriages? How will this referendum in any way affect children?
The fact that otherwise intelligent people have all asserted the above to be true, without giving any evidence whatsoever to back it up, is a disgrace. And I consider that to be an attempt (unsuccessful as it is) to avoid debate and obscure the facts in the service of a socially conservative agenda. And i find that to be disgraceful.
But please feel free to prove me wrong by answering those questions.
Go back and read through the thread - you can't join 50 pages in then complain nobody answers the questions you pose that have already been answered. There have been multiple statements published and posted from children of same sex parents who are stressing we should vote NO. Go back and read them and get your answers....
Yeah, but they're an argument against gay couples raising children, not gay couples getting married. And the very fact that you can cite those examples just goes to prove that gay couples will raise children (and have been doing so) whether or not they can get married.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 16, 2015, 04:09:16 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 16, 2015, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 16, 2015, 03:59:50 PM
I certainly feel that asking a goldfish to answer the simple questions i have put on numerous occasions would be more productive - but here we go again.
How will voting yes weaken the institution of marriage? How will it contribute to more broken marriages? How will this referendum in any way affect children?
The fact that otherwise intelligent people have all asserted the above to be true, without giving any evidence whatsoever to back it up, is a disgrace. And I consider that to be an attempt (unsuccessful as it is) to avoid debate and obscure the facts in the service of a socially conservative agenda. And i find that to be disgraceful.
But please feel free to prove me wrong by answering those questions.
Go back and read through the thread - you can't join 50 pages in then complain nobody answers the questions you pose that have already been answered. There have been multiple statements published and posted from children of same sex parents who are stressing we should vote NO. Go back and read them and get your answers....
Yeah, but they're an argument against gay couples raising children, not gay couples getting married. And the very fact that you can cite those examples just goes to prove that gay couples will raise children (and have been doing so) whether or not they can get married.
As I have said multiple times, I am not concerned with gay couples raising children I am concerned with promoting marriage.
In the same way the government should promote work although some people will always be employed, retired, sick etc.
How does same sex marriage prevent the Government from promoting marriage Armaghniac?
Quote from: The Iceman on May 16, 2015, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 16, 2015, 03:59:50 PM
I certainly feel that asking a goldfish to answer the simple questions i have put on numerous occasions would be more productive - but here we go again.
How will voting yes weaken the institution of marriage? How will it contribute to more broken marriages? How will this referendum in any way affect children?
The fact that otherwise intelligent people have all asserted the above to be true, without giving any evidence whatsoever to back it up, is a disgrace. And I consider that to be an attempt (unsuccessful as it is) to avoid debate and obscure the facts in the service of a socially conservative agenda. And i find that to be disgraceful.
But please feel free to prove me wrong by answering those questions.
Go back and read through the thread - you can't join 50 pages in then complain nobody answers the questions you pose that have already been answered. There have been multiple statements published and posted from children of same sex parents who are stressing we should vote NO. Go back and read them and get your answers....
My first post on this thread is on page 1. Could I suggest that you read the entire thread.....?
And, no, the answers to those questions have not been provided by any of the No posters so far, or through any of the anecdotal evidence given. They are very simple questions, and if you have the case, should be easy to answer. Have at it.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 16, 2015, 04:12:56 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 16, 2015, 04:09:16 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 16, 2015, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 16, 2015, 03:59:50 PM
I certainly feel that asking a goldfish to answer the simple questions i have put on numerous occasions would be more productive - but here we go again.
How will voting yes weaken the institution of marriage? How will it contribute to more broken marriages? How will this referendum in any way affect children?
The fact that otherwise intelligent people have all asserted the above to be true, without giving any evidence whatsoever to back it up, is a disgrace. And I consider that to be an attempt (unsuccessful as it is) to avoid debate and obscure the facts in the service of a socially conservative agenda. And i find that to be disgraceful.
But please feel free to prove me wrong by answering those questions.
Go back and read through the thread - you can't join 50 pages in then complain nobody answers the questions you pose that have already been answered. There have been multiple statements published and posted from children of same sex parents who are stressing we should vote NO. Go back and read them and get your answers....
Yeah, but they're an argument against gay couples raising children, not gay couples getting married. And the very fact that you can cite those examples just goes to prove that gay couples will raise children (and have been doing so) whether or not they can get married.
As I have said multiple times, I am not concerned with gay couples raising children I am concerned with promoting marriage.
In the same way the government should promote work although some people will always be employed, retired, sick etc.
If you're not concerned with gay couples raising children, then i'm not sure why you responded to that post.
I don't understand the rest of your post at all. Do you want to government to promote marriage or not to promote marriage? What's the meaning of the parallel with employment? If gay people are allowed to get married, it will still be the case that some people are married, some are divorced, some are co-habiting and some are single, but I still don't follow that line of discussion.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 16, 2015, 03:25:10 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 16, 2015, 03:04:27 PM
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 16, 2015, 01:51:47 PM
It may be no harm to remind people what we are voting on next week :
ARTICLE 41
3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".
The purpose of this amendment is to redefine the accepted meaning of "the institution of marriage" as referenced in Article 41.
The purpose of this amendment is to destroy Article 41. What is left to protect after a YES vote? Marriage and Family are intrinsically linked in the Article, a point which the YES campaign fail to acknowledge. Families are broken and lives are destroyed everyday but that doesn't mean we vote to create more broken families. That is what should be defended. Article 41 is not fulfilliing it's purpose. The family and marriage are under attack....the state is rolling over
A married couple is a family, regardless of whether they have children. This will allow a same sex couple to be regarded as a family, regardless of whether they have children.
As has been said countless times, this is NOT about children, but that makes it very inconvenient for the No camp. This does not create any broken families. You might consider that adoption or surrogacy would, but that's separate from the issue of marriage.
Just because you said it countless times, doesn't make it fact. I don't have a vote so it doesn't affect me, but you are either ignoring a big reason as to why some people will vote no or it's going over your head.
Quote from: eddie d on May 16, 2015, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 16, 2015, 03:25:10 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 16, 2015, 03:04:27 PM
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 16, 2015, 01:51:47 PM
It may be no harm to remind people what we are voting on next week :
ARTICLE 41
3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".
The purpose of this amendment is to redefine the accepted meaning of "the institution of marriage" as referenced in Article 41.
The purpose of this amendment is to destroy Article 41. What is left to protect after a YES vote? Marriage and Family are intrinsically linked in the Article, a point which the YES campaign fail to acknowledge. Families are broken and lives are destroyed everyday but that doesn't mean we vote to create more broken families. That is what should be defended. Article 41 is not fulfilliing it's purpose. The family and marriage are under attack....the state is rolling over
A married couple is a family, regardless of whether they have children. This will allow a same sex couple to be regarded as a family, regardless of whether they have children.
As has been said countless times, this is NOT about children, but that makes it very inconvenient for the No camp. This does not create any broken families. You might consider that adoption or surrogacy would, but that's separate from the issue of marriage.
Just because you said it countless times, doesn't make it fact. I don't have a vote so it doesn't affect me, but you are either ignoring a big reason as to why some people will vote no or it's going over your head.
You're right, Eddie,
me saying it doesn't make it fact. Other things do. For example:
The Referendum Commission has said that surrogacy and adoption rights will not be affected by the same-sex marriage referendum, regardless of the result.http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/analysis-surrogacy-and-adoption-rights-will-not-be-affected-by-referendum-result-1.2210114
THE ADOPTION PROCESS won't change in Ireland, regardless of the outcome of the referendum on same-sex marriage. That's according to the Special Rapporteur for Children, Geoffrey Shannon, who gave an insightful interview on Claire Byrne Live this evening on RTÉ.http://www.thejournal.ie/same-sex-marriage-referendum-geoffrey-shannon-2097220-May2015/
The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 provides that civil partners and cohabiting couples who have lived together for three years will be eligible to adopt jointly. This Act was signed into law on 6 April 2015.http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/
And i'm not
"ignoring a big reason as to why some people will vote no", i'm simply saying that anyone who is voting no for this reason doesn't understand what the referendum is about, and the existing laws.
I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.
I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.
Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.
I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.
Anyone hear Jim Walsh and Mattie McGrath on Saturday Live with Claire Byrne at 1:00 today on RTE Radio 1?
The longer this campaign goes on and the more every argument from the No camp is exposed, and I do say this in the most respectful way possible ;D, but the more it's hard to shake the belief that they aren't all completely bonkers.
Quote from: eddie d on May 16, 2015, 05:25:37 PM
I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.
I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.
Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.
I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.
But that has nothing to do with them getting married. That's about them raising children.
And as has already been said, this is about civil marriage, not a religious marriage.
Quote from: eddie d on May 16, 2015, 05:25:37 PM
I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.
I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.
Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.
I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.
Eddie this is a vote on civil marriage, not Catholic marriage. As Catholic churches will not be performing any same sex marriages they can ask any questions they like.
I have to echo what Maguire has already said - if someone is voting no for the reasons above, they do not understand the question.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 16, 2015, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 16, 2015, 05:25:37 PM
I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.
I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.
Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.
I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.
But that has nothing to do with them getting married. That's about them raising children.
And as has already been said, this is about civil marriage, not a religious marriage.
So if it passes can two catholic men or women get married in a church?
Quote from: eddie d on May 16, 2015, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 16, 2015, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 16, 2015, 05:25:37 PM
I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.
I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.
Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.
I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.
But that has nothing to do with them getting married. That's about them raising children.
And as has already been said, this is about civil marriage, not a religious marriage.
So if it passes can two catholic men or women get married in a church?
For about the 50th time on this thread alone, NO!
Quote from: eddie d on May 16, 2015, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 16, 2015, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 16, 2015, 05:25:37 PM
I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.
I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.
Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.
I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.
But that has nothing to do with them getting married. That's about them raising children.
And as has already been said, this is about civil marriage, not a religious marriage.
So if it passes can two catholic men or women get married in a church?
No. I can't believe anyone is asking that question this close to the referendum.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 16, 2015, 05:59:18 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 16, 2015, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 16, 2015, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 16, 2015, 05:25:37 PM
I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.
I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.
Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.
I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.
But that has nothing to do with them getting married. That's about them raising children.
And as has already been said, this is about civil marriage, not a religious marriage.
So if it passes can two catholic men or women get married in a church?
No. I can't believe anyone is asking that question this close to the referendum.
Fair enough but I did state in a previous post that I don't have a vote. I haven.t been following this thread since day one...just more recent as it gets closer.
Quote from: muppet on May 16, 2015, 05:44:49 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 16, 2015, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 16, 2015, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: eddie d on May 16, 2015, 05:25:37 PM
I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.
I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.
Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.
I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.
But that has nothing to do with them getting married. That's about them raising children.
And as has already been said, this is about civil marriage, not a religious marriage.
So if it passes can two catholic men or women get married in a church?
Take it away, Hozier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYSVMgRr6pw
For about the 50th time on this thread alone, NO!
This is a humdinger as well as deeply moving
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ursula-halligan-referendum-led-me-to-tell-truth-about-myself-1.2212960
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" – Martin Luther King.
I was a good Catholic girl, growing up in 1970s Ireland where homosexuality was an evil perversion. It was never openly talked about but I knew it was the worst thing on the face of the earth.
So when I fell in love with a girl in my class in school, I was terrified. Rummaging around in the attic a few weeks ago, an old diary brought me right back to December 20th, 1977.
Campaigners on both sides of the Same-sex Marriage Referendum (above). Referendum Commission chairman Mr Justice Kevin Cross has said any law that treated one type of married couple differently would be carefully scrutinised by the courts and would likely only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Photographs: Brenda Fitzsimons/The Irish TimesState may still favour opposite-sex parents if vote passes - judge
"These past few months must have been the darkest and gloomiest I have ever experienced in my entire life," my 17-year-old self wrote.
"There have been times when I have even thought about death, of escaping from this world, of sleeping untouched by no-one forever. I have been so depressed, so sad and so confused. There seems to be no one I can turn to, not even God. I've poured out my emotions, my innermost thoughts to him and get no relief or so-called spiritual grace. At times I feel I am talking to nothing, that no God exists. I've never felt like this before, so empty, so meaningless, so utterly, utterly miserable."
Because of my upbringing, I was revolted at the thought that I was in love with a member of my own sex. This contradiction within me nearly drove me crazy. These two strands of thought jostled within me pulling me in opposite directions.
Plagued with fear
I loved a girl and I knew that what wasn't right; my mind was constantly plagued with the fear that I was a lesbian. I hated myself. I felt useless and worthless and very small and stupid. I had one option, and only one option. I would be "normal", and that meant locking myself in the closet and throwing away the key.
I played the dating game. I feigned interest in men. I invented boyfriends. I listened silently to snide remarks about homosexuals. Tried to smile at mimicry of stereotypical gay behaviour.
In the 1970s, homophobia was rampant and uninhibited. Political correctness had yet to arrive. Homosexuals were faggots, queers, poofs, freaks, deviants, unclean, unnatural, mentally ill, second class and defective humans. They were society's defects. Biological errors. They were other people. I couldn't possibly be one of them.
Over the years I watched each of my siblings date, party, get engaged, get married and take for granted all the joys and privileges of their State-acknowledged relationship.
My coping strategy was to pour myself into my studies and later into my work. I didn't socialise much because I had this horrible secret that must never come out. It was a strategy that worked until I'd fall in love again with a woman and the whole emotional rollercoaster of bliss, pain, withdrawal and denial resumed. It was a pattern that would repeat itself over the years.
And never once did I openly express my feelings. I suppressed everything and buried myself in books or work. I was careful how I talked and behaved. Nothing was allowed slip. I never knew what it was like to live spontaneously, to go with the flow, to trust my instincts . . . I certainly couldn't trust my instincts.
Repressing my humanity
For years I told no one because I couldn't even tell myself. It was a place I didn't want to go. It was too scary; too shameful. I couldn't cope with it. I buried it.
Emotionally, I have been in a prison since the age of 17; a prison where I lived a half-life, repressing an essential part of my humanity, the expression of my deepest self; my instinct to love.
It's a part that heterosexual people take for granted, like breathing air. The world is custom-tailored for them. At every turn society assumes and confirms heterosexuality as the norm. This culminates in marriage when the happy couple is showered with an outpouring of overwhelming social approval.
For me, there was no first kiss; no engagement party; no wedding. And up until a short time ago no hope of any of these things. Now, at the age of 54, in a (hopefully) different Ireland, I wish I had broken out of my prison cell a long time ago. I feel a sense of loss and sadness for precious time spent wasted in fear and isolation.
Homophobia was so deeply embedded in my soul, I resisted facing the truth about myself, preferring to live in the safety of my prison. In the privacy of my head, I had become a roaring, self-loathing homophobe, resigned to going to my grave with my shameful secret. And I might well have done that if the referendum hadn't come along.
Now, I can't quite believe the pace of change that's sweeping across the globe in support of gay marriage. I never thought I'd see the day that a Government Minister would come out as gay and encounter almost nothing but praise for his bravery. But that day did come, and the work done down the decades by people like David Norris, Katharine Zappone, Ann-Louise Gilligan and Colm O'Gorman made me realise that possibilities existed that I'd never believed would ever exist.
I told a friend and the world didn't end. I told my mother, and the world didn't end.
Then I realised that I could leave the prison completely or stay in the social equivalent of an open prison. The second option would mean telling a handful of people but essentially go on as before, silently colluding with the prejudices that still find expression in casual social moments.
It's the easier of the two options, particularly for those close to me. Because those who love you can cope with you coming out, but they're wary of you "making an issue" of it.
Game-changer
The game-changer was the marriage equality referendum. It pointed me toward the first option: telling the truth to anyone who cares. And I knew if I was going to tell the truth, I had to tell the whole truth and reveal my backing for a Yes vote. For me, the two are intrinsically linked.
That means TV3 taking me off referendum coverage. The rules say they must, and when I told them my situation, they reorganised their coverage in half a day.
Twenty years ago or 30 years ago, it would have taken more courage than I had to tell the truth. Today, it's still difficult but it can be done with hope – hope that most people in modern Ireland embrace diversity and would understand that I'm trying to be helpful to other gay people leading small, frightened, incomplete lives. If my story helps even one 17-year-old school girl, struggling with her sexuality, it will have been worth it.
As a person of faith and a Catholic, I believe a Yes vote is the most Christian thing to do. I believe the glory of God is the human being fully alive and that this includes people who are gay.
If Ireland votes Yes, it will be about much more than marriage. It will end institutional homophobia. It will say to gay people that they belong, that it's safe to surface and live fully human, loving lives. If it's true that 10 per cent of any population are gay, then there could be 400,000 gay people out there; many of them still living in emotional prisons. Any of them could be your son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father or best friend. Set them free. Allow them live full lives
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/support-for-yes-vote-in-marriage-equality-referendum-plummets-with-one-week-to-go-poll-31228174.html
Bad news coming tomorrow - hope that this acts as a wake up call for yes voters to get out the vote on Friday. It will be close and I always thought it would be.
Pre-referendum: Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children but not get married.
Post-referendum (assuming a yes vote): Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children and get married.
Can someone please explain how a yes vote undermines or attacks marriage or families?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2015, 11:37:31 PM
Pre-referendum: Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children but not get married.
Post-referendum (assuming a yes vote): Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children and get married.
Can someone please explain how a yes vote undermines or attacks marriage or families?
You've said it yourself. Straight people ger married and have children with that oerson, providing responsible parenting. Gay people have children, you don't say how, but I'll hazard a guess that they don't marry the parent of their children, but rather exclude one of the parents.
But there is really no point in explaining this, you ignore everything that is posted.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 17, 2015, 12:36:10 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2015, 11:37:31 PM
Pre-referendum: Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children but not get married.
Post-referendum (assuming a yes vote): Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children and get married.
Can someone please explain how a yes vote undermines or attacks marriage or families?
You've said it yourself. Straight people ger married and have children with that oerson, providing responsible parenting. Gay people have children, you don't say how, but I'll hazard a guess that they don't marry the parent of their children, but rather exclude one of the parents.
"Exclude" one of the parents?
Gay couples have children by various means. Adoption, anonymous sperm donation, IVF, surrogacy etc., all various methods that are also used by straight couples. Are they also "excluding" one of the parents, whatever that means? If that's your beef, then why not call for a ban those methods of having children? Or is it only a problem when gay parents wish to avail of the same methods? If so, why is it okay for straight people to use those methods of having children but not gay parents? What's the difference?
In any case, none of this has any bearing on the referendum, as you know.
Quote
But there is really no point in explaining this, you ignore everything that is posted.
Humour me.
Nice bit of evasion, by the way. My question was about how recognizing the marriage of gay couples undermines anyone else's marriage. Please cite examples of straight couples in the US who have had their marriages "undermined" by a gay couple's nuptials in the same state.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 15, 2015, 10:57:31 AM
Quote from: deiseach on May 15, 2015, 10:45:41 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 15, 2015, 10:38:48 AM
Quote from: deiseach on May 15, 2015, 10:24:01 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 14, 2015, 11:58:37 AM
One of the upsides of this referendum is the amount of thought we've all had to do about what constitutes family and the ties that bind us. Win or lose, I think it has been healthy for the nation's pysche.
I thought of what you say here yesterday after reading an article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/13/conservatives-say-marriage-has-always-been-between-a-man-and-a-woman-theyre-wrong/) about the case before the US Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. What struck me was the absurdity of having the validity of laws determined by nine people parsing a text written by a bunch of slave-owning white men from the late 18th century. As you say, whatever the result there is virtue in having a public airing of opinions on the matter.
The irony of these posts are unreal, you can air your opinion as long as you are on the YES side, on the NO side you are homophobic, Jesus wept!
I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I do not think advocating a No vote makes you a homophobe. I think it takes a particularly twisted mindset to read the contrary into what I posted.
Not on this board - time and time again it has been stated here that the only reason one can vote NO is because they are homophobic, appreciate you are not one of the protagonists but you can appreciate the the irony in the above posts in the context of the mass hysteria from the YES campaign on this board.
To clarify. I stated that all the reasons to vote No that had been aired to that point (including on this Board) were homophobic (i.e. they have no logical basis unless you start from a position of "i plain just don't like gays" or "gays are ok but they just shouldn't have equality ---- becasuse they are gay"). Immediately you quoted religious reasons for voting no. The "I'm not homophobic its just my religion " argument is unconvincing and does not escape from a whiff of homophobia. No new arguments have been posted since.
So, yes there could yet be a non-homophobic argument for voting No, but be very clear - we have not heard it yet.
Feel free to be that person that outlines it here. There is no good reason to withold it.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 15, 2015, 11:58:11 AM
Quote from: screenexile on May 15, 2015, 11:35:06 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 15, 2015, 11:20:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on May 15, 2015, 11:18:03 AM
Can someone in the yes camp clarify if they believe that there are any reasons for voting no other than being a rampant homophobe?
I dont have a vote but would in all likelihood be a yes voter.
On this board everyone is entitled to an opinion unless that opinion is different to the herd and then you are homophobic.
Well . . . Yes!
You are voting to deny homosexuals equal rights to everyone else/
Definition of homophobia
Quote
homo|pho¦bia
Pronunciation: /ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə/ /ˌhəʊmə-/
Definition of homophobia in English:
noun
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
I think that a lot of people are getting overly pushed on the definition of homophobia and think it means you abuse or hate homosexuals or its something akin to racism when I don't think it is and has more layers than that. A dislike of homosexuals is the dictionary definition and I think that generally those voting no have that.
Just to be clear once again, I would vote yes, but if people want to vote no for whatever reason that is their democratic right and they should not be branded homophobic by the gay right activists on this board.
People can vote No. That is their democratic right. I don't think a single person has deied that. It is not a point of difference between the Yes and No camps.
Those who vote Yes or No should have a reason for doing so (this is afterall not only a vote but a vote on a point in the constitution and a vote on equality - those last 2 make it a vote on the king of country RoI is and aspires to be). It is not unreasonable for people on a discussion forum to point out their reasons for voting Yes or No. If any of those arguments are flawed, unconvincing or homophobic it is the very point of a discussion forums to point those things out. It is a quite incredible thing to get excited about.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 17, 2015, 01:31:50 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 17, 2015, 12:36:10 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2015, 11:37:31 PM
Pre-referendum: Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children but not get married.
Post-referendum (assuming a yes vote): Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children and get married.
Can someone please explain how a yes vote undermines or attacks marriage or families?
You've said it yourself. Straight people ger married and have children with that oerson, providing responsible parenting. Gay people have children, you don't say how, but I'll hazard a guess that they don't marry the parent of their children, but rather exclude one of the parents.
"Exclude" one of the parents?
Gay couples have children by various means. Adoption, anonymous sperm donation, IVF, surrogacy etc., all various methods that are also used by straight couples. Are they also "excluding" one of the parents, whatever that means? If that's your beef, then why not call for a ban those methods of having children? Or is it only a problem when gay parents wish to avail of the same methods? If so, why is it okay for straight people to use those methods of having children but not gay parents? What's the difference?
In any case, none of this has any bearing on the referendum, as you know.
+1 on both points. I've never heard these arguments made in relation to a straight couple who have difficulties having their own children. But as you said, it's irrelevant to the referendum.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 17, 2015, 09:50:34 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 17, 2015, 01:31:50 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 17, 2015, 12:36:10 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2015, 11:37:31 PM
Pre-referendum: Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children but not get married.
Post-referendum (assuming a yes vote): Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children and get married.
Can someone please explain how a yes vote undermines or attacks marriage or families?
You've said it yourself. Straight people ger married and have children with that oerson, providing responsible parenting. Gay people have children, you don't say how, but I'll hazard a guess that they don't marry the parent of their children, but rather exclude one of the parents.
"Exclude" one of the parents?
Gay couples have children by various means. Adoption, anonymous sperm donation, IVF, surrogacy etc., all various methods that are also used by straight couples. Are they also "excluding" one of the parents, whatever that means? If that's your beef, then why not call for a ban those methods of having children? Or is it only a problem when gay parents wish to avail of the same methods? If so, why is it okay for straight people to use those methods of having children but not gay parents? What's the difference?
In any case, none of this has any bearing on the referendum, as you know.
+1 on both points. I've never heard these arguments made in relation to a straight couple who have difficulties having their own children. But as you said, it's irrelevant to the referendum.
No one would argue that because a straight couple might not know that they can't have children before they are married.
Quote from: eddie d on May 17, 2015, 12:13:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 17, 2015, 09:50:34 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 17, 2015, 01:31:50 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 17, 2015, 12:36:10 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2015, 11:37:31 PM
Pre-referendum: Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children but not get married.
Post-referendum (assuming a yes vote): Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children and get married.
Can someone please explain how a yes vote undermines or attacks marriage or families?
You've said it yourself. Straight people ger married and have children with that oerson, providing responsible parenting. Gay people have children, you don't say how, but I'll hazard a guess that they don't marry the parent of their children, but rather exclude one of the parents.
"Exclude" one of the parents?
Gay couples have children by various means. Adoption, anonymous sperm donation, IVF, surrogacy etc., all various methods that are also used by straight couples. Are they also "excluding" one of the parents, whatever that means? If that's your beef, then why not call for a ban those methods of having children? Or is it only a problem when gay parents wish to avail of the same methods? If so, why is it okay for straight people to use those methods of having children but not gay parents? What's the difference?
In any case, none of this has any bearing on the referendum, as you know.
+1 on both points. I've never heard these arguments made in relation to a straight couple who have difficulties having their own children. But as you said, it's irrelevant to the referendum.
No one would argue that because a straight couple might not know that they can't have children before they are married.
Even if we ignore those who do... the argument being made is that by using these methods they're "excluding" one of the biological parents. That's the case (for almost all of these methods) whether it's a straight or a gay couple.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 17, 2015, 01:31:50 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 17, 2015, 12:36:10 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 16, 2015, 11:37:31 PM
Pre-referendum: Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children but not get married.
Post-referendum (assuming a yes vote): Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children and get married.
Can someone please explain how a yes vote undermines or attacks marriage or families?
You've said it yourself. Straight people ger married and have children with that oerson, providing responsible parenting. Gay people have children, you don't say how, but I'll hazard a guess that they don't marry the parent of their children, but rather exclude one of the parents.
"Exclude" one of the parents?
Gay couples have children by various means. Adoption, anonymous sperm donation, IVF, surrogacy etc., all various methods that are also used by straight couples. Are they also "excluding" one of the parents, whatever that means? If that's your beef, then why not call for a ban those methods of having children? Or is it only a problem when gay parents wish to avail of the same methods? If so, why is it okay for straight people to use those methods of having children but not gay parents? What's the difference?
In any case, none of this has any bearing on the referendum, as you know.
Quote
But there is really no point in explaining this, you ignore everything that is posted.
Humour me.
There are questions over surrogacy whoever is involved and some of these techniques are banned and some should be. Nobody is arguing for surrogacy for heterosexual couples being a relavant factor in this debate, whereas you keep saying thay gay couples can have children.
And there is much talk of adoption. Adopting children may well be a selfless act, but the total number adopted in the 26 counties in a year would fit on the Roscommon bus and probably their adoptive parents as well. As there is a ready supply of heterosexual parents wishing to adopt then adoption by homosexuals needs never take place, it is certainly not appropriate to distort marriage where 10s of thousands of children are born every year for some benefit for 3 or 4 children whose welfare is best dealt with by adoption law, not changes to the constitution.
They used to say that every time the Brits began to understand what was termed "the Irish question", the Irish changed the question.
It seems some Irish are still pretty adept at it, except they can't seem to decide on what they want the new question to be.
Quote from: Hardy on May 17, 2015, 01:33:34 PM
They used to say that every time the Brits began to understand what was termed "the Irish question", the Irish changed the question.
It seems some Irish are still pretty adept at it, except they can't seem to decide on what they want the new question to be.
Another cryptic contribution.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 17, 2015, 01:36:19 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 17, 2015, 01:33:34 PM
They used to say that every time the Brits began to understand what was termed "the Irish question", the Irish changed the question.
It seems some Irish are still pretty adept at it, except they can't seem to decide on what they want the new question to be.
Another cryptic contribution.
If you find that cryptic, steer clear of the Times' crossword.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 17, 2015, 02:50:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 17, 2015, 01:36:19 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 17, 2015, 01:33:34 PM
They used to say that every time the Brits began to understand what was termed "the Irish question", the Irish changed the question.
It seems some Irish are still pretty adept at it, except they can't seem to decide on what they want the new question to be.
Another cryptic contribution.
If you find that cryptic, steer clear of the Times' crossword.
We Ulster folk prefer plain speaking to speaking in riddles. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Would this be the Hierarchy of Family that the no side believe in?
1. Bio Mother & Bio Father
2. Bio Mother & non Bio Father
3. Bio Mother
4. Non Bio mother & Bio Father
5. Non Bio Mother & Non Bio Father
6. Bio Father
7. Non Bio Mother
8. Non Bio father
9. Bio Mother & Non Bio Mother
10. Bio Father & Non Bio Father
11. Non Bio Mother & Non Bio Mother
12. Non Bio father & non Bio father
Hilarious. Yes, you truly are the plainest speaking, straight shootingest guy on this Board....(begins the long walk to my Gumdrop House on Lolliipop lane
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 17, 2015, 04:01:29 PM
Yes, you truly are the plainest speaking, straight shootingest guy on this Board....
Thank you, I stand for truth.
Quote from: easytiger95
(begins the long walk to my Gumdrop House on Lolliipop lane
Have fun there.
Encouraging to read in the Sindo today that the Yes vote has dropped significantly and there are enough don't knows to be persuaded to join the No camp in order to preserve the natural order of things.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 17, 2015, 08:22:23 PM
Encouraging to read in the Sindo today..
I stopped reading and started laughing at this point.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 17, 2015, 01:18:26 PM
There are questions over surrogacy whoever is involved and some of these techniques are banned and some should be. Nobody is arguing for surrogacy for heterosexual couples being a relavant factor in this debate, whereas you keep saying thay gay couples can have children.
And there is much talk of adoption. Adopting children may well be a selfless act, but the total number adopted in the 26 counties in a year would fit on the Roscommon bus and probably their adoptive parents as well. As there is a ready supply of heterosexual parents wishing to adopt then adoption by homosexuals needs never take place, it is certainly not appropriate to distort marriage where 10s of thousands of children are born every year for some benefit for 3 or 4 children whose welfare is best dealt with by adoption law, not changes to the constitution.
Is your real name Donald Rumsfeld? I don't think even he could come up with such a carefully crafted piece of obfuscation. If, in the middle of all that, there is an answer to my question about how existing marriages or future heterosexual marriages are affected by same-sex marriages, you're going to have to help me find it.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2015, 01:25:49 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 17, 2015, 01:18:26 PM
There are questions over surrogacy whoever is involved and some of these techniques are banned and some should be. Nobody is arguing for surrogacy for heterosexual couples being a relavant factor in this debate, whereas you keep saying thay gay couples can have children.
And there is much talk of adoption. Adopting children may well be a selfless act, but the total number adopted in the 26 counties in a year would fit on the Roscommon bus and probably their adoptive parents as well. As there is a ready supply of heterosexual parents wishing to adopt then adoption by homosexuals needs never take place, it is certainly not appropriate to distort marriage where 10s of thousands of children are born every year for some benefit for 3 or 4 children whose welfare is best dealt with by adoption law, not changes to the constitution.
Is your real name Donald Rumsfeld? I don't think even he could come up with such a carefully crafted piece of obfuscation. If, in the middle of all that, there is an answer to my question about how existing marriages or future heterosexual marriages are affected by same-sex marriages, you're going to have to help me find it.
this is a referendum in the Republic of Ireland not the usa so don't worry about it unless u have a vote here or want to come back and marry a man here.
Gmac, your 6th post is to limit discussion on a discussion board! Wow!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 17, 2015, 01:31:50 AM
Gay couples have children by various means.
What's the difference?
Didn't think you'd need the "talk" at this stage of your life.
In these cases there's
always a third party involvement in procreation unlike traditional marriages. Unless science has changed in the last couple of months.
Is the vote going to extend to polygamy since it's open season? Could have least put it on the ballot and given the option.
Equality for those who have a little more love to give.
Quote from: foxcommander on May 18, 2015, 04:36:43 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 17, 2015, 01:31:50 AM
Gay couples have children by various means.
What's the difference?
Didn't think you'd need the "talk" at this stage of your life.
In these cases there's always a third party involvement in procreation unlike traditional marriages. Unless science has changed in the last couple of months.
I know you think you're being really clever by quoting a fraction of my post out of context and completely changing its meaning by truncating most of what I said, but as you know my question was not about the difference between how gay people and straight people have children. It was about the difference in straight marriages before and after a yes vote.
QuoteIs the vote going to extend to polygamy since it's open season? Could have least put it on the ballot and given the option.
Don't seem to remember anyone saying it's "open season," but to answer your bizarre question which you answer in your next sentence, no. Polygamy is not on the ballot. We're not talking about polygamy. Nor are we talking about bestiality, BDSM, the recipe for Coca Cola, or any other red herrings that you'd like to throw in at random.
Quote from: Gmac on May 18, 2015, 02:43:54 AM
this is a referendum in the Republic of Ireland not the usa so don't worry about it unless u have a vote here or want to come back and marry a man here.
Since I'm an Irish citizen with an Irish passport I don't feel the need to ask your permission to express an opinion on the subject. But if you insist that only the people directly affected by it (i.e. gays in Ireland who want to get married) should be getting involved in the discussion, I have to ask why you're getting involved in it. Got a big day planned soon? Do your female relatives have to buy hats?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2015, 05:39:48 AM
Don't seem to remember anyone saying it's "open season," but to answer your bizarre question which you answer in your next sentence, no. Polygamy is not on the ballot. We're not talking about polygamy. Nor are we talking about bestiality, BDSM, the recipe for Coca Cola, or any other red herrings that you'd like to throw in at random.
Since this seems to be a referendum on lifestyle choices I think it's just as valid to ask people if they want to include certain things or not.
Awful waste of money to run a referendum on just 2 questions. It's an opportunity for the public to get a say without the added extra of political parties getting in the way.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 18, 2015, 05:43:02 AM
Quote from: Gmac on May 18, 2015, 02:43:54 AM
this is a referendum in the Republic of Ireland not the usa so don't worry about it unless u have a vote here or want to come back and marry a man here.
Since I'm an Irish citizen with an Irish passport I don't feel the need to ask your permission to express an opinion on the subject. But if you insist that only the people directly affected by it (i.e. gays in Ireland who want to get married) should be getting involved in the discussion, I have to ask why you're getting involved in it. Got a big day planned soon? Do your female relatives have to buy hats?
Maybe he is actually Gay have you thought about that?
All your I would vote Yes and equal rights for Gays and your first reaction is to use being gay against him and make fun of him?
Not saying he is Gay just I'm surprised that someone who is so vocal about a Yes vote would use a a person being Gay as a means of poking fun at that someone.
The children are up early this morning...
Quote from: seafoid on May 16, 2015, 07:35:46 PM
This is a humdinger as well as deeply moving
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ursula-halligan-referendum-led-me-to-tell-truth-about-myself-1.2212960
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" – Martin Luther King.
I was a good Catholic girl, growing up in 1970s Ireland where homosexuality was an evil perversion. It was never openly talked about but I knew it was the worst thing on the face of the earth.
So when I fell in love with a girl in my class in school, I was terrified. Rummaging around in the attic a few weeks ago, an old diary brought me right back to December 20th, 1977.
Campaigners on both sides of the Same-sex Marriage Referendum (above). Referendum Commission chairman Mr Justice Kevin Cross has said any law that treated one type of married couple differently would be carefully scrutinised by the courts and would likely only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Photographs: Brenda Fitzsimons/The Irish TimesState may still favour opposite-sex parents if vote passes - judge
"These past few months must have been the darkest and gloomiest I have ever experienced in my entire life," my 17-year-old self wrote.
"There have been times when I have even thought about death, of escaping from this world, of sleeping untouched by no-one forever. I have been so depressed, so sad and so confused. There seems to be no one I can turn to, not even God. I've poured out my emotions, my innermost thoughts to him and get no relief or so-called spiritual grace. At times I feel I am talking to nothing, that no God exists. I've never felt like this before, so empty, so meaningless, so utterly, utterly miserable."
Because of my upbringing, I was revolted at the thought that I was in love with a member of my own sex. This contradiction within me nearly drove me crazy. These two strands of thought jostled within me pulling me in opposite directions.
Plagued with fear
I loved a girl and I knew that what wasn't right; my mind was constantly plagued with the fear that I was a lesbian. I hated myself. I felt useless and worthless and very small and stupid. I had one option, and only one option. I would be "normal", and that meant locking myself in the closet and throwing away the key.
I played the dating game. I feigned interest in men. I invented boyfriends. I listened silently to snide remarks about homosexuals. Tried to smile at mimicry of stereotypical gay behaviour.
In the 1970s, homophobia was rampant and uninhibited. Political correctness had yet to arrive. Homosexuals were faggots, queers, poofs, freaks, deviants, unclean, unnatural, mentally ill, second class and defective humans. They were society's defects. Biological errors. They were other people. I couldn't possibly be one of them.
Over the years I watched each of my siblings date, party, get engaged, get married and take for granted all the joys and privileges of their State-acknowledged relationship.
My coping strategy was to pour myself into my studies and later into my work. I didn't socialise much because I had this horrible secret that must never come out. It was a strategy that worked until I'd fall in love again with a woman and the whole emotional rollercoaster of bliss, pain, withdrawal and denial resumed. It was a pattern that would repeat itself over the years.
And never once did I openly express my feelings. I suppressed everything and buried myself in books or work. I was careful how I talked and behaved. Nothing was allowed slip. I never knew what it was like to live spontaneously, to go with the flow, to trust my instincts . . . I certainly couldn't trust my instincts.
Repressing my humanity
For years I told no one because I couldn't even tell myself. It was a place I didn't want to go. It was too scary; too shameful. I couldn't cope with it. I buried it.
Emotionally, I have been in a prison since the age of 17; a prison where I lived a half-life, repressing an essential part of my humanity, the expression of my deepest self; my instinct to love.
It's a part that heterosexual people take for granted, like breathing air. The world is custom-tailored for them. At every turn society assumes and confirms heterosexuality as the norm. This culminates in marriage when the happy couple is showered with an outpouring of overwhelming social approval.
For me, there was no first kiss; no engagement party; no wedding. And up until a short time ago no hope of any of these things. Now, at the age of 54, in a (hopefully) different Ireland, I wish I had broken out of my prison cell a long time ago. I feel a sense of loss and sadness for precious time spent wasted in fear and isolation.
Homophobia was so deeply embedded in my soul, I resisted facing the truth about myself, preferring to live in the safety of my prison. In the privacy of my head, I had become a roaring, self-loathing homophobe, resigned to going to my grave with my shameful secret. And I might well have done that if the referendum hadn't come along.
Now, I can't quite believe the pace of change that's sweeping across the globe in support of gay marriage. I never thought I'd see the day that a Government Minister would come out as gay and encounter almost nothing but praise for his bravery. But that day did come, and the work done down the decades by people like David Norris, Katharine Zappone, Ann-Louise Gilligan and Colm O'Gorman made me realise that possibilities existed that I'd never believed would ever exist.
I told a friend and the world didn't end. I told my mother, and the world didn't end.
Then I realised that I could leave the prison completely or stay in the social equivalent of an open prison. The second option would mean telling a handful of people but essentially go on as before, silently colluding with the prejudices that still find expression in casual social moments.
It's the easier of the two options, particularly for those close to me. Because those who love you can cope with you coming out, but they're wary of you "making an issue" of it.
Game-changer
The game-changer was the marriage equality referendum. It pointed me toward the first option: telling the truth to anyone who cares. And I knew if I was going to tell the truth, I had to tell the whole truth and reveal my backing for a Yes vote. For me, the two are intrinsically linked.
That means TV3 taking me off referendum coverage. The rules say they must, and when I told them my situation, they reorganised their coverage in half a day.
Twenty years ago or 30 years ago, it would have taken more courage than I had to tell the truth. Today, it's still difficult but it can be done with hope – hope that most people in modern Ireland embrace diversity and would understand that I'm trying to be helpful to other gay people leading small, frightened, incomplete lives. If my story helps even one 17-year-old school girl, struggling with her sexuality, it will have been worth it.
As a person of faith and a Catholic, I believe a Yes vote is the most Christian thing to do. I believe the glory of God is the human being fully alive and that this includes people who are gay.
If Ireland votes Yes, it will be about much more than marriage. It will end institutional homophobia. It will say to gay people that they belong, that it's safe to surface and live fully human, loving lives. If it's true that 10 per cent of any population are gay, then there could be 400,000 gay people out there; many of them still living in emotional prisons. Any of them could be your son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father or best friend. Set them free. Allow them live full lives
I have made up my mind and will vote No for a number of reasons. None of which I can be arsed to list here.
The article above is brilliant and I sincerely wish the woman well. However the bible is contrary to this opinion in bold. How does she feel about paedos?, a brother who wants to marry his sister, a guy who wants to have a wife and a husband, a guy who wants to marry his dog, a woman who wants 3 husbands. I am not religious, however she claims to be a "person of faith" this is contrary to her faith, Levictus and all that.
QuoteThe article above is brilliant and I sincerely wish the woman well. However the bible is contrary to this opinion in bold. How does she feel about paedos?, a brother who wants to marry his sister, a guy who wants to have a wife and a husband, a guy who wants to marry his dog, a woman who wants 3 husbands. I am not religious, however she claims to be a "person of faith" this is contrary to her faith, Levictus and all that.
Her opinions on "paedos", incest, polygamy and bestiality are irrelevant - in this referendum we are being asked about same sex marriage, which is not remotely comparable to any of the above.
Really hoping this guy is a yes voter who's just trying to troll the No side.
QuoteI have made up my mind and will vote No for a number of reasons. None of which I can be arsed to list here.
The article above is brilliant and I sincerely wish the woman well. However the bible is contrary to this opinion in bold. How does she feel about paedos?, a brother who wants to marry his sister, a guy who wants to have a wife and a husband, a guy who wants to marry his dog, a woman who wants 3 husbands. I am not religious, however she claims to be a "person of faith" this is contrary to her faith, Levictus and all that.
See said she believes it's the most Christian thing to do, not that's it's the most Catholic thing to do. They're not one and the same.
The rest of your post is just pathetic drivel that doesn't warrant a decent response.
I find it ironic that the main argument against the referendum is a Church organised mantra, based on the straw man 'Think of The Children' rhetoric.
Aside from the referendum having nothing to do with children and not changing the status of children or their families in any way, I find the hypocrisy of the Church staggering, even for them. They still refuse to release all information regarding clerical child abuse and they are the same organisation that prioritized itself, over food for starving children during the famine, because it was food from Protestants. 'Think of the Children' goes out the window very quickly when it suits.
Other than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree.
I'm more thinking it should be a compelling case to vote Yes, rather than 'why are you voting No'. People resist change naturally, unless they can clearly see why this is a good thing to change. In this case I think the Yes side has done a spectacularly bad job informing the public what rights are denied people in a Civil Partnership. Basing an entire campaign on Vote Yes For Equality, without defining the inequalities, is a very lax approach I think.
Then allowing yourself be sidetracked by the Baby posters is rank amateur.
I presume this is buried somewhere in here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jp1g2UIm4s
Quote from: Tubberman on May 18, 2015, 02:11:54 PM
Quote
The rest of your post is just pathetic drivel that doesn't warrant a decent response.
I was originally on the yes side, however on social media sites I was pissed off with comments like the above. Play the ball and not the man. I don't agree with your opinion its shite and your a t@at. Its a discussion forum for f'ck sake. The first part of your post was fine, you should have left it at that.
Quote from: Rudi on May 18, 2015, 02:54:06 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 18, 2015, 02:11:54 PM
Quote
The rest of your post is just pathetic drivel that doesn't warrant a decent response.
I was originally on the yes side, however on social media sites I was pissed off with comments like the above. Play the ball and not the man. I don't agree with your opinion its shite and your a t@at. Its a discussion forum for f'ck sake. The first part of your post was fine, you should have left it at that.
you were voting Yes, now No just to spite Yes voters who have annoyed you? you cant have had your heart that set on voting Yes originally surely?
Quote from: Rudi on May 18, 2015, 02:54:06 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 18, 2015, 02:11:54 PM
Quote
The rest of your post is just pathetic drivel that doesn't warrant a decent response.
I was originally on the yes side, however on social media sites I was pissed off with comments like the above. Play the ball and not the man. I don't agree with your opinion its shite and your a t@at. Its a discussion forum for f'ck sake. The first part of your post was fine, you should have left it at that.
Bringing paedophiles and men marrying dogs into a discussion on same-sex marriage can hardly be taken seriously.
Quote from: Rudi on May 18, 2015, 02:54:06 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 18, 2015, 02:11:54 PM
Quote
The rest of your post is just pathetic drivel that doesn't warrant a decent response.
I was originally on the yes side, however on social media sites I was pissed off with comments like the above. Play the ball and not the man. I don't agree with your opinion its shite and your a t@at. Its a discussion forum for f'ck sake. The first part of your post was fine, you should have left it at that.
You're voting "No" because some idiots on social media sites hurt your feelings?
How old are you? Six?
"I'm taking my ball and I'm going home!"
Vote "Yes" or "No" because you think it is the right thing to do, not because you're having a hissy fit!
Quote from: muppet on May 18, 2015, 02:22:51 PM
I find it ironic that the main argument against the referendum is a Church organised mantra, based on the straw man 'Think of The Children' rhetoric.
Aside from the referendum having nothing to do with children and not changing the status of children or their families in any way, I find the hypocrisy of the Church staggering, even for them. They still refuse to release all information regarding clerical child abuse and they are the same organisation that prioritized itself, over food for starving children during the famine, because it was food from Protestants. 'Think of the Children' goes out the window very quickly when it suits.
How is that for whataboutery, the famine 170 years ago!! That's a strong argument.
Quote from: muppetOther than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree.
Several reasons have been posted, which you have carefully ignored.
Quote from: TubbermanBringing paedophiles and men marrying dogs into a discussion on same-sex marriage can hardly be taken seriously.
Fair enough. But discussion of polygamy seems perfectly reasonable if we are discussing the character of marriage, certainly more relevant that recipe of Coca-Cola, but seemingly any discussion of anything is verboten.
Quote from: J70
Vote "Yes" or "No" because you think it is the right thing to do, not because you're having a hissy fit!
This advice could also be applied to those who seem to seek to have point to prove about what the Church did 170 years ago, or whatever other chips on their shoulder they have.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 18, 2015, 05:59:34 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 18, 2015, 02:22:51 PM
I find it ironic that the main argument against the referendum is a Church organised mantra, based on the straw man 'Think of The Children' rhetoric.
Aside from the referendum having nothing to do with children and not changing the status of children or their families in any way, I find the hypocrisy of the Church staggering, even for them. They still refuse to release all information regarding clerical child abuse and they are the same organisation that prioritized itself, over food for starving children during the famine, because it was food from Protestants. 'Think of the Children' goes out the window very quickly when it suits.
How is that for whataboutery, the famine 170 years ago!! That's a strong argument.
Quote from: muppetOther than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree.
Several reasons have been posted, which you have carefully ignored.
Quote from: TubbermanBringing paedophiles and men marrying dogs into a discussion on same-sex marriage can hardly be taken seriously.
Fair enough. But discussion of polygamy seems perfectly reasonable if we are discussing the character of marriage, certainly more relevant that recipe of Coca-Cola, but seemingly any discussion of anything is verboten.
Quote from: J70
Vote "Yes" or "No" because you think it is the right thing to do, not because you're having a hissy fit!
This advice could also be applied to those who seem to seek to have point to prove about what the Church did 170 years ago, or whatever other chips on their shoulder they have.
Muppet also mentioned the failure to release records of clerical child abuse - an ongoing situation Armaghniac. Not the first time you've been caught out selectively quoting.
I would disagree that several reasons have been posted - several theories certainly have, such as ssm "diluting" heterosexual marriage - but no evidence offered to prove it. Kind of frustrating, as we've been asking for that evidence for nigh on a month now.
The discussion of polygamy is not perfectly reasonable, as no one on the yes side is advancing this proposal, nor has any intention of proposing it. The link between the two has been proposed by No posters as a scare tactic. Should you find any evidence of anyone on the yes side doing so, please post it. As for "seemingly any discussion of anything is verboten" free speech warriors, please read below
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[i would suggest that comparing law abiding homosexual citizens of this country with paedophiles and the practices of incest and bestiality falls under the section I have highlighted. Just because this referendum has heightened emotions doesn't give anyone on the Yes or No side the right to fling filth at the other - in a civilised society such hate speech would be verboten. I wouldn;t let my 3 year old son throw insults at another child - it is not unreasonable to expect the same standard from people who can type.
Finally, the church's strong opposition to this referendum makes them key players in this debate. Unfortunately their past and ongoing behaviour leaves them open to charges of hypocrisy in this, but it doesn't particularly exercise me. I think the church, given their position, were duty bound to oppose this referendum. The interesting question will be how far or how little their stated position has diverged from their flock.
Quote from: J70 on May 18, 2015, 05:52:41 PM
Quote from: Rudi on May 18, 2015, 02:54:06 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 18, 2015, 02:11:54 PM
Quote
The rest of your post is just pathetic drivel that doesn't warrant a decent response.
I was originally on the yes side, however on social media sites I was pissed off with comments like the above. Play the ball and not the man. I don't agree with your opinion its shite and your a t@at. Its a discussion forum for f'ck sake. The first part of your post was fine, you should have left it at that.
You're voting "No" because some idiots on social media sites hurt your feelings?
How old are you? Six?
"I'm taking my ball and I'm going home!"
Vote "Yes" or "No" because you think it is the right thing to do, not because you're having a hissy fit!
Play the ball not the man, don't be patronising.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 18, 2015, 05:59:34 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 18, 2015, 02:22:51 PM
I find it ironic that the main argument against the referendum is a Church organised mantra, based on the straw man 'Think of The Children' rhetoric.
Aside from the referendum having nothing to do with children and not changing the status of children or their families in any way, I find the hypocrisy of the Church staggering, even for them. They still refuse to release all information regarding clerical child abuse and they are the same organisation that prioritized itself, over food for starving children during the famine, because it was food from Protestants. 'Think of the Children' goes out the window very quickly when it suits.
How is that for whataboutery, the famine 170 years ago!! That's a strong argument.
Quote from: muppetOther than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree.
Several reasons have been posted, which you have carefully ignored.
Quote from: TubbermanBringing paedophiles and men marrying dogs into a discussion on same-sex marriage can hardly be taken seriously.
Fair enough. But discussion of polygamy seems perfectly reasonable if we are discussing the character of marriage, certainly more relevant that recipe of Coca-Cola, but seemingly any discussion of anything is verboten.
Quote from: J70
Vote "Yes" or "No" because you think it is the right thing to do, not because you're having a hissy fit!
This advice could also be applied to those who seem to seek to have point to prove about what the Church did 170 years ago, or whatever other chips on their shoulder they have.
The only other argument suggested was the change to the institution of marriage. Which is at best abstract and at worst, more nonsense. It will not change anything for those of us already married nor for all of those who will get married regardless of this referendum. It will change nothing for children of those marriages.
The only thing that will change is the Constitutional protection that will be afforded same-sex marriage. It is already civilly protected and thus all the arguments regarding children and institutions are all completely irrelevant.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 18, 2015, 06:18:14 PM
The discussion of polygamy is not perfectly reasonable
According to you.
It's just as valid as the referendum that's been called and should have been included since we're promoting equality for all.
or does equality not mean equality for those calling for it? just when it suits eh?
This is what we are voting on:
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"
Voting "yes" does not redefine Marriage only redefines who can marry
Voting "yes" does not change the adoption process, the process is not concerned with gender or sexual orientation.
Voting "yes" does not affect surrogacy - there is no right of access to surrogacy.
No child will be negatively affected because of the passing of the Marriage Equality Referendum. In fact, some children will benefit because finally their parents will be able to marry. Lesbian and gay people have been successfully parenting in Ireland for many years. Saying yes to this referendum will not change this but will offer stronger protection to those families.
The referendum is not about adoption or parenting or other rights and protections for children – these are clearly important issues and ones that people care about deeply. However, these issues have been dealt with separately in the Children and Family Relationships Act. The referendum simply asks whether any two people, regardless of their gender, can marry in a civil ceremony.
The idea of family has greatly changed over the years. Who am I to say what is, or isn't a valid family? Families come in all shapes and sizes, let's recognise them all as equal. Redefining marriage does not redefine family. It provides legal recognition to same-sex couples who are already families, with or without children.
A lot of the No campaign is based on the belief that children should have both a mother and a father. This referendum does not affect whether a child will have a mother and father present in their lives. Saying No does not provide them with both.
There are many single parents out there doing a great job. There are many children without both parents in their lives. The most important thing for a child is to have good role models, preferably of both genders, but that's not essential. These role models need to be present in the child's life. They do not need to be related to exert a good influence. The child of a same-sex couple should be entitled to have two legally recognised parents of any gender. A No vote deprives them of this.
The referendum will make no difference to the ability of a same-sex couple to have a child or adopt together. It will impact the legal status of their family. We should take away the uncertainty faced by those families and give their children the right to have a family that is recognised as their next of kin. This is one of the reasons why leading children's charities are supporting a Yes vote.
Marriage is not about procreation, heterosexual man and women may not be able to have children, heterosexuals who are older in there 60/70's can get married and they can get married multiple times yet a no vote denies a homosexual the right to marriage.
Progression of Marriage:
1981 - Husbands own all the property
1993 - legal martial rape
2015 - ???
ISPCC, Childrens Right alliance & Barnardos all support a yes vote.
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on May 18, 2015, 07:56:33 PM
ISPCC, Childrens Right alliance & Barnardos all support a yes vote.
Charity organisations should really remain impartial. They'll lose support for choosing sides.
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on May 18, 2015, 07:56:33 PM
The idea of family has greatly changed over the years. Who am I to say what is, or isn't a valid family? Families come in all shapes and sizes, let's recognise them all as equal. Redefining marriage does not redefine family.
Again highlights why polygamy should have been included in this referendum.
.......polygamy should or shouldn't be in the the referendum is another discussion.
What is in this referendum is:
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on May 18, 2015, 08:11:51 PM
.......polygamy should or shouldn't be in the the referendum is another discussion.
What is in this referendum is:
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"
Who dictates the context of the referendum? Why shouldn't polygamy be on the ticket?
It's just as valid a lifestyle choice.
Quote from: foxcommander on May 18, 2015, 07:49:06 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 18, 2015, 06:18:14 PM
The discussion of polygamy is not perfectly reasonable
According to you.
It's just as valid as the referendum that's been called and should have been included since we're promoting equality for all.
or does equality not mean equality for those calling for it? just when it suits eh?
No fox, I'm promoting the passing of this referendum, which is concerned with the issue of same sex marriage. I support that for a number of reasons, one of which is equality for monogamous, committed couples who are homosexuals. i would not support equality for polygamists, firstly because there is no call for it, and secondly most societies who have a history of polygamy have eventually moved towards the monogamous couple model, which is usually considered to be the most stable social unit (though in my own personal view, i don't believe that couples need a marriage license to prove their stability - but neither should homosexuals be prohibited from obtaining that license).
Quotedoes equality not mean equality for those calling for it? just when it suits eh?
Again, there is no one calling for it Fox, I wouldn't support it personally as explained above, just as you do not have to support gay marriage should you not wish to. But I will call foul when you conflate the two issues as they are completely different - you might as well as accuse me of not supporting equality for people who wish to wear tinfoil caps on their heads and talk only in Esperanto all day. There may well be an abstract reason for permitting it (equality for all!!) but i don't believe it adds anything beneficial to our society, any more then I believe there is a constituency of polygamists out there suffering discrimination.
Whereas I believe this referendum will have positive benefits for our society, making it more inclusive and welcoming for our gay citizens (who are a sizeable minority and are, in the main, asking us to do this). I believe more marriage between committed monogamous couples can only strengthen the institution of civil marriage.
So to sum up, no to tinfoil caps and polygamy and yes to same sex marriage.
Quote from: foxcommander on May 18, 2015, 08:16:38 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on May 18, 2015, 08:11:51 PM
.......polygamy should or shouldn't be in the the referendum is another discussion.
What is in this referendum is:
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"
Who dictates the context of the referendum? Why shouldn't polygamy be on the ticket?
It's just as valid a lifestyle choice.
The Constitutional Convention decided on the referendum, a panel of ordinary citizens tasked with reforming the constitution by considering and proposing numerous changes.
https://www.constitution.ie/Convention.aspx
You're welcome.
Quote from: muppet on May 18, 2015, 07:22:26 PM
The only other argument suggested was the change to the institution of marriage. Which is at best abstract and at worst, more nonsense. It will not change anything for those of us already married nor for all of those who will get married regardless of this referendum. It will change nothing for children of those marriages.
It has been suggested that there may be legal question on the validity of marriages concluded after Friday until legislation is passed. I'm not a lawyer, so cannot comment of the likelihood of this particular problem but it is clear that there will be legal chaos resulting from this.
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on May 18, 2015, 07:56:33 PM
This is what we are voting on:
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"
Voting "yes" does not redefine Marriage only redefines who can marry
Bollix. It means that marriage is now one of two things, heterosexual marriage or homosexual marriage, a profound redefinition.
QuoteVoting "yes" does not change the adoption process, the process is not concerned with gender or sexual orientation.
This is true in the short term. What is less clear is how adoption policy will evolve against the background of this change.
QuoteVoting "yes" does not affect surrogacy - there is no right of access to surrogacy.
#
I'll bet you €100 that when surrogacy legislation is proposed that this part of the constitution will be invoked.
QuoteNo child will be negatively affected because of the passing of the Marriage Equality Referendum. In fact, some children will benefit because finally their parents will be able to marry. Lesbian and gay people have been successfully parenting in Ireland for many years. Saying yes to this referendum will not change this but will offer stronger protection to those families.
The vast majority of children with married heterosexual parents will not be in family whose structure is weakened. There may be some other people who benefit, but I cannot see who they are.
Quote
The referendum is not about adoption or parenting or other rights and protections for children – these are clearly important issues and ones that people care about deeply. However, these issues have been dealt with separately in the Children and Family Relationships Act. The referendum simply asks whether any two people, regardless of their gender, can marry in a civil ceremony.
If you believe that there is no connection between marriage and children then there is no talking to you, as you obviously have an ability to completely disregard both the structure of society and its best interests.
QuoteThe idea of family has greatly changed over the years. Who am I to say what is, or isn't a valid family? Families come in all shapes and sizes, let's recognise them all as equal. Redefining marriage does not redefine family. It provides legal recognition to same-sex couples who are already families, with or without children.
So you believe that everything is equal? Where do you stand on polygamy, are you happy to say that polygamous families are not proper familes?
QuoteA lot of the No campaign is based on the belief that children should have both a mother and a father. This referendum does not affect whether a child will have a mother and father present in their lives. Saying No does not provide them with both.
It certainly affects marriage and the prospect of people getting married or staying married and their children will pay the price for your actions.
QuoteThere are many single parents out there doing a great job. There are many children without both parents in their lives. The most important thing for a child is to have good role models, preferably of both genders, but that's not essential. These role models need to be present in the child's life. They do not need to be related to exert a good influence.
It isn't denying the work of single parents to say that two good parents of different genders are better than one. Why dilute the institution of marriage that provides this?
QuoteThe child of a same-couple should be entitled to have two legally recognised parents of any gender. A No vote deprives them of this.
A same sex couple cannot have a child. If they adopt one the law already provides them legal status.
QuoteThe referendum will make no difference to the ability of a same-sex couple to have a child or adopt together. It will impact the legal status of their family. We should take away the uncertainty faced by those families and give their children the right to have a family that is recognised as their next of kin. This is one of the reasons why leading children's charities are supporting a Yes vote
.
As said above, charities should not have got involved, will you be donating extra to make up for the donations lost by their support for the dilution of marriage? Probably not. And children are always the next of kin of their parents or their relationship is specified by adoption law.
QuoteMarriage is not about procreation, heterosexual man and women may not be able to have children, heterosexuals who are older in there 60/70's can get married and they can get married multiple times yet a no vote denies a homosexual the right to marriage.
If you believe that marriage is not about procreation, despite all the evidence to the contrary, then there is little point in talking to you.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 18, 2015, 08:23:42 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 18, 2015, 07:22:26 PM
The only other argument suggested was the change to the institution of marriage. Which is at best abstract and at worst, more nonsense. It will not change anything for those of us already married nor for all of those who will get married regardless of this referendum. It will change nothing for children of those marriages.
It has been suggested that there may be legal question on the validity of marriages concluded after Friday until legislation is passed. I'm not a lawyer, so cannot comment of the likelihood of this particular problem but it is clear that there will be legal chaos resulting from this.
'It has been suggested that there may be....' = 'it is clear that there will be legal chaos'
;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: muppet on May 18, 2015, 08:29:57 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 18, 2015, 08:23:42 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 18, 2015, 07:22:26 PM
The only other argument suggested was the change to the institution of marriage. Which is at best abstract and at worst, more nonsense. It will not change anything for those of us already married nor for all of those who will get married regardless of this referendum. It will change nothing for children of those marriages.
It has been suggested that there may be legal question on the validity of marriages concluded after Friday until legislation is passed. I'm not a lawyer, so cannot comment of the likelihood of this particular problem but it is clear that there will be legal chaos resulting from this.
'It has been suggested that there may be....' = 'it is clear that there will be legal chaos'
;D ;D ;D ;D
There will be legal chaos, there are dozens of pieces of legislation referring to husbands, wives and the like and some of these will prove problematic. The suggestion about the particular problem with the weddings after Friday I am not sure about, what do you think?
in order:
there will only be Marriage, narrow minded people will like to make a distinction to feel superior.
adoption will evolve regardless of this vote so this point is completely moot. the process is not concerned with gender or sexual orientation.
As there is no Surrogacy laws i think you are right. it won't be framed by voting yes or no.
Children who are part of a Civil partnership who will now have the same protections as those of a Marriage.
irrelevant point, if that is put forward in a referendum i will look at all the relevant info.
where did i say there is no connection between marriage and children. but society has functioned since single mother and children outside marriage came along.
How?? "it certainly affects marriage and the prospect of people getting married or staying married and their children will pay the price for your actions. "
how is it diluted?? if single parents are ok why not homosexual couples?
No it provides the adoptive parent legal rights but not the other parent.
Unbelievable and typical of the no vote ... if you dont get what you want you dont support charities that help children exactly, you are one sad b**tard. the mind boggles....
how can marriage be only about procreation when you can procreate without it and you can get married without procreation through choice or by not being medically able to have children or being at a stage in your life where having a child is not possible. what evidence to the contrary?
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on May 18, 2015, 08:50:41 PM
in order:
there will only be Marriage, narrow minded people will like to make a distinction to feel superior.
People with an interest in the country where they live will make a distinction.
Quote
Children who are part of a Civil partnership who will now have the same protections as those of a Marriage.
True. That will be because of the adoption act.
Quotewhere did i say there is no connection between marriage and children. but society has functioned since single mother and children outside marriage came along.
Which is better?
Quote
how is it diluted?? if single parents are ok why not homosexual couples?
I didn't day these weren't OK, I said two marred persons in general were better.
QuoteNo it provides the adoptive parent legal rights but not the other parent.
Have you actually read the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, or are you just winging it? '
QuoteUnbelievable and typical of the no vote ... if you dont get what you want you dont support charities that help children exactly, you are one sad b**tard. the mind boggles....
Abuse, about what you can expect. Why do you imply that my parents were not married?
Quotehow can marriage be only about procreation when you can procreate without it and you can get married without procreation through choice or by not being medically able to have children or being at a stage in your life where having a child is not possible. what evidence to the contrary?
Not every married person has children, but it provides a desirable basis for a children to live with both its parents and any responsible society would not dilute it.
QuoteQuote
Unbelievable and typical of the no vote ... if you dont get what you want you dont support charities that help children exactly, you are one sad b**tard. the mind boggles....
Abuse, about what you can expect. Why do you imply that my parents were not married?
Quote
how can marriage be only about procreation when you can procreate without it and you can get married without procreation through choice or by not being medically able to have children or being at a stage in your life where having a child is not possible. what evidence to the contrary?
Not every married person has children, but it provides a desirable basis for a children to live with both its parents and any responsible society would not dilute it.
let focus on these two for a moment - Abuse - you suggest that children's charities would suffer financially by doing their jobs and giving advise on what they feel is best for children. that is basically saying it is better for children to suffer then vote yes. If that is your opinion you are a sad bastard. i am not sure where i implied your parents are not married?
agreed it does provide a desirable basis for children, where there is loving caring parents and this is the key, a homosexual couple can provide that love and care, as can a single parents.
Quote from: foxcommander on May 18, 2015, 07:49:06 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 18, 2015, 06:18:14 PM
The discussion of polygamy is not perfectly reasonable
According to you.
It's just as valid as the referendum that's been called and should have been included since we're promoting equality for all.
or does equality not mean equality for those calling for it? just when it suits eh?
We had the polygamy discussion a lot earlier in this thread. Firstly, no one is calling for it. There's no demand for it. If there ever is, it can be debated on its own merits. Secondly, this referendum is about equality - as no one can currently marry two people, there is equality in that regard already.
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on May 18, 2015, 09:32:11 PM
QuoteQuote
Unbelievable and typical of the no vote ... if you dont get what you want you dont support charities that help children exactly, you are one sad b**tard. the mind boggles....
Abuse, about what you can expect. Why do you imply that my parents were not married?
Quote
how can marriage be only about procreation when you can procreate without it and you can get married without procreation through choice or by not being medically able to have children or being at a stage in your life where having a child is not possible. what evidence to the contrary?
Not every married person has children, but it provides a desirable basis for a children to live with both its parents and any responsible society would not dilute it.
let focus on these two for a moment - Abuse - you suggest that children's charities would suffer financially by doing their jobs and giving advise on what they feel is best for children. that is basically saying it is better for children to suffer then vote yes. If that is your opinion you are a sad b**tard. i am not sure where i implied your parents are not married?
agreed it does provide a desirable basis for children, where there is loving caring parents and this is the key, a homosexual couple can provide that love and care, as can a single parents.
You implied it by calling him a b**tard
Quote from: armaghniac on May 18, 2015, 08:23:42 PM
QuoteThe referendum will make no difference to the ability of a same-sex couple to have a child or adopt together. It will impact the legal status of their family. We should take away the uncertainty faced by those families and give their children the right to have a family that is recognised as their next of kin. This is one of the reasons why leading children's charities are supporting a Yes vote
As said above, charities should not have got involved, will you be donating extra to make up for the donations lost by their support for the dilution of marriage? Probably not.
Are you suggesting that all of these No voters who care so much about the children are going to stop donating to children's charities? :o
Ah the literal meeting of the word, not my intention. A poor choice of word.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 18, 2015, 09:52:26 PM
QuoteWe had the polygamy discussion a lot earlier in this thread. Firstly, no one is calling for it. There's no demand for it. If there ever is, it can be debated on its own merits. Secondly, this referendum is about equality - as no one can currently marry two people, there is equality in that regard already.
Surely those who want to marry two or more people should be equal with those who are content with marrying one and those who marry none? It is all about love, surely? Are you prejudiced against these people, is that because of the church?
You miss the distinction between 'equality' and being able to do whatever you want.
Either way, i'm prejudiced against no one. And you can't accuse people of denying something if it hasn't been asked for.
As i've said, if there's a demand for it, let's hear the argument on its own merits.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 18, 2015, 10:32:31 PM
You miss the distinction between 'equality' and being able to do whatever you want.
No, I think I am clear on that distinction.
QuoteAnd you can't accuse people of denying something if it hasn't been asked for.
As i've said, if there's a demand for it, let's hear the argument on its own merits.
Who said it hasn't been asked for? Or perhaps people will wait in the hope that marriage will already be diluted on Friday. If three people want it then are you going to ignore them because they are a minority? And as for the argument, why it is love, do you oppose love? The idea of family has greatly changed over the years. Who are we to say what is, or isn't a valid family? Families come in all shapes and sizes, let's recognise them all as equal, three men, four woman and whatever you are having yourself. Why are you not enthusiastically embracing progress? Do you want to to halt our evolution as a society?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 18, 2015, 10:50:42 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 18, 2015, 10:32:31 PM
You miss the distinction between 'equality' and being able to do whatever you want.
No, I think I am clear on that distinction.
On the basis of your quote below, i'm not convinced.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 18, 2015, 10:50:42 PM
QuoteAnd you can't accuse people of denying something if it hasn't been asked for.
As i've said, if there's a demand for it, let's hear the argument on its own merits.
Who said it hasn't been asked for? Or perhaps people will wait in the hope that marriage will already be diluted on Friday. If three people want it then are you going to ignore them because they are a minority? And as for the argument, why it is love, do you oppose love? The idea of family has greatly changed over the years. Who are we to say what is, or isn't a valid family? Families come in all shapes and sizes, let's recognise them all as equal, three men, four woman and whatever you are having yourself. Why are you not enthusiastically embracing progress? Do you want to to halt our evolution as a society?
Has it? I haven't heard the call. Anyway, let's debate polygamy on another thread, if you wish. Getting into it here (again) is nothing but an attempt to distract from the issue at hand.
Will this make 200 pages though?
Same sex marriage - not in the constitution - the country goes to vote on it
Privatising water - not in constitution - the country doesn't get to vote on it
a little selective. The illusion of choice.
Quote from: foxcommander on May 19, 2015, 05:51:30 AM
Same sex marriage - not in the constitution - the country goes to vote on it
Privatising water - not in constitution - the country doesn't get to vote on it
a little selective. The illusion of choice.
On same sex marriage, the courts ruled that the marriage as per the constitution (yes, marriage
is in the constitution!) meant marriage between a man and a woman, therefore there is a need to clarify the constitutional definition before legislating (otherwise the legislation would most likely be ruled unconstitutional).
There's nothing about water in the constitution.
It's really that simple.
Just to be absolutely clear on this, the new Marriage Bill will ensure there are no issues with other existing lesgislation:
In all, the new legislation would result in changes to at least 11 other laws - such as army pensions, family law and other matters - by changing references to "husbands and wives" to "spouses".
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/religious-solemnisers-will-not-be-obliged-to-perform-same-sex-marriage-1.2133530
So anyone worried about armaghniac's predictions of "legal chaos" can rest easy. ::)
They must be all lying and just out of jail. . .
http://www.joe.ie/life-style/video-adult-children-from-same-sex-marriages-explain-why-they-want-a-yes-vote/496478?utm_content=buffer7ecb2&utm_medium=Social+organic&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer
Quote from: screenexile on May 19, 2015, 11:57:20 AM
It was sarcasm armaghniac at the fact that Tony and certain others think children brought up by same sex parents grow up to be criminals or somehow can't function in the normal world!
Just came across this on Twitter. . . any wonder the Yes campaign go a bit overboard sometimes when things like this appear!!
http://linkis.com/www.lifesitenews.com/ugfJ2
Imagine, they ignored the obvious 'Mayor is a Nutter' headline and went for the spectacular discriminatory one.
Quote from: Rudi on May 18, 2015, 06:36:08 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 18, 2015, 05:52:41 PM
Quote from: Rudi on May 18, 2015, 02:54:06 PM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 18, 2015, 02:11:54 PM
Quote
The rest of your post is just pathetic drivel that doesn't warrant a decent response.
I was originally on the yes side, however on social media sites I was pissed off with comments like the above. Play the ball and not the man. I don't agree with your opinion its shite and your a t@at. Its a discussion forum for f'ck sake. The first part of your post was fine, you should have left it at that.
You're voting "No" because some idiots on social media sites hurt your feelings?
How old are you? Six?
"I'm taking my ball and I'm going home!"
Vote "Yes" or "No" because you think it is the right thing to do, not because you're having a hissy fit!
Play the ball not the man, don't be patronising.
Patronising or not, playing the ball is my point.
You claimed to have changed your mind, NOT on account of the merits of the various arguments, but on account of the tone and and attitude of people commenting on this stuff online.
That sounds like an ad hominem argument to me.
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2015, 11:58:19 AM
The Yes campaign had nothing to do with deciding on there being a referendum.
Yeah right, it isn't as if they hadn't an American funded plan for this all along.
Pull the other one.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 04:33:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2015, 11:58:19 AM
The Yes campaign had nothing to do with deciding on there being a referendum.
Yeah right, it isn't as if they hadn't an American funded plan for this all along.
Pull the other one.
Ah I see.
It is an American conspiracy to make us all gay.
Any other conspiracies we should be on the look out for? Is Dick Cheney secretly behind water charges?
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2015, 04:38:46 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 04:33:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2015, 11:58:19 AM
The Yes campaign had nothing to do with deciding on there being a referendum.
Yeah right, it isn't as if they hadn't an American funded plan for this all along.
Pull the other one.
Ah I see.
It is an American conspiracy to make us all gay.
Any other conspiracies we should be on the look our for? Is Dick Cheney secretly behind water charges?
Wouldn't put it past him.
https://twitter.com/UnaMullally/status/600687521132113924
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFYSHikWYAA-HQ3.jpg)
Hope that ****** doesn't describe itself as a "Christian".
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 19, 2015, 04:39:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2015, 04:38:46 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 04:33:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2015, 11:58:19 AM
The Yes campaign had nothing to do with deciding on there being a referendum.
Yeah right, it isn't as if they hadn't an American funded plan for this all along.
Pull the other one.
Ah I see.
It is an American conspiracy to make us all gay.
Any other conspiracies we should be on the look our for? Is Dick Cheney secretly behind water charges?
Wouldn't put it past him.
Then surely the protests are in the wrong part of the world.
Although, it should be mentioned that the water charges were part of the IMF/Troika agreement.
Quote from: screenexile on May 19, 2015, 05:13:00 PM
https://twitter.com/UnaMullally/status/600687521132113924
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFYSHikWYAA-HQ3.jpg)
That can't be real!
Yeah, it's hard to believe someone could be so ignorant and hateful. It also pretty much does the hat trick - homophobia, racism and misogyny.
It is almost too hateful...but thankfully never having had hate mail, I've never experienced the depths people can go to.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 19, 2015, 05:48:59 PM
Yeah, it's hard to believe someone could be so ignorant and hateful. It also pretty much does the hat trick - homophobia, racism and misogyny.
It is almost too hateful...but thankfully never having had hate mail, I've never experienced the depths people can go to.
The first paragraph is almost believable.
The second makes it look like a ploy to make the "Yes" side look ridiculous. Its completely over the top!
I know, but you don't want to go to Alex jones, black flag operation on it. It is just baffling that anyone could write that. But one thing the human race is good at is disappointing expectations. I hope Una Mullaly knows that the vast majority of No voters could never support such filth, and that she has the respect of all Yes voters for her bravery in putting her head above the parapet at such a difficult personal time.
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2015, 04:38:46 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 04:33:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2015, 11:58:19 AM
The Yes campaign had nothing to do with deciding on there being a referendum.
Yeah right, it isn't as if they hadn't an American funded plan for this all along.
Pull the other one.
Ah I see.
It is an American conspiracy to make us all gay.
Are you denying this? Perhaps this answers the questions yesterday as to why children's charities were taking sides here.
At the heart of this Referendum story, amply described in documents available on the website of Atlantic Philanthropies, is a massive and sustained intrusion in Irish political and social life with almost unlimited funds, much of it driving an LGBT agenda.
Their beneficiaries and agents in Ireland, such as GLEN, Marriage Equality, ICCL, IHREC, National Lesbian & Gay Federation, and many others, have received €735 million to fund Irish projects over 13 years, of which €25 million has been devoted to agencies directly promoting political and social change in the area of LBGT interests. If you wonder why so many agencies publically support the Yes campaign, check out the Atlantic database of grant aid to Ireland. This is political, moral and financial "prostitution" on a gigantic and unprecedented scale.
Like the European money that in the old days persuaded Ireland to do virtually anything to get more of it, the politicians have pledged themselves to Yes Side voting without understanding what they are supporting and how it is funded.
Atlantic Philanthropies have bought this Referendum and what they have done renders all previous corruptions of our Referendum processes mere trifles on the way to this one.
Source?
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 19, 2015, 06:25:27 PM
Source?
Who cares what the source is, if it is wrong then you'll be able to to the Atlantic Philanthropies website and show that it is wrong.
Bribing charities to support it is a sneaky one, but par for the course.
Quoteheir beneficiaries and agents in Ireland, such as GLEN, Marriage Equality, ICCL, IHREC, National Lesbian & Gay Federation, and many others, have received €735 million to fund Irish projects over 13 years, of which €25 million has been devoted to agencies directly promoting political and social change in the area of LBGT interests.
So is the piece saying that LGBT organisations in Ireland have received 735 million over 13 years? Or is it that LGBT organisations worldwide have received 735 million of which 25 million went to LGBT activist groups in Ireland over 13 years?
Very badly phrased, amazingly.
I care what the source is, I tend to like to know who or what i am reading, I'm just crazy like that. Source please.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 19, 2015, 06:38:25 PM
Quoteheir beneficiaries and agents in Ireland, such as GLEN, Marriage Equality, ICCL, IHREC, National Lesbian & Gay Federation, and many others, have received €735 million to fund Irish projects over 13 years, of which €25 million has been devoted to agencies directly promoting political and social change in the area of LBGT interests.
So is the piece saying that LGBT organisations in Ireland have received 735 million over 13 years? Or is it that LGBT organisations worldwide have received 735 million of which 25 million went to LGBT activist groups in Ireland over 13 years?
Very badly phrased, amazingly.
I care what the source is, I tend to like to know who or what i am reading, I'm just crazy like that. Source please.
A quick google search will show it came from here: http://www.brucearnold.ie/files/second-letter.html (http://www.brucearnold.ie/files/second-letter.html) or at least the text is in there.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 19, 2015, 06:38:25 PM
Quoteheir beneficiaries and agents in Ireland, such as GLEN, Marriage Equality, ICCL, IHREC, National Lesbian & Gay Federation, and many others, have received €735 million to fund Irish projects over 13 years, of which €25 million has been devoted to agencies directly promoting political and social change in the area of LBGT interests.
So is the piece saying that LGBT organisations in Ireland have received 735 million over 13 years? Or is it that LGBT organisations worldwide have received 735 million of which 25 million went to LGBT activist groups in Ireland over 13 years?
Very badly phrased, amazingly.
I care what the source is, I tend to like to know who or what i am reading, I'm just crazy like that. Source please.
All of this money was in Ireland, 25 million went to straight (or perhaps bent) pressure groups. Other funds in Ireland went to either to groups with a partial LBGT agenda or to people like Barnardos who probably did good work but who have now been recruited into the campaign when they should have concentrated on their job.
I first saw this in an article by Bruce Arnold in the newspaper, the text is taken from his website (but Google would have told you that)
http://www.brucearnold.ie/files/second-letter.html
Perhaps Bruce is beholden to the Catholic Church?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 06:57:27 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 19, 2015, 06:38:25 PM
Quoteheir beneficiaries and agents in Ireland, such as GLEN, Marriage Equality, ICCL, IHREC, National Lesbian & Gay Federation, and many others, have received €735 million to fund Irish projects over 13 years, of which €25 million has been devoted to agencies directly promoting political and social change in the area of LBGT interests.
So is the piece saying that LGBT organisations in Ireland have received 735 million over 13 years? Or is it that LGBT organisations worldwide have received 735 million of which 25 million went to LGBT activist groups in Ireland over 13 years?
Very badly phrased, amazingly.
I care what the source is, I tend to like to know who or what i am reading, I'm just crazy like that. Source please.
All of this money was in Ireland, 25 million went to straight (or perhaps bent) pressure groups. Other funds in Ireland went to either to groups with a partial LBGT agenda or to people like Barnardos who probably did good work but who have now been recruited into the campaign when they should have concentrated on their job.
I first saw this in an article by Bruce Arnold in the newspaper, the text is taken from his website (but Google would have told you that)
http://www.brucearnold.ie/files/second-letter.html
Perhaps Bruce is beholden to the Catholic Church?
If research had actually shown that same sex parenting was a risk to children, would you have been annoyed if the likes of Barnardos had highlighted this?
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 19, 2015, 07:02:18 PM
If research had actually shown that same sex parenting was a risk to children, would you have been annoyed if the likes of Barnardos had highlighted this?
No. Would you?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 07:08:16 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 19, 2015, 07:02:18 PM
If research had actually shown that same sex parenting was a risk to children, would you have been annoyed if the likes of Barnardos had highlighted this?
No. Would you?
No. But i'm not annoyed now. So that's being consistent.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 19, 2015, 07:11:04 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 07:08:16 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 19, 2015, 07:02:18 PM
If research had actually shown that same sex parenting was a risk to children, would you have been annoyed if the likes of Barnardos had highlighted this?
No. Would you?
No. But i'm not annoyed now. So that's being consistent.
But there is an ability to misuse research on this matter. Now risk to children is a bit strong, it is only necessary for opposite sex parents to offer better outcomes. For instance, last week's RTÉ programme gave the impression that there was no difference, yet the data they presented showed that there was
(http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=349124&stc=1&d=1431895092)
Quote from: The Iceman on May 19, 2015, 06:51:33 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 19, 2015, 06:38:25 PM
Quoteheir beneficiaries and agents in Ireland, such as GLEN, Marriage Equality, ICCL, IHREC, National Lesbian & Gay Federation, and many others, have received €735 million to fund Irish projects over 13 years, of which €25 million has been devoted to agencies directly promoting political and social change in the area of LBGT interests.
So is the piece saying that LGBT organisations in Ireland have received 735 million over 13 years? Or is it that LGBT organisations worldwide have received 735 million of which 25 million went to LGBT activist groups in Ireland over 13 years?
Very badly phrased, amazingly.
I care what the source is, I tend to like to know who or what i am reading, I'm just crazy like that. Source please.
A quick google search will show it came from here: http://www.brucearnold.ie/files/second-letter.html (http://www.brucearnold.ie/files/second-letter.html) or at least the text is in there.
Thanks for that, it was obviously too much for Armaghniac to provide the source.
Here is more on Atlantic Philanthropies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Philanthropies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Philanthropies)
Sadly we are going to have to close all of our charities and our Universities now because people who support Gays donated money to them. Imagine charities and Universities accepting donations. You wouldn't see the Church involved in such a low act.
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2015, 07:22:48 PM
Thanks for that, it was obviously too much for Armaghniac to provide the source.
I did provide the source.
Quote
Sadly we are going to have to close all of our charities and our Universities now because people who support Gays donated money to them. Imagine charities and Universities accepting donations. You wouldn't see the Church involved in such a low act.
Donating to charities and universities is fine, trying to manipulate democracy is most definitely not.
So are you going to concede that it is an American conspiracy?
QuoteStill no examples, not even one!
Examples of what? Are you guys unable to work Google so that you cannot find things for yourselves or do you just hide from data?
Here's an example
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/head-to-head-a-daughter-of-a-lesbian-mother-argues-against-same-sex-marriage-1.2186608
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 07:38:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2015, 07:22:48 PM
Thanks for that, it was obviously too much for Armaghniac to provide the source.
I did provide the source.
Quote
Sadly we are going to have to close all of our charities and our Universities now because people who support Gays donated money to them. Imagine charities and Universities accepting donations. You wouldn't see the Church involved in such a low act.
Donating to charities and universities is fine, trying to manipulate democracy is most definitely not.
So are you going to concede that it is an American conspiracy?
QuoteStill no examples, not even one!
Examples of what? Are you guys unable to work Google so that you cannot find things for yourselves or do you just hide from data?
Here's an example
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/head-to-head-a-daughter-of-a-lesbian-mother-argues-against-same-sex-marriage-1.2186608
Chuck Feeney has been a controversial philanthropist for yonks in Ireland. This is hardly a smoking gun.
And there is still no 'evidence' of anything. You called it 'an American Conspiracy'. How about explaining that, even just a bit?
It just gets worse and worse. The conspiracy plans to give money towards Peace in Northern Ireland, fund a National Dementia strategy in Ireland and fund a budget & policy think-tank in Washington.
http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2014/8/20/a-closer-look-at-atlantics-end-gameand-where-its-putting-the.html (http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2014/8/20/a-closer-look-at-atlantics-end-gameand-where-its-putting-the.html)
Back in April, Atlantic blasted out a tantalizing message from Oechsli saying that big things were coming—that the foundation would make "fewer and bigger" bets as it wound down. But he wouldn't say on what.
"Stay tuned," Oechsli wrote. "The symphony is building and there are key movements to come."
A few weeks ago, the picture became clearer when the foundation announced that it was making three mega grants: one to foster peace and human rights in Northern Ireland, another to help fund a national dementia strategy in Ireland, and a third to expand the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the Washington-based liberal think tank. (See my take on the CBPP grant.)
The only thing is though, they are rather transparent for a conspiracy.
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2015, 08:28:04 PM
It just gets worse and worse. The conspiracy plans to give money towards Peace in Northern Ireland, fund a National Dementia strategy in Ireland and fund a budget & policy think-tank in Washington.
Perhaps they think people with dementia would vote for this.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 09:17:57 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 19, 2015, 08:28:04 PM
It just gets worse and worse. The conspiracy plans to give money towards Peace in Northern Ireland, fund a National Dementia strategy in Ireland and fund a budget & policy think-tank in Washington.
Perhaps they think people with dementia would vote for this.
You might qualify for two out of three!
Now its time for a song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hWWe-ts2s&spfreload=10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hWWe-ts2s&spfreload=10)
The corrupt funding does explain a lot
https://yesfundingexposed.wordpress.com/
Zappone on the Prime Time didn't exactly help the cause when she explained that "progress" had to made and if that needs money from America then fine.
So, going by the phrasing of the article 4% of the Atlantic funding each year went to LGBT groups?
And how much of that 4% each year was expressly devoted to bringing about a same sex marriage referendum?
You do realise that LGBT groups would not need pressure groups to agitate for equality (in all its forms, not just marriage equality) if they did not face discrimination every day?
And of course that the No campaign is backed by the Catholic Church and its various different pressure groups? (Who, to say the least are not short of a bob or two)
And that the other 96% of funding is not even mentioned or or the causes it backed named?
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 19, 2015, 11:39:26 PM
And how much of that 4% each year was expressly devoted to bringing about a same sex marriage referendum?
How much went to people supporting marriage?
QuoteYou do realise that LGBT groups would not need pressure groups to agitate for equality (in all its forms, not just marriage equality) if they did not face discrimination every day?
As was pointed out on the TV tonight, you have the head of Amnesty International, the Minister for Health bleating about how they are discriminated against, despite having high positions and on the day when a former President came out batting for them. Play the other violin.
QuoteAnd that the other 96% of funding is not even mentioned or or the causes it backed named?
Why should it be? That would be a bit like saying the Varadkar is a good Minister and so that justifies gay marriage.
Or the fact that Mr Arnold does not mention that any philanthropic fund which espouses social justice will naturally donate money to LGBT groups, not just here but in other places, where they face far, far worse discrimination?
Or even the fact that Catholic groups and other socially conservative groups donate to causes which they feel are important across the world - as they did in the the abortion and divorce referendums in Ireland, and as they are currently doing now in this referendum?
The last person I heard trying to make a smoking gun into a mushroom cloud, was a Mr D. Rumsfeld.
The worst thing about some of the elements of the No campaign is that they set the rules and then complain when other people abide by them.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 19, 2015, 11:48:41 PM
Or the fact that Mr Arnold does not mention that any philanthropic fund which espouses social justice will naturally donate money to LGBT groups, not just here but in other places, where they face far, far worse discrimination?
They are manipulating our democracy. Stop defending it.
I have a small violin - and it is playing not for the majority of people who are voting No, who are genuinely conflicted by it, and find that after their agonising, they can only follow the course their conscience sets for them.
No, my violin plays for those who try and mask their motives - who pull out the right wing play book and scream foul at being called homophobes whilst making bad jokes about "bent" pressure groups (the mask is never firm upon the face), who talk about democracy whilst decrying the Constitutional Convention where this referendum originated, who take floods of money from the church and other socially conservative groups, relying on that infrastructure to get their message across, but whining when LGBT groups get themselves organised and funded. People who only mourn the loss of democracy when the will of the people is against them. Who rage against left wing conspiracies when all the facts are against them. And who look at this issue, not as one affecting genuine and good people of whatever sexuality, but as another battleground in their domino theory of rolling back secular humanism.
This issue will be decided on Friday, and to those who vote their conscience Yes or No, all I can say is congratulations. This has been a spectacular exercise in democracy, no matter the result, and as a people, we don't give ourselves enough credit for engaging in it.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 11:55:32 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 19, 2015, 11:48:41 PM
Or the fact that Mr Arnold does not mention that any philanthropic fund which espouses social justice will naturally donate money to LGBT groups, not just here but in other places, where they face far, far worse discrimination?
They are manipulating our democracy. Stop defending it.
How?
For once, one single time on this thread, can you attempt to back up what you have said and show precisely how democracy has been 'manipulated'.
The hosting of a referendum was decided by the Constitutional Convention. If you are alleging that they have been bought then come out and say it.
Chuck Feeney has been sending money to Ireland since 1982. If he has been doing it to manipulate us all into allowing gay marriage, via a referendum, then he has been fairly patient, hasn't he?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 11:46:14 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 19, 2015, 11:39:26 PM
And how much of that 4% each year was expressly devoted to bringing about a same sex marriage referendum?
How much went to people supporting marriage?
QuoteYou do realise that LGBT groups would not need pressure groups to agitate for equality (in all its forms, not just marriage equality) if they did not face discrimination every day?
As was pointed out on the TV tonight, you have the head of Amnesty International, the Minister for Health bleating about how they are discriminated against, despite having high positions and on the day when a former President came out batting for them. Play the other violin.
QuoteAnd that the other 96% of funding is not even mentioned or or the causes it backed named?
Why should it be? That would be a bit like saying the Varadkar is a good Minister and so that justifies gay marriage.
Wow.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 20, 2015, 12:09:35 AM
This issue will be decided on Friday, and to those who vote their conscience Yes or No, all I can say is congratulations. This has been a spectacular exercise in democracy, no matter the result, and as a people, we don't give ourselves enough credit for engaging in it.
This has been an exercise in democracy convened by venal politicians against a background of deliberate misinformation, a malign conscious attempt to debase a serious subject and stifle debate and demonise the opposition. An exercise where charities are bribed to support one side, where the media don't even pretend to be unbiased in many cases and where many of the participants don't even accept any need for them to be unbiased.
Quote from: easytiger95Wow.
Are you Mary "reorganise the country to suit my family" McAleese?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 20, 2015, 12:23:15 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 20, 2015, 12:09:35 AM
This issue will be decided on Friday, and to those who vote their conscience Yes or No, all I can say is congratulations. This has been a spectacular exercise in democracy, no matter the result, and as a people, we don't give ourselves enough credit for engaging in it.
This has been an exercise in democracy convened by venal politicians against a background of deliberate misinformation, a malign conscious attempt to debase a serious subject and stifle debate and demonise the opposition. An exercise where charities are bribed to support one side, where the media don't even pretend to be unbiased in many cases and where many of the participants don't even accept any need for them to be unbiased.
Quote from: easytiger95Wow.
Are you Mary reorganise the country to suit my family McAleese?
Wow.
Even if I wanted to, I wouldn't have to try too hard to demonise you Armaghniac. Is there anyone else you'd like to accuse of reorganising the country to suit their own motives?
Go on, make another "bent" joke, just for the craic.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 20, 2015, 12:23:15 AM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 20, 2015, 12:09:35 AM
This issue will be decided on Friday, and to those who vote their conscience Yes or No, all I can say is congratulations. This has been a spectacular exercise in democracy, no matter the result, and as a people, we don't give ourselves enough credit for engaging in it.
This has been an exercise in democracy convened by venal politicians against a background of deliberate misinformation, a malign conscious attempt to debase a serious subject and stifle debate and demonise the opposition. An exercise where charities are bribed to support one side, where the media don't even pretend to be unbiased in many cases and where many of the participants don't even accept any need for them to be unbiased.
Quote from: easytiger95Wow.
Are you Mary reorganise the country to suit my family McAleese?
But enough about the No campaign.
Who funds The Iona Institute?
Y'know, the mouthpiece of the Catholic Church in Ireland, which incidentally I believe has
charity status (https://www.change.org/p/irish-government-revoke-the-tax-exempt-charity-status-of-the-iona-institute?recruiter=70106228). It spent time 10 years ago bashing the Centre for Public Inquiry, for whatever reason. That of course was another Chuck Feeney vehicle, but back then, it was investigating the State. Now, Armaghniac is claiming that Feeney & co are conspiring with the state.
At least Atlantic Philanthropies comes clean about what it funds.
Now again, who is funding The Iona Institute?
But how dare I impugn your motives (when you're too busy impugning everyone elses)?
Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 12:30:38 AM
But enough about the No campaign.
Who funds The Iona Institute?
Y'know, the mouthpiece of the Catholic Church in Ireland, which incidentally I believe has charity status (https://www.change.org/p/irish-government-revoke-the-tax-exempt-charity-status-of-the-iona-institute?recruiter=70106228).
The Catholic Church has 84% of the population, I'm sure it can raise enough money without getting Americans to fund it.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 19, 2015, 06:57:27 PMOther funds in Ireland went to either to groups with a partial LBGT agenda or to people like Barnardos who probably did good work but who have now been recruited into the campaign when they should have concentrated on their job.
Don't forget who the CEO of Barnardo's is - one Fergus Finlay with a salary of 100k+ p.a.
Who's doing the government's bidding for them. They stick their agents into all these charity boards as payoffs to supplement incomes.
charity my hole. Won't ever give them a red cent again.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 20, 2015, 12:39:36 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 12:30:38 AM
But enough about the No campaign.
Who funds The Iona Institute?
Y'know, the mouthpiece of the Catholic Church in Ireland, which incidentally I believe has charity status (https://www.change.org/p/irish-government-revoke-the-tax-exempt-charity-status-of-the-iona-institute?recruiter=70106228).
The Catholic Church has 84% of the population, I'm sure it can raise enough money without getting Americans to fund it.
We don't know do we.
All of the groups you criticised registered with the Standards in Public Office (SIPO), but The Iona Institute has refused to. Why is that? No campaigners are trumpeting about transparently provided sources of funding, yet are silent on the source of funds for one of the most vocal NO campaigners, if not the most vocal considering their leader has a regular column in a daily newspaper.
Will the 24 hour moratorium apply tomorrow to Gaaboard??
Quote from: Rossfan on May 20, 2015, 11:01:29 AM
Will the 24 hour moratorium apply tomorrow to Gaaboard??
Literally about the post that!
Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 10:54:07 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 20, 2015, 12:39:36 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 12:30:38 AM
But enough about the No campaign.
Who funds The Iona Institute?
Y'know, the mouthpiece of the Catholic Church in Ireland, which incidentally I believe has charity status (https://www.change.org/p/irish-government-revoke-the-tax-exempt-charity-status-of-the-iona-institute?recruiter=70106228).
The Catholic Church has 84% of the population, I'm sure it can raise enough money without getting Americans to fund it.
We don't know do we.
All of the groups you criticised registered with the Standards in Public Office (SIPO), but The Iona Institute has refused to. Why is that? No campaigners are trumpeting about transparently provided sources of funding, yet are silent on the source of funds for one of the most vocal NO campaigners, if not the most vocal considering their leader has a regular column in a daily newspaper.
IONA, Legatus, Opus Dei, numerous US conservative Christian organisations and the billionaire founder of Domino's Pizza are all interlinked.
And I have no problem with that. But it's some laugh when the No campaign complain about entirely legitimate fundraising by LGBT lobby groups, given that they are extremely well funded themselves.
IONA has around ten or less members, yet their media reach goes way, way beyond what you would expect from such a tiny organisation.
Ah no - Dominos Pizza?
Would they provide pizzas for a gay wedding?
I have an image of Armaghniac and Tony Fearon mumbling "bent", and then laughing at each other like Beavis and Butthead.
That's about the limit of their argument.
Any of you boys on here going to be getting married this year if the Yes vote wins?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 03:30:26 PM
Any of you boys on here going to be getting married this year if the Yes vote wins?
And there it is.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 03:30:26 PM
Any of you boys on here going to be getting married this year if the Yes vote wins?
That in a nutshell, sums up your mentality.
That and repeatedly asking what will happen a kid with gay parents when they pick them up at school. The answer is f*ck all that hasn't happened in Ireland in the past to kids of single parents, jailed parents, traveller parents, black parents, foreign parents etc, only we are probably far more tolerant than we used to be.
I've come to the conclusion that several of the posters on this thread are agents provocateurs for the other side.
Quote from: deiseach on May 20, 2015, 03:42:12 PM
I've come to the conclusion that several of the posters on this thread are agents provocateurs for the other side.
Any excuse to post the best ad ever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgX8gOV4x6w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgX8gOV4x6w)
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 20, 2015, 03:43:44 PM
Quote from: deiseach on May 20, 2015, 03:42:12 PM
I've come to the conclusion that several of the posters on this thread are agents provocateurs for the other side.
Any excuse to post the best ad ever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgX8gOV4x6w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgX8gOV4x6w)
;D ;D ;D ;D
That was unexpected!
The answer is definitely YES now.
The answer is definitely Yes. What was the question again?
Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 03:33:03 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 03:30:26 PM
Any of you boys on here going to be getting married this year if the Yes vote wins?
That in a nutshell, sums up your mentality.
That and repeatedly asking what will happen a kid with gay parents when they pick them up at school. The answer is f*ck all that hasn't happened in Ireland in the past to kids of single parents, jailed parents, traveller parents, black parents, foreign parents etc, only we are probably far more tolerant than we used to be.
Why do you think it is wrong for the gays on this board to avail of marriage in the light of a yes vote?
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 20, 2015, 03:31:14 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 03:30:26 PM
Any of you boys on here going to be getting married this year if the Yes vote wins?
And there it is.
Do you think they won't, after all the arguments for a yes vote?
I'm sure a lot of gay people will get married, fair play to them. But it's the tone of your comment, as if people supporting the referendum couldn't possibly be straight people who want this to be made available to gay people.
It was a small bit sneery in my view.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 03:30:26 PM
Any of you boys on here going to be getting married this year if the Yes vote wins?
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 20, 2015, 04:17:31 PM
I'm sure a lot of gay people will get married, fair play to them. But it's the tone of your comment, as if people supporting the referendum couldn't possibly be straight people who want this to be made available to gay people.
It was a small bit sneery in my view.
Excuse me, we have established on this board that homosexuality is the most normal of traits and with 1 in 3 being gay I was only asking the gay individuals on here would they be availing of marriage this year in the event of a yes vote, if you are overly paranoid, that is your issue.
Why?
You are, and I'm allowed to think you're asking because you are trying to sneer.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 20, 2015, 04:30:41 PM
You are, and I'm allowed to think you're asking because you are trying to sneer.
You obviously has insecurity issues that need to be addressed, any how maybe one of the lads can let us know if they have a big day planned and hopefully all goes well with the vote.
There's gay lads on the board? :o
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 20, 2015, 04:44:24 PM
There's gay lads on the board? :o
That emoticon could be construed to be offensive Gabriel_Hurl or even sneering, the gay lads here are as much a part of the board community as you and I, hopefully they enjoy their big day out come the weekend.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 04:33:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 20, 2015, 04:30:41 PM
You are, and I'm allowed to think you're asking because you are trying to sneer.
You obviously has insecurity issues that need to be addressed, any how maybe one of the lads can let us know if they have a big day planned and hopefully all goes well with the vote.
:D :D :D :D :D :D
Oh the irony.
This is what you asked:
QuoteAny of you boys on here going to be getting married this year if the Yes vote wins?
You didn't ask if any of the gay guys on here were getting married, you asked everyone. AZ was being very generous suggesting it was sneering. It was a schoolyard insult which had all the impact of a Prince Charles keynote speech.
Deiseach thinks you are actually a YES campaigner. He has a point. That's how convincing you have been.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 04:33:44 PM
You obviously has insecurity issues that need to be addressed,
I'd say insecurity issues are merely the tip of the iceberg in your case, mate.
I hope to get married this year. September 19th.
Can't have a same-sex marriage debate without putting this song up,
https://youtu.be/hlVBg7_08n0
maybe it has already been on.
Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 05:11:58 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 04:33:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 20, 2015, 04:30:41 PM
You are, and I'm allowed to think you're asking because you are trying to sneer.
You obviously has insecurity issues that need to be addressed, any how maybe one of the lads can let us know if they have a big day planned and hopefully all goes well with the vote.
:D :D :D :D :D :D
Oh the irony.
This is what you asked:
QuoteAny of you boys on here going to be getting married this year if the Yes vote wins?
You didn't ask if any of the gay guys on here were getting married, you asked everyone. AZ was being very generous suggesting it was sneering. It was a schoolyard insult which had all the impact of a Prince Charles keynote speech.
Deiseach thinks you are actually a YES campaigner. He has a point. That's how convincing you have been.
Where was the insult, unless you think it would be insulting for someone to suggest you were gay - and you talk to me about irony?
Quote from: Sidney on May 20, 2015, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 04:33:44 PM
You obviously has insecurity issues that need to be addressed,
I'd say insecurity issues are merely the tip of the iceberg in your case, mate.
Sorry I'll refrain from debating with you, it takes about 6 posts for you to understand anything, you go back to doing whomever it is you do
up the jacksie. I believe was your terminology.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 08:03:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 05:11:58 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 04:33:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 20, 2015, 04:30:41 PM
You are, and I'm allowed to think you're asking because you are trying to sneer.
You obviously has insecurity issues that need to be addressed, any how maybe one of the lads can let us know if they have a big day planned and hopefully all goes well with the vote.
:D :D :D :D :D :D
Oh the irony.
This is what you asked:
QuoteAny of you boys on here going to be getting married this year if the Yes vote wins?
You didn't ask if any of the gay guys on here were getting married, you asked everyone. AZ was being very generous suggesting it was sneering. It was a schoolyard insult which had all the impact of a Prince Charles keynote speech.
Deiseach thinks you are actually a YES campaigner. He has a point. That's how convincing you have been.
Where was the insult, unless you think it would be insulting for someone to suggest you were gay - and you talk to me about irony?
It was intended as a homophobic insult and the fact that most people here don't give a sh*t about your issues, and won't react to them, doesn't change that.
Every bloody YouTube link I open and there's Keith Mills telling me to vote No. I haven't seen one ad for Yes over the course of this campaign but IONA, Mothers and Fathers Matter and every branch of the No campaign have been all over it.
Where is the funding for all this coming from?
Breda O'Brien doesn't know, that's for sure, and sure she's only a key member of IONA.
So, where's the moolah coming from?
Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 08:18:32 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 08:03:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 05:11:58 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 04:33:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 20, 2015, 04:30:41 PM
You are, and I'm allowed to think you're asking because you are trying to sneer.
You obviously has insecurity issues that need to be addressed, any how maybe one of the lads can let us know if they have a big day planned and hopefully all goes well with the vote.
:D :D :D :D :D :D
Oh the irony.
This is what you asked:
QuoteAny of you boys on here going to be getting married this year if the Yes vote wins?
You didn't ask if any of the gay guys on here were getting married, you asked everyone. AZ was being very generous suggesting it was sneering. It was a schoolyard insult which had all the impact of a Prince Charles keynote speech.
Deiseach thinks you are actually a YES campaigner. He has a point. That's how convincing you have been.
Where was the insult, unless you think it would be insulting for someone to suggest you were gay - and you talk to me about irony?
It was intended as a homophobic insult and the fact that most people here don't give a sh*t about your issues, and won't react to them, doesn't change that.
That is your perception, again you are going out of your way to be offended.
Enda Kenny telling us which way to vote....helps me make up my mind for sure..
Spotted this in The Phoenix
(http://www.thephoenix.ie/phoenix/subscriber/library/volume-33/issue-10/cartoon.jpg)
Quote from: foxcommander on May 20, 2015, 10:40:22 PM
Enda Kenny telling us which way to vote....helps me make up my mind for sure..
But he's saying the same thing as Gerry.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 10:47:18 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on May 20, 2015, 10:40:22 PM
Enda Kenny telling us which way to vote....helps me make up my mind for sure..
But he's saying the same thing as Gerry.
What's your point?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 09:17:18 PM
That is your perception, again you are going out of your way to be offended.
Oh I am not offended.
When someone throws out a schoolboy insult, it doesn't offend me. but I still recognise it for what it is.
You can shout that all those on this board voting YES are Gay all you want. It will bother no one. But will still be seen for exactly what it was.
Quote from: foxcommander on May 20, 2015, 10:53:06 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 10:47:18 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on May 20, 2015, 10:40:22 PM
Enda Kenny telling us which way to vote....helps me make up my mind for sure..
But he's saying the same thing as Gerry.
What's your point?
My point is that deciding on how you'll vote based on anything other than the merits of the proposal seems a bit silly.
You might understand now Maguire why I have that eejit on my ignore list.
Enda was good this evening on the News.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 11:26:52 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on May 20, 2015, 10:53:06 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 10:47:18 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on May 20, 2015, 10:40:22 PM
Enda Kenny telling us which way to vote....helps me make up my mind for sure..
But he's saying the same thing as Gerry.
What's your point?
My point is that deciding on how you'll vote based on anything other than the merits of the proposal seems a bit silly.
Go on, explain what the comment about Gerry (Adams I presume) meant.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 20, 2015, 11:50:54 PM
You might understand now Maguire why I have that eejit on my ignore list.
Enda was good this evening on the News.
And yet you still comment about me :-*
Quote from: foxcommander on May 21, 2015, 04:54:37 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 11:26:52 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on May 20, 2015, 10:53:06 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 10:47:18 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on May 20, 2015, 10:40:22 PM
Enda Kenny telling us which way to vote....helps me make up my mind for sure..
But he's saying the same thing as Gerry.
What's your point?
My point is that deciding on how you'll vote based on anything other than the merits of the proposal seems a bit silly.
Go on, explain what the comment about Gerry (Adams I presume) meant.
Is it that cryptic?
Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 11:07:06 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 09:17:18 PM
That is your perception, again you are going out of your way to be offended.
Oh I am not offended.
When someone throws out a schoolboy insult, it doesn't offend me. but I still recognise it for what it is.
You can shout that all those on this board voting YES are Gay all you want. It will bother no one. But will still be seen for exactly what it was.
You will show evidence of where I said this or you apologise and shut up.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 21, 2015, 09:47:25 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 11:07:06 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 09:17:18 PM
That is your perception, again you are going out of your way to be offended.
Oh I am not offended.
When someone throws out a schoolboy insult, it doesn't offend me. but I still recognise it for what it is.
You can shout that all those on this board voting YES are Gay all you want. It will bother no one. But will still be seen for exactly what it was.
You will show evidence of where I said this or you apologise and shut up.
More schoolyard nonsense.
Maybe......
That ignore function is great.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 21, 2015, 07:14:41 AM
Quote from: foxcommander on May 21, 2015, 04:54:37 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 11:26:52 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on May 20, 2015, 10:53:06 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 20, 2015, 10:47:18 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on May 20, 2015, 10:40:22 PM
Enda Kenny telling us which way to vote....helps me make up my mind for sure..
But he's saying the same thing as Gerry.
What's your point?
My point is that deciding on how you'll vote based on anything other than the merits of the proposal seems a bit silly.
Go on, explain what the comment about Gerry (Adams I presume) meant.
Is it that cryptic?
If I say yes will you elaborate? I'd just like you to explain why you'd write such a thing.
maybe once they are allowed to get married and do so - they might see the error of their ways and regret ever campaigning for it !! :D
only joking...marriage is great!!
Based on the GaaBoard Poll, we're looking at:
Yes 73%
No 20%
Don't know 7%
Excluding Don't Knows:
Yes 78%
No 22%
Exluding those without a vote:
Yes 65%
No 26%
Don't know 9%
Excluding those without a vote and the Don't Knows
Yes 71%
No 29%
Excluding those without a vote and assuming the Don't Knows are all "shy Tories"
Yes 65%
No 35%
Bookies have the over/under at 59.5 and I reckon the under is a nap. Think Yes will win but it will be tight.
It seems to me that the vast majority of people will fall in between the two camps, and I think a significant number who would vote yes if it came down to it, won't bother to vote because they don't care enough about it. The conservative camp is still probably bigger than the gay camp too. Although much less craic I'd say.
Quote from: muppet on May 21, 2015, 11:55:07 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 21, 2015, 09:47:25 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 20, 2015, 11:07:06 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 09:17:18 PM
That is your perception, again you are going out of your way to be offended.
Oh I am not offended.
When someone throws out a schoolboy insult, it doesn't offend me. but I still recognise it for what it is.
You can shout that all those on this board voting YES are Gay all you want. It will bother no one. But will still be seen for exactly what it was.
You will show evidence of where I said this or you apologise and shut up.
More schoolyard nonsense.
Maybe......
So where is your evidence, oh that's right just make ridiculous statements and don't back them up, the YES camp is lucky to have you with them - please don't reply to me again unless you are posting evidence or apologising,
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 21, 2015, 12:51:07 PM
Bookies have the over/under at 59.5 and I reckon the under is a nap. Think Yes will win but it will be tight.
How much did you put on it Seanie??!! Its into 56.5 :(
Quote from: haranguerer on May 21, 2015, 01:14:45 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 21, 2015, 12:51:07 PM
Bookies have the over/under at 59.5 and I reckon the under is a nap. Think Yes will win but it will be tight.
How much did you put on it Seanie??!! Its into 56.5 :(
Is it? I checked with a guy yesterday and he said it was 59.5. Crap - meant to do it last night. No money on.
Couple of guys I know went big on it when it was out at 60.5 and took a shot at an overall no at big enough odds. They're in guaranteed win territory now I think.
As in, over / under 56.5% for a Yes vote??
For me, that'd be a banker for over - I'd expect it to come in at between 60 & 65.
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 21, 2015, 01:20:50 PM
As in, over / under 56.5% for a Yes vote??
For me, that'd be a banker for over - I'd expect it to come in at between 60 & 65.
Would you give me and Seanie 62.5? ;)
Quote from: haranguerer on May 21, 2015, 01:28:03 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 21, 2015, 01:20:50 PM
As in, over / under 56.5% for a Yes vote??
For me, that'd be a banker for over - I'd expect it to come in at between 60 & 65.
Would you give me and Seanie 62.5? ;)
If the odds are right, I might
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 21, 2015, 01:17:56 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 21, 2015, 01:14:45 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 21, 2015, 12:51:07 PM
Bookies have the over/under at 59.5 and I reckon the under is a nap. Think Yes will win but it will be tight.
How much did you put on it Seanie??!! Its into 56.5 :(
Is it? I checked with a guy yesterday and he said it was 59.5. Crap - meant to do it last night. No money on.
Couple of guys I know went big on it when it was out at 60.5 and took a shot at an overall no at big enough odds. They're in guaranteed win territory now I think.
Aye, on PP anyway. Its a little bizarre, I had checked during the week and the No was at 3/1, and going by yourself, the %age was 59.5. Now the %age is 56.5, but the No odds have increased to 5/1.
So they think it will be tighter than they had previously thought, but have become more confident of a yes vote. Seems a little contradictory.
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 21, 2015, 01:31:11 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 21, 2015, 01:28:03 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 21, 2015, 01:20:50 PM
As in, over / under 56.5% for a Yes vote??
For me, that'd be a banker for over - I'd expect it to come in at between 60 & 65.
Would you give me and Seanie 62.5? ;)
If the odds are right, I might
Its an over/under - evens either way...
Quote from: haranguerer on May 21, 2015, 01:03:47 PM
It seems to me that the vast majority of people will fall in between the two camps, and I think a significant number who would vote yes if it came down to it, won't bother to vote because they don't care enough about it. The conservative camp is still probably bigger than the gay camp too. Although much less craic I'd say.
I'd agree with this.
Quote from: haranguerer on May 21, 2015, 01:35:23 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 21, 2015, 01:31:11 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 21, 2015, 01:28:03 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 21, 2015, 01:20:50 PM
As in, over / under 56.5% for a Yes vote??
For me, that'd be a banker for over - I'd expect it to come in at between 60 & 65.
Would you give me and Seanie 62.5? ;)
If the odds are right, I might
Its an over/under - evens either way...
62.5 would surely fall under the "Alt spread" category??!!
Alt spread? I think I'm out of my depth...
Quote from: haranguerer on May 21, 2015, 01:43:24 PM
Alt spread? I think I'm out of my depth...
Just hand over the money and if you have any winnings, I'll post them out to you :)
Quote from: topcuppla on May 21, 2015, 01:05:25 PM
So where is your evidence, oh that's right just make ridiculous statements and don't back them up, the YES camp is lucky to have you with them - please don't reply to me again unless you are posting evidence or apologising,
Here is what you said:
QuoteQuote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 03:30:26 PM
Any of you boys on here going to be getting married this year if the Yes vote wins?
This is you backing it up:
QuoteQuote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 04:10:17 PM
Why do you think it is wrong for the gays on this board to avail of marriage in the light of a yes vote?
Here you are linking being gay to voting YES:
QuoteQuote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 04:12:22 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 20, 2015, 03:31:14 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 20, 2015, 03:30:26 PM
Any of you boys on here going to be getting married this year if the Yes vote wins?
And there it is.
Do you think they won't, after all the arguments for a yes vote?
And here is more of it which puts your above comments in context:
QuoteQuote from: topcuppla on May 15, 2015, 08:01:13 AM
Most of this board probably on looking for a man.
And this earlier post sums it up:
QuoteQuote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
Can a man split his vote tomorrow? I'd like to Vote Yes for Lesbians but No for Males. Is this an option does anyone know. ;)
Quote from: muppet on May 21, 2015, 01:47:54 PM
Here you are linking being gay to voting YES:
Muppet suits you - so will gays vote NO?
Quote from: Bingo on May 21, 2015, 02:19:13 PM
Can a man split his vote tomorrow? I'd like to Vote Yes for Lesbians but No for Males. Is this an option does anyone know. ;)
Again is that not homophobic, it is ok for the yes side to make cheap jokes about male gays but people with genuine concerns about two men being allowed to adopt a child is berated on this hypocrisy board.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 21, 2015, 02:30:35 PM
Quote from: Bingo on May 21, 2015, 02:19:13 PM
Can a man split his vote tomorrow? I'd like to Vote Yes for Lesbians but No for Males. Is this an option does anyone know. ;)
Again is that not homophobic, it is ok for the yes side to make cheap jokes about male gays but people with genuine concerns about two men being allowed to adopt a child is berated on this hypocrisy board.
I'd not on the yes side, if you read my post I'm in both camps, Yes and No. Does that make me Bi?
Off-topic, but what are you going to do with your account after the referedum topcuppla??
71% of your posts have been in this thread and only 2.5% in the GAA section
Folks, Bruce Arnold is agin it. Has to be the clincher.
Quote from: Bingo on May 21, 2015, 02:19:13 PM
Can a man split his vote tomorrow? I'd like to Vote Yes for Lesbians but No for Males. Is this an option does anyone know. ;)
Only they are of the fantasy variety :P
Quote from: topcuppla on May 21, 2015, 02:26:55 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 21, 2015, 01:47:54 PM
Here you are linking being gay to voting YES:
Muppet suits you - so will gays vote NO?
Of course, some will vote no.
But you linked arguing for a yes vote to being gay. You also said "Most of this board probably on looking for a man" because most here appear to be voting Yes and you cannot comprehend straight people voting YES.
I hope that when you wake up on Saturday, you will find that over 60% of your neighbours are gay. :D
http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/05/21/will-gay-people-eat-my-children-other-referendum-questions-answered/ (http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/05/21/will-gay-people-eat-my-children-other-referendum-questions-answered/)
WITH just one day until polling stations up and down the country open, WWN has reached out to prominent experts to help answer some of your most pressing questions about the marriage equality referendum.
Will gay people eat my children?
Gay people like any other class of people are prone to bouts of cannibalism and infanticide, so in essence yes it is true to say they want to and will eat your children.
I heard two men got married in New Zealand just for the laugh even though they're heterosexuals, will that happen here?
That's the problem with heterosexuals if they're not getting gay married in New Zealand for a laugh, they're getting straight married in Las Vegas for a laugh. Unfortunately heterosexuals getting married is legal the world over.
I am still undecided. Is mustering the energy required for me to pick a side really worth it?
Of course not, having the opportunity to positively or negatively affect the society you live is better off left unrealised.
Homicide and 'the Homo Side' sound very similar, should I be worried?
You're are 100% right they do sound similar, well done for spotting that. However, it is just mere coincidence that they sound similar to one another, there is no sinister overtones to this one I'm afraid. Actually now that we think about it a bit more...
I go to mass, is my opinion more important than facts?
Sadly it is not. Facts, beloved by the yes campaign are made out of graphite and reinforced steel whereas the opinion of a church goer is made of mostly soggy grass.
I'm cold.
I'm sorry but that is not a question, rather it is a statement.
Are homosexuals, famed for their aggresive nature, bullying conservative catholics, famed for their unopressive tendencies, into voting yes?
Despite the very real 'homo agresso' stereotype, the homosexual community are using readily available and nearby supplies of logic to supress a small percentage of conservative catholics.
For f**k sake, will someone just tell me definitively, is it about 'the children' or not?
It is not about the children. It is about equality...but then they told us 9/11 wasn't an inside job.
Will 1950s Ireland cry if the referendum passes?
More than likely, yes.
Some of my best friends are gay people who don't deserve the same rights as I do.
Once again, that's not a question, more of a statement. A horrible statement actually.
Sorry, just making sure here now but is it about the children?
Ah for f**k sake.
LMAO at the interview on the radio just now. Some auld fella in the West was asked for his views and he says, "Sure I don't mind the lesbians, but not so the men!!" 😆
Quote from: muppet on May 21, 2015, 04:15:41 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 21, 2015, 02:26:55 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 21, 2015, 01:47:54 PM
Here you are linking being gay to voting YES:
Muppet suits you - so will gays vote NO?
Of course, some will vote no.
But you linked arguing for a yes vote to being gay. You also said "Most of this board probably on looking for a man" because most here appear to be voting Yes and you cannot comprehend straight people voting YES.
I hope that when you wake up on Saturday, you will find that over 60% of your neighbours are gay. :D
No i didn't I would vote yes - trawl back you seem to love doing that.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 21, 2015, 11:56:26 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 21, 2015, 04:15:41 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 21, 2015, 02:26:55 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 21, 2015, 01:47:54 PM
Here you are linking being gay to voting YES:
Muppet suits you - so will gays vote NO?
Of course, some will vote no.
But you linked arguing for a yes vote to being gay. You also said "Most of this board probably on looking for a man" because most here appear to be voting Yes and you cannot comprehend straight people voting YES.
I hope that when you wake up on Saturday, you will find that over 60% of your neighbours are gay. :D
No i didn't I would vote yes - trawl back you seem to love doing that.
I have already proved that. ;D
And it is very funny to see you whinge about me trawling back. You are the one who demanded evidence, so I went and got it. But it is understandable since it shows you up completely.
I will do it again in chronological order:
QuoteMost of this board probably on looking for a man.
Any of you boys on here going to be getting married this year if the Yes vote wins?
Do you think they won't, after all the arguments for a yes vote?
This is the bit where you connect arguing for a yes vote with the previous line, after AZOffaly calls you out.
But then you dive in completely:
Quote
Why do you think it is wrong for the gays on this board to avail of marriage in the light of a yes vote?
Quote from: Sidney on May 20, 2015, 08:50:34 PM
Every bloody YouTube link I open and there's Keith Mills telling me to vote No. I haven't seen one ad for Yes over the course of this campaign but IONA, Mothers and Fathers Matter and every branch of the No campaign have been all over it.
Where is the funding for all this coming from?
Breda O'Brien doesn't know, that's for sure, and sure she's only a key member of IONA.
So, where's the moolah coming from?
This ad is still on youtube now, at 0100 on the day of the referendum.
It is on behalf of keep marriage.org and mothersandfathersmatter.ie and their names appear at the end of the ad.
Who do I complain to?
Alright folks the debate is over..... Vote day is about predicting the result b4 the actual result is announced
So based on the polls, and factoring in demographics, shy nos etc I would say its gonna be:
YES 55 : 45
What yis think?
Maybe a squidge tighter, Joe. I'm saying YES 53:47. A lot of those NOmos will come out of the closet, I'd say.
i think thatbthere will be < 5% points between them, with the Yes team squeeking out a win
What ID do you need to vote? Would a photocopy of a passport be ok? Or is it only drivers licence passport
At first I thought the yes vote would walk it but I'm not so sure similar to the secret Tories in England I think there will be a lot of Secret No's in the Free State, Plus considering voting patterns young people are much more likely to vote yes but much less likely to actually vote. Gonna be a tight one but I think Yes will sneak in, can anyone confirm its a 50% +1 vote setup?
65% Yes, 35% No is my prediction.
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on May 22, 2015, 07:35:38 AM
What ID do you need to vote? Would a photocopy of a passport be ok? Or is it only drivers licence passport
Not sure if a photocopy would do. Drivers licence, passport, college ID would all be accepted I'd say
Very often, just the voting card is enough and they don't look for ID
63-37%
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 22, 2015, 08:10:58 AM
63-37%
Think it will be much closer, older conservative people more likely to be registered and living in their constituency whilst the younger more liberal vote is more likely to be away from home and possibly not registered where they are living requiring additional travel to cast the vote. With the big margins being predicted this can lead to apathy in the Yes voters.
Yes 58% No 42%
Quote from: LeoMc on May 22, 2015, 08:15:13 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 22, 2015, 08:10:58 AM
63-37%
Think it will be much closer, older conservative people more likely to be registered and living in their constituency whilst the younger more liberal vote is more likely to be away from home and possibly not registered where they are living requiring additional travel to cast the vote. With the big margins being predicted this can lead to apathy in the Yes voters.
Hozier is flying home just to vote. Probably not too many able to do that though.
Yes 71 % NO 68 %.....a very surprising close result.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 22, 2015, 08:17:48 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on May 22, 2015, 08:15:13 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 22, 2015, 08:10:58 AM
63-37%
Think it will be much closer, older conservative people more likely to be registered and living in their constituency whilst the younger more liberal vote is more likely to be away from home and possibly not registered where they are living requiring additional travel to cast the vote. With the big margins being predicted this can lead to apathy in the Yes voters.
Hozier is flying home just to vote. Probably not too many able to do that though.
No postal/proxy votes??
52-48 Yes I suspect. As with Lisbon 2 i expect that I'll be on the losing side here.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 22, 2015, 08:17:48 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on May 22, 2015, 08:15:13 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 22, 2015, 08:10:58 AM
63-37%
Think it will be much closer, older conservative people more likely to be registered and living in their constituency whilst the younger more liberal vote is more likely to be away from home and possibly not registered where they are living requiring additional travel to cast the vote. With the big margins being predicted this can lead to apathy in the Yes voters.
Hozier is flying home just to vote. Probably not too many able to do that though.
Supposedly Dublin airport was very busy yesterday with people coming home and you would assume it is to vote. 63% yes for me
Quote from: ballinaman on May 22, 2015, 08:40:06 AM
Yes 71 % NO 68 %.....a very surprising close result.
That would be a very surprising result alright 😀
Quote from: andoireabu on May 22, 2015, 09:19:40 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 22, 2015, 08:17:48 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on May 22, 2015, 08:15:13 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 22, 2015, 08:10:58 AM
63-37%
Think it will be much closer, older conservative people more likely to be registered and living in their constituency whilst the younger more liberal vote is more likely to be away from home and possibly not registered where they are living requiring additional travel to cast the vote. With the big margins being predicted this can lead to apathy in the Yes voters.
Hozier is flying home just to vote. Probably not too many able to do that though.
Supposedly Dublin airport was very busy yesterday with people coming home and you would assume it is to vote. 63% yes for me
Yeah, apparently all Ryanair flights to Dublin today are sold out - not sure how much that means though, it'd probably be @70% anyway on a normal weekend
I think this vote will have a larger than usual turnout for the young vote compared to General or By Elections as this is a very important issue with a very simple outcome rather than some cheatin' bollix getting into the Dail again. Also the radio is talking of a lot of people flying into Ireland yesterday and today with #hometovote trending.
Yes there will be a lot of secret no voters and the "Christians" will be out in force but I still think common sense will prevail in a roughly 70-30 split.
How long do we wait for a result?
I voted on the way in to work and it was quiet in Newport compared to a General Election say. Not sure what that indicates.
Quote from: screenexile on May 22, 2015, 09:38:07 AM
Yes there will be a lot of secret no voters and the "Christians" will be out in force but I still think common sense will prevail in a roughly 70-30 split.
I'm sure there are, but 20+% of the electorate are lying to the opinion polls? Now that really would be a shock to the system. 70-30 sounds about right to me.
If my facebook feed is any indication of national intent (and it's not), then it's Yes by a landslide.
Quote from: Tubberman on May 22, 2015, 10:34:29 AM
If my facebook feed is any indication of national intent (and it's not), then it's Yes by a landslide.
If they were really concerned they would probably have put on free all-day bingo in every town hall and that would have delivered an easy yes vote.
Quote from: muppet on May 22, 2015, 11:45:18 AM
Quote from: Tubberman on May 22, 2015, 10:34:29 AM
If my facebook feed is any indication of national intent (and it's not), then it's Yes by a landslide.
If they were really concerned they would probably have put on free all-day bingo in every town hall and that would have delivered an easy yes vote.
Big party planned for result day tomorrow, but Molly went and ruined it all by not getting through to the final :(
Just voted, very quiet alright. Not many names crossed out on the list.
Obviously most people are at work, but if they don't come out and vote it could really boost the chances of a No vote.
Heard on the News bulletin on the radio that loads of people are expected back to vote. I asked myself - how do they know this? Seemed like a fishy tale to me.
A good friend of mine who has a knack of being close to the mark is calling it 56-44 for a Yes. Another guy I know who was out canvassing for a Yes vote calling it 64-36, reckons the Yes side are very motivated and the vote will come out (sorry for the choice of words). I think 64% Yes would be a spectacular success given that 30-35% of people will vote no to everything!
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 22, 2015, 12:29:33 PM
Heard on the News bulletin on the radio that loads of people are expected back to vote. I asked myself - how do they know this? Seemed like a fishy tale to me.
A good friend of mine who has a knack of being close to the mark is calling it 56-44 for a Yes. Another guy I know who was out canvassing for a Yes vote calling it 64-36, reckons the Yes side are very motivated and the vote will come out (sorry for the choice of words). I think 64% Yes would be a spectacular success given that 30-35% of people will vote no to everything!
I always think there are people who will always vote No and equally others who will always vote Yes regardless of anything. It would be hard to quantify but it must be a factor when planning canvassing (something I have never done and would hate tbh).
Two observations on canvassing and their possible applicability to this referendum based on one morning doing it for a friend:
- People are generally very nice on the doorsteps. Do not assume that because they are listening to you and nodding that they support you. Definitely something the Yes campaign will have had in mind.
- The goal of all election canvassing is putting a face to the name. Person says "well, I would like..." and you go "I'm sure AN Other would be delighted to address your concerns, he/she is just around the corner." Again, this would be a winner for the Yes campaign. I don't have horns on my head and I brush my teeth every morning. Do you really want to deny me the opportunity to get married?
One of the offputting things about the Yes campaign was some of the people they had in public life proposing Yes. The likes of Panti Bliss are not representative of normal gay men. But because of the relatively high proportion of gay men in showbiz, and the flamboyant nature that they project, a lot of people find that annoying, and also think that is how 'the gays' look and behave. A bit more Donal Óg Cusack or Leo Varadker and less of the camp in your face might have helped win hearts and minds of some cautious voters. It will probably end up Yes, but I've said before I think the Yes side turned a potential slam dunk into a nervy situation.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 22, 2015, 01:14:11 PM
One of the offputting things about the Yes campaign was some of the people they had in public life proposing Yes. The likes of Panti Bliss are not representative of normal gay men. But because of the relatively high proportion of gay men in showbiz, and the flamboyant nature that they project, a lot of people find that annoying, and also think that is how 'the gays' look and behave. A bit more Donal Óg Cusack or Leo Varadker and less of the camp in your face might have helped win hearts and minds of some cautious voters. It will probably end up Yes, but I've said before I think the Yes side turned a potential slam dunk into a nervy situation.
I'd have to agree with that.
Turnout seems to be high in a few places anyway . . .
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/twitter-reports-high-turnout-as-voting-begins-678234.html
I think turnout in Dublin will be high. It will be interesting to see down the country. I think a lot of people who might be undecided will just not vote because they can't bring themselves to vote Yes, and don't want to think of themselves as No either.
Bookies odds swinging significantly in favour of a yes. Looks like it will be comfortable, approx. 60-40.
Agree with AZ that Yes side almost lost from a slam dunk position. They were helped by a terrible inept No campaign.
There are a lot of morons in this country that get lots of media attention.
I'm sure I've posted this here before but it's as true now as it was when I first read it 14 years ago:
QuoteGay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years (http://www.theonion.com/article/gay-pride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gay-351)
April 25, 2001
VOL 44 ISSUE 26
WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA–The mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians, a hard-won civil-rights victory gained through decades of struggle against prejudice and discrimination, was set back at least 50 years Saturday in the wake of the annual Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade.
Participants in Saturday's Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade, which helped change straight people's tolerant attitudes toward gays.
"I'd always thought gays were regular people, just like you and me, and that the stereotype of homosexuals as hedonistic, sex-crazed deviants was just a destructive myth," said mother of four Hannah Jarrett, 41, mortified at the sight of 17 tanned and oiled boys cavorting in jock straps to a throbbing techno beat on a float shaped like an enormous phallus. "Boy, oh, boy, was I wrong."
The parade, organized by the Los Angeles Gay And Lesbian And Bisexual And Transvestite And Transgender Alliance (LAGALABATATA), was intended to "promote acceptance, tolerance, and equality for the city's gay community." Just the opposite, however, was accomplished, as the event confirmed the worst fears of thousands of non-gay spectators, cementing in their minds a debauched and distorted image of gay life straight out of the most virulent right-wing hate literature.
Among the parade sights and sounds that did inestimable harm to the gay-rights cause: a group of obese women in leather biker outfits passing out clitoris-shaped lollipops to horrified onlookers; a man in military uniform leading a submissive masochist, clad in diapers and a baby bonnet, around on a dog leash; several Hispanic dancers in rainbow wigs and miniskirts performing "humping" motions on a mannequin dressed as the Pope; and a dozen gyrating drag queens in see-through dresses holding penis-shaped beer bottles that appeared to spurt ejaculation-like foam when shaken and poured onto passersby.
Timothy Orosco, 51, a local Walgreens manager whose store is on the parade route, changed his attitude toward gays as a result of the event.
"They kept chanting things like, 'We're here, we're queer, get used to it!' and 'Hey, hey, we're gay, we're not going to go away!'" Orosco said. "All I can say is, I was used to it, but now, although I'd never felt this way before, I wish they would go away."
Allison Weber, 43, an El Segundo marketing consultant, also had her perceptions and assumptions about gays challenged by the parade.
"My understanding was that gay people are just like everybody else–decent, hard-working people who care about their communities and have loving, committed relationships," Weber said. "But, after this terrifying spectacle, I don't want them teaching my kids or living in my neighborhood."
The parade's influence extended beyond L.A.'s borders, altering the attitudes of straight people across America. Footage of the event was featured on telecasts of The 700 Club as "proof of the sin-steeped world of homosexuality." A photo spread in Monday's USA Today chronicled many of the event's vulgar displays–understood by gays to be tongue-in-cheek "high camp"–which horrified previously tolerant people from coast to coast.
Dr. Henry Thorne, a New York University history professor who has written several books about the gay-rights movement, explained the misunderstanding.
"After centuries of oppression as an 'invisible' segment of society, gays, emboldened by the 1969 Stonewall uprising, took to the streets in the early '70s with an 'in-your-face' attitude. Confronting the worst prejudices of a world that didn't accept them, they fought back against these prejudices with exaggeration and parody, reclaiming their enemies' worst stereotypes about them and turning them into symbols of gay pride," Thorne said. "Thirty years later, gays have won far greater acceptance in the world at large, but they keep doing this stuff anyway."
"Mostly, I think, because it's really fun," Thorne added.
The Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade, Thorne noted, is part of a decades-old gay-rights tradition. But, for mainstream heterosexuals unfamiliar with irony and the reclamation of stereotypes for the purpose of exploding them, the parade resembled an invasion of grotesque outer-space mutants, bent on the destruction of the human race.
"I have a cousin who's a gay, and he seemed like a decent enough guy to me," said Iowa City, IA, resident Russ Linder, in Los Angeles for a weekend sales seminar. "Now, thanks to this parade, I realize what a freak he's been all along. Gays are all sick, immoral perverts."
Parade organizers vowed to make changes in the wake of the negative reaction among heterosexuals.
"I knew it. I said we needed 100 dancers on the 'Show Us Your Ass' float, but everybody insisted that 50 would be enough," said Lady Labia, spokesperson for LAGALABATATA. "Next year, we're really going to give those breeders something to look at."
I was just about to say "surely that's from the onion" :) But sometimes a lot of truth is said in jest.
Quote from: deiseach on May 22, 2015, 02:37:30 PM
I'm sure I've posted this here before but it's as true now as it was when I first read it 14 years ago:
QuoteGay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years (http://www.theonion.com/article/gay-pride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gay-351)
April 25, 2001
VOL 44 ISSUE 26
WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA–The mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians, a hard-won civil-rights victory gained through decades of struggle against prejudice and discrimination, was set back at least 50 years Saturday in the wake of the annual Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade.
Participants in Saturday's Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade, which helped change straight people's tolerant attitudes toward gays.
"I'd always thought gays were regular people, just like you and me, and that the stereotype of homosexuals as hedonistic, sex-crazed deviants was just a destructive myth," said mother of four Hannah Jarrett, 41, mortified at the sight of 17 tanned and oiled boys cavorting in jock straps to a throbbing techno beat on a float shaped like an enormous phallus. "Boy, oh, boy, was I wrong."
The parade, organized by the Los Angeles Gay And Lesbian And Bisexual And Transvestite And Transgender Alliance (LAGALABATATA), was intended to "promote acceptance, tolerance, and equality for the city's gay community." Just the opposite, however, was accomplished, as the event confirmed the worst fears of thousands of non-gay spectators, cementing in their minds a debauched and distorted image of gay life straight out of the most virulent right-wing hate literature.
Among the parade sights and sounds that did inestimable harm to the gay-rights cause: a group of obese women in leather biker outfits passing out clitoris-shaped lollipops to horrified onlookers; a man in military uniform leading a submissive masochist, clad in diapers and a baby bonnet, around on a dog leash; several Hispanic dancers in rainbow wigs and miniskirts performing "humping" motions on a mannequin dressed as the Pope; and a dozen gyrating drag queens in see-through dresses holding penis-shaped beer bottles that appeared to spurt ejaculation-like foam when shaken and poured onto passersby.
Timothy Orosco, 51, a local Walgreens manager whose store is on the parade route, changed his attitude toward gays as a result of the event.
"They kept chanting things like, 'We're here, we're queer, get used to it!' and 'Hey, hey, we're gay, we're not going to go away!'" Orosco said. "All I can say is, I was used to it, but now, although I'd never felt this way before, I wish they would go away."
Allison Weber, 43, an El Segundo marketing consultant, also had her perceptions and assumptions about gays challenged by the parade.
"My understanding was that gay people are just like everybody else–decent, hard-working people who care about their communities and have loving, committed relationships," Weber said. "But, after this terrifying spectacle, I don't want them teaching my kids or living in my neighborhood."
The parade's influence extended beyond L.A.'s borders, altering the attitudes of straight people across America. Footage of the event was featured on telecasts of The 700 Club as "proof of the sin-steeped world of homosexuality." A photo spread in Monday's USA Today chronicled many of the event's vulgar displays–understood by gays to be tongue-in-cheek "high camp"–which horrified previously tolerant people from coast to coast.
Dr. Henry Thorne, a New York University history professor who has written several books about the gay-rights movement, explained the misunderstanding.
"After centuries of oppression as an 'invisible' segment of society, gays, emboldened by the 1969 Stonewall uprising, took to the streets in the early '70s with an 'in-your-face' attitude. Confronting the worst prejudices of a world that didn't accept them, they fought back against these prejudices with exaggeration and parody, reclaiming their enemies' worst stereotypes about them and turning them into symbols of gay pride," Thorne said. "Thirty years later, gays have won far greater acceptance in the world at large, but they keep doing this stuff anyway."
"Mostly, I think, because it's really fun," Thorne added.
The Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade, Thorne noted, is part of a decades-old gay-rights tradition. But, for mainstream heterosexuals unfamiliar with irony and the reclamation of stereotypes for the purpose of exploding them, the parade resembled an invasion of grotesque outer-space mutants, bent on the destruction of the human race.
"I have a cousin who's a gay, and he seemed like a decent enough guy to me," said Iowa City, IA, resident Russ Linder, in Los Angeles for a weekend sales seminar. "Now, thanks to this parade, I realize what a freak he's been all along. Gays are all sick, immoral perverts."
Parade organizers vowed to make changes in the wake of the negative reaction among heterosexuals.
"I knew it. I said we needed 100 dancers on the 'Show Us Your Ass' float, but everybody insisted that 50 would be enough," said Lady Labia, spokesperson for LAGALABATATA. "Next year, we're really going to give those breeders something to look at."
What is? Sorry I'm not getting your point/post
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 22, 2015, 02:50:19 PM
I was just about to say "surely that's from the onion" :) But sometimes a lot of truth is said in jest.
It is.
http://www.theonion.com/article/gay-pride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gay-351
(Just in case anyone was in doubt.)
Quote from: muppet on May 22, 2015, 12:24:56 AM
Most of this board probably on looking for a man.
A tongue in cheek comment on a totally different thread - that's all you have got!
Quote from: muppet on May 22, 2015, 12:24:56 AM
This is the bit where you connect arguing for a yes vote with the previous line, after AZOffaly calls you out.
Don't let facts get in the way now. No harm to AZ but he couldn't call bingo numbers out.
Hardly matters if No wins, a democracy means vote until the establishment gets the vote it requires. Expect another referendum before christmas!
Quote from: topcuppla on May 22, 2015, 07:44:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 22, 2015, 12:24:56 AM
Most of this board probably on looking for a man.
A tongue in cheek comment on a totally different thread - that's all you have got!
Different thread, same homophobia though.
Quote from: muppet on May 22, 2015, 07:49:29 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 22, 2015, 07:44:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 22, 2015, 12:24:56 AM
Most of this board probably on looking for a man.
A tongue in cheek comment on a totally different thread - that's all you have got!
Different thread, same homophobia though.
So now I am homophobic, there are people on here belittling gays and making comments at their expense, but someone who supports gay marriage is homophobic. You must be rubbish at poker as you always will only have 4 cards to play with and one permanent homophobic card ready to pounce.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 22, 2015, 07:54:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 22, 2015, 07:49:29 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 22, 2015, 07:44:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 22, 2015, 12:24:56 AM
Most of this board probably on looking for a man.
A tongue in cheek comment on a totally different thread - that's all you have got!
Different thread, same homophobia though.
So now I am homophobic, there are people on here belittling gays and making comments at their expense, but someone who supports gay marriage is homophobic. You must be rubbish at poker as you always will only have 4 cards to play with and one permanent homophobic card ready to pounce.
This is your post isn't it?
QuoteQuote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 22, 2015, 02:33:07 PM
Bookies odds swinging significantly in favour of a yes. Looks like it will be comfortable, approx. 60-40.
Yeah, 61.5 now
I stand by every word, especially two men adopting a child, whats your point, let them marry, let them have the same rights as the rest, what they do is NOT normal in my opinion, and you would shit a brick if your son brought Barry home as his partner but you would never admit it here, deep down though you know it is true. Am I homophobic - no but I do have opinions, tell this if anyone questions any facet of black culture are they racist? Is no one allowed to have an opinion anymore without being branded by keyboard warriors like yourself who probably types one thing and thinks another, you keep suppressing them thoughts!!
Turnout going to be decent. This is just as well, indeed there is a case for some minimum turnout requirement for constitutional referenda, which might mean they would plan them better. It is clear that the electoral register is in bits, which is hardly news, quite apart from the people living in England flying home there are all sorts of stories of non Irish citizens voting. This wasn't a problem 30 years ago, but if something was close and a lot of people not entitled to vote did so it could become controversial.
Presumably turnout is affected the bookies odds.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 22, 2015, 07:45:50 PM
Hardly matters if No wins, a democracy means vote until the establishment gets the vote it requires. Expect another referendum before christmas!
Nonsense.
Dissolution of Marriage was rejected in 1986 and next run in November 1995.
Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy was rejected in 2002 and hasn't been run since.
Houses of the Oireachtas Inquiries was rejected in 2011 and hasn't been re-run.
Even the Nice and Lisbon polls were re-run over a year apart.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 22, 2015, 08:04:59 PM
I stand by every word, especially two men adopting a child, whats your point, let them marry, let them have the same rights as the rest, what they do is NOT normal in my opinion, and you would shit a brick if your son brought Barry home as his partner but you would never admit it here, deep down though you know it is true. Am I homophobic - no but I do have opinions, tell this if anyone questions any facet of black culture are they racist? Is no one allowed to have an opinion anymore without being branded by keyboard warriors like yourself who probably types one thing and thinks another, you keep suppressing them thoughts!!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: topcuppla on May 22, 2015, 08:04:59 PM
I stand by every word, especially two men adopting a child, whats your point, let them marry, let them have the same rights as the rest, what they do is NOT normal in my opinion, and you would shit a brick if your son brought Barry home as his partner but you would never admit it here, deep down though you know it is true. Am I homophobic - no but I do have opinions, tell this if anyone questions any facet of black culture are they racist? Is no one allowed to have an opinion anymore without being branded by keyboard warriors like yourself who probably types one thing and thinks another, you keep suppressing them thoughts!!
I can honestly say I wouldn't. Attitudes have changed. The biggest fear for most parents of younger generations would not be their children coming out, but how their children would have to deal with the attitudes of those who would make it difficult for them.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 22, 2015, 08:05:43 PM
Turnout going to be decent. This is just as well, indeed there is a case for some minimum turnout requirement for constitutional referenda, which might mean they would plan them better. It is clear that the electoral register is in bits, which is hardly news, quite apart from the people living in England flying home there are all sorts of stories of non Irish citizens voting. This wasn't a problem 30 years ago, but if something was close and a lot of people not entitled to vote did so it could become controversial.
Presumably turnout is affected the bookies odds.
"All sorts of stories" indeed. And who is telling these stories?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 22, 2015, 08:05:43 PM
Turnout going to be decent. This is just as well, indeed there is a case for some minimum turnout requirement for constitutional referenda, which might mean they would plan them better. It is clear that the electoral register is in bits, which is hardly news, quite apart from the people living in England flying home there are all sorts of stories of non Irish citizens voting. This wasn't a problem 30 years ago, but if something was close and a lot of people not entitled to vote did so it could become controversial.
Presumably turnout is affected the bookies odds.
hahahahahahahahahaha ........................ what a complete pile of shite
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 22, 2015, 08:21:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 22, 2015, 08:05:43 PM
Turnout going to be decent. This is just as well, indeed there is a case for some minimum turnout requirement for constitutional referenda, which might mean they would plan them better. It is clear that the electoral register is in bits, which is hardly news, quite apart from the people living in England flying home there are all sorts of stories of non Irish citizens voting. This wasn't a problem 30 years ago, but if something was close and a lot of people not entitled to vote did so it could become controversial.
Presumably turnout is affected the bookies odds.
hahahahahahahahahaha ........................ what a complete pile of shite
So what are you saying, that there are no non Irish people voting? That the register is perfect?
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 22, 2015, 08:43:38 PM
How are people getting their ballots if they aren't registered? ::)
I didn't say they weren't registered.
How are they voting then? ::)
With the wrong organs of course
Here,there? Do we not all dwell in Ireland?
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 22, 2015, 08:54:19 PM
How are they voting then? ::)
With a pencil, I imagine. But some of them Googly people probably have a high tech pen.
Hilarious. I was expecting a smart aleck answer like that.
Maybe you can answer this one in a similar vein.
How are these non Irish citizens getting access to a voting ballot that they aren't entitled to?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 22, 2015, 08:42:37 PM
If it's a Yes vote,will Dublin's Baggott Street be renamed Faggott Street?
Tony way beyond the line there.
Quote from: FermGael on May 22, 2015, 10:25:14 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 22, 2015, 08:42:37 PM
If it's a Yes vote,will Dublin's Baggott Street be renamed Faggott Street?
Tony way beyond the line there.
I know he's an attention seeking troll, but I wonder if he actually thinks such a comment is funny. If so, he's an an even bigger arsehole than I first thought.
And will a Yes vote result in Gay Byrne changing his name by deed poll
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 22, 2015, 10:23:36 PM
Hilarious. I was expecting a smart aleck answer like that.
Maybe you can answer this one in a similar vein.
How are these non Irish citizens getting access to a voting ballot that they aren't entitled to?
Janey Hurl, have you ever had voted! It isn't rocket science.
- some of them are straightforward frauds, they fraudulently registered themselves, the form came in the door and they wrote their name on it when not entitled.
- some of them are wrongly recorded because of simple sloppiness, notably British citizens (of whom there 10s of thousands) who are entitled to vote in Dail elections and where someone forget to record that they were British
- but some are fraudulently registered for this election by others e.g. some zealot in a house registered everyone including the lad that arrived from France, who should be only registered for Euro elections . When the polling card arrives the Frenchman doesn't understand that he is not entitled to vote, especially as the zealot housemate is bringing him down to the polling station and explaining the importance of voting yes.
While a bit of a purge has been done on the NI register, the 26 county one is in bad shape. This referendum will be declared to have 60% turnout, but that's probably 65-70% because 10% of the register are dead, emigrated, duplicates or the like.
Who is Janey?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 22, 2015, 08:42:37 PM
If it's a Yes vote,will Dublin's Baggott Street be renamed Faggott Street?
Will you be wearing the jersey you won on TG4 ?
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 22, 2015, 10:52:37 PM
Who is Janey?
Hilarious. I was expecting a smart aleck answer like that.
I don't get it ???
Looking forward to the result tomorrow, another kick in the nuts for right wing single brain cell people like old Tony. Tony you may join the DUP, they are the only party that reflects your views in the country.
What next Armaghniac? The Governor of Florida talking about hanging chads? The right wing playbook is very predictable. "The Election was stolen!!" Anything to discredit the process. Are you sure you're not Karl Rove?
By the way, with regard to Fearon's incredibly ugly comments, contributors on this board may well be gay, or have gay relatives or friends. If they were black or had black friends or families, a board member would be banned immediately for using the "n" word. It makes no difference the intention, whether he was winding or not Stew - words have real power, to wound and to marginalise.
I'm not asking for him to be banned, but speaking clearly, without any irony or sarcasm, you should be ashamed of yourself Tony, and I seriously question whether I would want to belong to a community (online or not) that tolerates such hatred.
I was driving home from work this evening, going by the Luas stop at Inchicore. There was a group of about 5 or 6 people, early twenties or so, men and women, on the pavement, with rainbow t shirts, balloons, cheering at the cars as if it was Italia 90 all over again. Two things went through my mind. Firstly they looked like they were about to have the best Friday night of their young lives, and if I was younger, I wouldn't have minded being out celebrating with them.
The second thought was that even up to 10 years ago, they would have been taking their life in their own hands by being so open in their support for LGBT issues. This country has changed, unbelievably so in the nearly 40 years that I've been on this planet. And it is not just the younger generation - the older generation have wrestled with this issue and I've seen a lot of them, including my own traditional Catholic parents come to an acceptance and tolerance that makes me so proud of them. And for the others of their age who have not changed their views, their willingness to come to the argument and debate it without the kind of smirking idiocy that Fearon displays, has renewed my faith in democracy, whatever the result.
It was an absolutely beautiful evening, the sun was streaming down over Chapelizod and the Phoenix Park, the clouds tinted red over the tower at Farmleigh. At times, it's a lovely country to live in.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 22, 2015, 11:20:24 PM
What next Armaghniac? The Governor of Florida talking about hanging chads? The right wing playbook is very predictable. "The Election was stolen!!" Anything to discredit the process. Are you sure you're not Karl Rove?
FFS can I not post on anything without someone posting some reference to an American nobody has ever heard of! If I had commented on the weather some of yous would have laid into me. I didn't say that the election was stolen, because I don't think the margin is close. I think it is fair comment to say that the electoral register wasn't in great shape and a mature person would accept the truth of that without the mean spirited comments.
The electoral register is a complete shambles, you need to provide very little to get on it, or at least you did a few years back anyway. It should really be linked to your pps number.
PP odds are now @ 62.5 for the over / under, probably not far wrong.
The polling booths were very busy earlier when I voted, there was a real sense of change in the air
Yes Rossfan! At the Armagh V Donegal game!
Quote from: armaghniac on May 22, 2015, 08:05:43 PM
It is clear that the electoral register is in bits, which is hardly news, quite apart from the people living in England flying home there are all sorts of stories of non Irish citizens voting.
If you don't like the way the result might be going, you need to frame the result in a manner advantageous to your cause. So you need to de -ligitimise it.
First thing to do is to say you've heard stories of non-citizens voting. When someone asks you where the stories came from, what the source is, ignore it. Because the story is now that people are asking questions about stories about voter fraud. It's right wing tactics for junior infants, it is incredibly "mean-spirited", and if you don't know who Karl Rove is, how do you know he is American? Karl? Karl...you there Karl?......
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 22, 2015, 11:44:28 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 22, 2015, 08:05:43 PM
It is clear that the electoral register is in bits, which is hardly news, quite apart from the people living in England flying home there are all sorts of stories of non Irish citizens voting.
If you don't like the way the result might be going, you need to frame the result in a manner advantageous to your cause. So you need to de -ligitimise it.
As I said, I didn't make any claim as to the nature of the result. I merely said that one of these days a result may be close enough that this becomes an issue.
QuoteFirst thing to do is to say you've heard stories of non-citizens voting. When someone asks you where the stories came from, what the source is, ignore it. Because the story is now that people are asking questions about stories about voter fraud.
On social media people are talking about this. I've no doubt that the yes campaign have fraudulently added people to the register for this, for some people the
end means justifies the means, whether it be registering people or calling them names on discussion boards. However, with well over one million voting for this I doubt whether a few hundred fraudulent entries on the register in Dublin makes any real difference. However, you seem to have the same approach here as some Tyrone followers and the sledging, pretend it doesn't exist at all, when everyone knows it does.
QuoteIt's right wing tactics for junior infants, it is incredibly "mean-spirited", and if you don't know who Karl Rove is, how do you know he is American? Karl? Karl...you there Karl?......
you and others have already alluded to Americans, it was an intelligent guess than this person was American also. Unlike you I am not interested in America.
Ah sure it was only a tongue in cheek comment so that's ok then,and sure it's not like you said it to someone's face. Blah blah blah...
I always hear the same thing when someone uses the word retard and I challenge them over it.
Problem is,as someone else said,you don't know who is reading this and words like f**got,retard and so on believe me can hurt people more than you it seems can understand.
They may be only words to you but to other people it's just another example of the challenges they face daily dealing with people just like you.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 22, 2015, 11:57:47 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 22, 2015, 11:44:28 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 22, 2015, 08:05:43 PM
It is clear that the electoral register is in bits, which is hardly news, quite apart from the people living in England flying home there are all sorts of stories of non Irish citizens voting.
If you don't like the way the result might be going, you need to frame the result in a manner advantageous to your cause. So you need to de -ligitimise it.
As I said, I didn't make any claim as to the nature of the result. I merely said that one of these days a result may be close enough that this becomes an issue.
QuoteFirst thing to do is to say you've heard stories of non-citizens voting. When someone asks you where the stories came from, what the source is, ignore it. Because the story is now that people are asking questions about stories about voter fraud.
On social media people are talking about this. I've no doubt that the yes campaign have fraudulently added people to the register for this, for some people the end means justifies the means, whether it be registering people or calling them names on discussion boards. However, with well over one million voting for this I doubt whether a few hundred fraudulent entries on the register in Dublin makes any real difference. However, you seem to have the same approach here as some Tyrone followers and the sledging, pretend it doesn't exist at all, when everyone knows it does.
QuoteIt's right wing tactics for junior infants, it is incredibly "mean-spirited", and if you don't know who Karl Rove is, how do you know he is American? Karl? Karl...you there Karl?......
you and others have already alluded to Americans, it was an intelligent guess than this person was American also. Unlike you I am not interested in America.
Oh, right, people are talking about it on the internet!! It must be true. And if it is true, it is only the Yes side who would stoop so low. De - legitimise your opponent - that way the result doesn't matter. The creed of the bitter-ender.
Care to post any links to these social media?
One thing I did learn fairly early from sport was how to lose.
Well said Laoislad.
Well said.
QuoteI've no doubt that the yes campaign have fraudulently added people to the register for this
So the yes campaigners are engaging in electoral fraud now???
(https://novembrepleut.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/clutching_at_straws.jpg)
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 23, 2015, 12:26:32 AM
QuoteI've no doubt that the yes campaign have fraudulently added people to the register for this
So the yes campaigners are engaging in electoral fraud now???
Are you denying that in the 26 counties that some yes campaigners engaged in electoral fraud?
After 120 pages of Gaaboardism it just remains for the votes to be counted as the "free state"/26 Cos is led by the will of the people (well those who are citizens and registered to vote and voted anyway).
Quote from: armaghniac on May 23, 2015, 12:45:12 AM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 23, 2015, 12:26:32 AM
QuoteI've no doubt that the yes campaign have fraudulently added people to the register for this
So the yes campaigners are engaging in electoral fraud now???
Are you denying that in the 26 counties that some yes campaigners engaged in electoral fraud?
I'm not the one making any claims about the Yes campaign - you are.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 23, 2015, 12:59:44 AM
After 120 pages of Gaaboardism it just remains for the votes to be counted as the "free state"/26 Cos is led by the will of the people (well those who are citizens and registered to vote and voted anyway).
Those who are citizens and registered to vote and voted and those who are not citizens and managed to vote.
The vote applies to the free state only.If proper democracy applied on this island,a No vote would be recorded as all unionists in the north are opposed to gay marriage as are the majority of Catholics.
Sadly a Yes vote will widen further the chasm between North and South,and lessen further the appeal of unification to many Catholics never mind unionists
Quote from: armaghniac on May 22, 2015, 08:36:19 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 22, 2015, 08:21:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 22, 2015, 08:05:43 PM
Turnout going to be decent. This is just as well, indeed there is a case for some minimum turnout requirement for constitutional referenda, which might mean they would plan them better. It is clear that the electoral register is in bits, which is hardly news, quite apart from the people living in England flying home there are all sorts of stories of non Irish citizens voting. This wasn't a problem 30 years ago, but if something was close and a lot of people not entitled to vote did so it could become controversial.
Presumably turnout is affected the bookies odds.
hahahahahahahahahaha ........................ what a complete pile of shite
So what are you saying, that there are no non Irish people voting? That the register is perfect?
Do you even oboe the rules about who is allowed to vote, and the rationale for it?
Quote from: gallsman on May 23, 2015, 01:18:13 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 22, 2015, 08:36:19 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 22, 2015, 08:21:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 22, 2015, 08:05:43 PM
Turnout going to be decent. This is just as well, indeed there is a case for some minimum turnout requirement for constitutional referenda, which might mean they would plan them better. It is clear that the electoral register is in bits, which is hardly news, quite apart from the people living in England flying home there are all sorts of stories of non Irish citizens voting. This wasn't a problem 30 years ago, but if something was close and a lot of people not entitled to vote did so it could become controversial.
Presumably turnout is affected the bookies odds.
hahahahahahahahahaha ........................ what a complete pile of shite
So what are you saying, that there are no non Irish people voting? That the register is perfect?
Do you even oboe the rules about who is allowed to vote, and the rationale for it?
Yes, I oboe the rules about who is allowed to vote, and the rationale for it.
I made the point that the system is not well run.
Well done, you corrected a typo. The thing is, the system, whether you think it's right or wrong, is applicable to both sides.
Also Fearon, your "tongue in cheek" comments prove, as if it was required, that you are a despicable, hateful **** of the highest order, as is anyone who defends you. That's you, Stew.
Quote from: gallsman on May 23, 2015, 01:27:55 AM
Well done, you corrected a typo. The thing is, the system, whether you think it's right or wrong, is applicable to both sides.
The system is the same for both sides, but one side can play the system and not always legally.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 23, 2015, 01:38:11 AM
Quote from: gallsman on May 23, 2015, 01:27:55 AM
Well done, you corrected a typo. The thing is, the system, whether you think it's right or wrong, is applicable to both sides.
The system is the same for both sides, but one side can play the system and not always legally.
The system is the same. Both sides can play it.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 01:09:21 AM
The vote applies to the free state only.If proper democracy applied on this island,a No vote would be recorded as all unionists in the north are opposed to gay marriage as are the majority of Catholics.
Sadly a Yes vote will widen further the chasm between North and South,and lessen further the appeal of unification to many Catholics never mind unionists
That's strange seeing as both Nationalist Parties in the North support Gay marriage... Are you sure about that Tony or are you underestimating the power of the open and tolerant youth in the North against the evangelical fogies clinging to the Old Testament??
I am saying that a substantial majority of Northern Catholics would vote No in any Gay marriage referendum
Quote from: gallsman on May 23, 2015, 01:41:31 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 23, 2015, 01:38:11 AM
Quote from: gallsman on May 23, 2015, 01:27:55 AM
Well done, you corrected a typo. The thing is, the system, whether you think it's right or wrong, is applicable to both sides.
The system is the same for both sides, but one side can play the system and not always legally.
The system is the same. Both sides can play it.
Both sides may not be equally willing to play it.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 01:09:21 AM
The vote applies to the free state only.If proper democracy applied on this island,a No vote would be recorded as all unionists in the north are opposed to gay marriage as are the majority of Catholics.
Sadly a Yes vote will widen further the chasm between North and South,and lessen further the appeal of unification to many Catholics never mind unionists
Yet more horseshite. Many thousands of non-fundamentalist Christian unionists are in favour of gay marriage.
Are you seriously saying a majority in the North would back gay marriage?
4. Inappropriate posts, incitement or racist posting.
This is a very broad topic, and can be the most subjective in the way the moderators view things. In general, it would be the 'good manners' rule. Specific examples of
inappropriate posts would be the following. (This list is by no means conclusive)
- Abusive posts between fans of soccer teams, clearly not part of good humoured banter. Mentions of Hillsborough, Munich, Heysel or alluding to these incidents in a
way designed to incite other posters to break forum rules.
- Sectarian posts, or posts advocating violence against any community or person. Some of the topics under discussion from the different cultures on this island have
come close to this. That will not be allowed or accomodated.
- Racist posts, including posts propogating racist views about any race or community.
- inappropriate posts such as the Maddie McCann jokes etc.
Lads, this debate has been very well behaved in general, on an emotive topic. Tony Fearons post above goes beyond the realm of acceptable debate.
This is not Tony's first foray over the line, and I would be justified in handing out a ban. That post is at best in extremely poor taste, and at worst homophobic. I think maybe we've been a little lax in handing out bans recently so I won't do it now. I will delete the posts and Tony, one more even questionable post on this topic, you will be banned.
Those replying to Tomys post with abuse are also in breach of board rules, so please do not continue to do so or you will also face a ban. Keep it clean lads.
Bye Tony, miss ya already.
Come 5pm all will be revealed. I expect a decent win for yes vote.
Tony, why do you only reserve your very strong views on this subject for gaaboard?
You're an active Twitter user with upwards of 10k tweets, yet very few comments are made about such contentious issues. I seriously doubt that you would even think about tweeting the Baggott St quip for fear of the expected backlash.
Twitter is observational,this board is topic specific.Unlike others here I do not indulge in personal abuse ( not anymore) yet I am frequently threatened with bans?
Comments on this board against Catholicism,and Christianity in general are an absolute disgrace,but those who post them seem to be immune from any form of chastisement.
The squeeze is on the likes of you Tony. If you don't join the DUP you might want to consider another country, Saudi Arabia is one but I think you are more hardcore so the Islamic State would be a better match. You alternatively could set up your own fundamentalist Christian dictatorship some where like Greenland or Antarctica and "Israel like" invite all the holy joes to go there too. I think that's a fair proposal.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 08:52:50 AM
Twitter is observational,this board is topic specific.Unlike others here I do not indulge in personal abuse ( not anymore) yet I am frequently threatened with bans?
Comments on this board against Catholicism,and Christianity in general are an absolute disgrace,but those who post them seem to be immune from any form of chastisement.
There has never been a poster that posts as much abuse as you. Yet you think that only the responses are abusive. And no one here has ever posted as many posts damaging Catholicism and Christianity as you, but again you only see damage in the responses. But I do agree that you are an absolute disgrace.
Initial indications from a guy I know at the count is that it's going to be a bigger Yes than even his optimistic predictions. Early stages but in that Dublin constituency it looks like being 2:1 at least.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 08:52:50 AM
Twitter is observational,this board is topic specific.Unlike others here I do not indulge in personal abuse ( not anymore) yet I am frequently threatened with bans?
Comments on this board against Catholicism,and Christianity in general are an absolute disgrace,but those who post them seem to be immune from any form of chastisement.
Your view is 'Twitter is observational' yet you fail to make any observations about the global news story that is referendum debate. Twitter is the perfect media for that. You could even wind up more people on Twitter than you could on here.
Longford may stand for marriage,it is pity so few live there.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 07:06:13 AM
Are you seriously saying a majority in the North would back gay marriage?
Where did I say that? Re-read my post and I said many thousands of non-fundamentalist Christian unionists would support gay marriage.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 23, 2015, 10:03:08 AM
Longford may stand for marriage,it is pity so few live there.
Aye, marriage to their cousins.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 08:52:50 AM
Twitter is observational,this board is topic specific.Unlike others here I do not indulge in personal abuse ( not anymore) yet I am frequently threatened with bans?
Comments on this board against Catholicism,and Christianity in general are an absolute disgrace,but those who post them seem to be immune from any form of chastisement.
You're great at giving it, not so good at taking it, Tony. And the likes of you have been routed today.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 01:09:21 AM
The vote applies to the free state only.If proper democracy applied on this island,a No vote would be recorded as all unionists in the north are opposed to gay marriage as are the majority of Catholics.
Sadly a Yes vote will widen further the chasm between North and South,and lessen further the appeal of unification to many Catholics never mind unionists
Donegal says YES. ;D
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 07:06:13 AM
Are you seriously saying a majority in the North would back gay marriage?
How would you know that it would be different?
By the way you are the worst advert for catholicism there could possibly be. You are not reflective of normal good catholics of which there are many and there have been no comments more disgraceful, ever on this board, than yours regarding parents on the cardinal brady thread so there is a certain irony, as usual, to you calling other people's comments disgraceful!
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 01:48:32 AM
I am saying that a substantial majority of Northern Catholics would vote No in any Gay marriage referendum
I think you'd be very surprised.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 01:09:21 AM
The vote applies to the free state only.If proper democracy applied on this island,a No vote would be recorded as all unionists in the north are opposed to gay marriage as are the majority of Catholics.
Sadly a Yes vote will widen further the chasm between North and South,and lessen further the appeal of unification to many Catholics never mind unionists
Really? Someone should tell those unionists on my Facebook who have been constantly posting their support for the Yes side in this referendum.
Hardly surprising the vote is Yes in an Ireland that is lurching towards moral bankruptcy,where anything goes,GAA players taunt their opponents about deceased relatives etc.
It will not affect me in any way shape or form thankfully,it will never happen in my part of the island.
Looking like a great result. Hoping my home constituency joins the many who voted Yes, but either way, looks like it will be emphatic. The shy No voters just don't exist and many have been very presumptuous about just how conservative rural people, and many older people, are.
From twitter account of Jamie Bryson( and no its not a parody one)
" if the ROI foolishly vote YES I'll be proud to be living in the last bastion of Biblical Protestantism in the Western world. Our wee country"
A soul mate for Tony methinks
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 11:09:33 AM
Hardly surprising the vote is Yes in an Ireland that is lurching towards moral bankruptcy,where anything goes,GAA players taunt their opponents about deceased relatives etc.
It will not affect me in any way shape or form thankfully,it will never happen in my part of the island.
It wouldn't affect you anyway. Unless you're actually gay and wanted to get married, it would have no impact on you whatsoever.
And the idea that NI is a haven for upstanding morals is laughable.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 23, 2015, 10:03:08 AM
Longford may stand for marriage,it is pity so few live there.
Longford says YES.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 23, 2015, 11:05:26 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 01:48:32 AM
I am saying that a substantial majority of Northern Catholics would vote No in any Gay marriage referendum
I think you'd be very surprised.
Yep.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 11:09:33 AM
Hardly surprising the vote is Yes in an Ireland that is lurching towards moral bankruptcy,where anything goes,GAA players taunt their opponents about deceased relatives etc.
It will not affect me in any way shape or form thankfully,it will never happen in my part of the island.
Did you ever think that one large aspect of taunting opponents might actually be removed by today's vote?
Quote from: Newbridge Exile on May 23, 2015, 11:11:43 AM
From twitter account of Jamie Bryson( and no its not a parody one)
" if the ROI foolishly vote YES I'll be proud to be living in the last bastion of Biblical Protestantism in the Western world. Our wee country"
A soul mate for Tony methinks
That's what I've been saying. He has more in common with the likes of that boy
Bryson is right for once.The referendum result will make Protestant resistance in the North to a United Ireland even more stronger and will also reduce its appeal to many sincere Catholics.With the SDLP and SF vote in decline,never has the time been more opportune for a unionist party to reach out to Northern Catholics,and cement partition for all time.
The Prince of Wales showed more respect to the Catholic Church and faith in Ireland this week than the average 26 county citizen does.
Quote from: Newbridge Exile on May 23, 2015, 11:11:43 AM
From twitter account of Jamie Bryson( and no its not a parody one)
" if the ROI foolishly vote YES I'll be proud to be living in the last bastion of Biblical Protestantism in the Western world. Our wee country"
A soul mate for Tony methinks
He doesn't need a parody account, it wouldn't be as funny
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 11:38:12 AM
Bryson is right for once.The referendum result will make Protestant resistance in the North to a United Ireland even more stronger and will also reduce its appeal to many sincere Catholics.With the SDLP and SF vote in decline,never has the time been more opportune for a unionist party to reach out to Northern Catholics,and cement partition for all time.
The Prince of Wales showed more respect to the Catholic Church and faith in Ireland this week than the average 26 county citizen does.
You get the respect you deserve.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 11:38:12 AM
Bryson is right for once.The referendum result will make Protestant resistance in the North to a United Ireland even more stronger and will also reduce its appeal to many sincere Catholics.With the SDLP and SF vote in decline,never has the time been more opportune for a unionist party to reach out to Northern Catholics,and cement partition for all time.
The Prince of Wales showed more respect to the Catholic Church and faith in Ireland this week than the average 26 county citizen does.
Does Bryson realise that same sex marriage is allowed by law in the rest of the union that he so adores?
When Tony Fearon and Jamie Bryson are lecturing me and my country on our morals, I know all is well with the world.
It is a beautiful day here and my wee man just won a Gaelic football match for the first time. Life is good. My best wishes to GaaBoarders everywhere.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 11:38:12 AM
Bryson is right for once.The referendum result will make Protestant resistance in the North to a United Ireland even more stronger and will also reduce its appeal to many sincere Catholics.With the SDLP and SF vote in decline,never has the time been more opportune for a unionist party to reach out to Northern Catholics,and cement partition for all time.
The Prince of Wales showed more respect to the Catholic Church and faith in Ireland this week than the average 26 county citizen does.
Well, at least we know which way you'll vote if there's ever a referendum on a United Ireland, Uncle Tom.
A United Ireland with corrupt politicians,moral economic and spiritual bankruptcy,atheistic,where basic rights like water and health are chargeable? No thanks.
Inishbiggle Island says No
Yes - 2 votes
No - 10 votes
#MarRef
I don't think the 10 should get an invite....
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 12:12:24 PM
A United Ireland with corrupt politicians,moral economic and spiritual bankruptcy,atheistic,where basic rights like water and health are chargeable? No thanks.
Fwy the fweg!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ae/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg/1280px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png)
Quote from: ballinaman on May 23, 2015, 12:12:34 PM
Inishbiggle Island says No
Yes - 2 votes
No - 10 votes
#MarRef
I don't think the 10 should get an invite....
Any spoiled votes?
Ireland,North and South where people vote not with their brains,but merely to piss other people off. :-\
Them fecking yes campaigners up to all sorts of carry on :P http://www.joe.ie/news/pic-just-look-at-what-was-found-in-a-dublin-ballot-box-today/497045
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 12:22:37 PM
Ireland,North and South where people vote not with their brains,but merely to piss other people off. :-\
You're some boy for the wind up ;D
Seriously.Where else in the world would you get people flying "home" to vote when the outcome won't even effect them as they won't be living here anyway! ::)
Fantastic news. Delighted the majority of people in Ireland are decent people who believe everyone deserves to be treated equal.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Seriously.Where else in the world would you get people flying "home" to vote when the outcome won't even effect them as they won't be living here anyway! ::)
Says the man that doesn't live here anyway. ;D
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Seriously.Where else in the world would you get people flying "home" to vote when the outcome won't even effect them as they won't be living here anyway! ::)
At some point in the future are we not allowed move back home for good and perhaps have kids of our own who will live in Ireland? Unless we are being banned from ever returning home then I do think it effects us.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 12:22:37 PM
Ireland,North and South where people vote not with their brains,but merely to piss other people off. :-\
Is this your motto?
Very proud of my fellow Irish citizens today.
Added bonus if there is a united Ireland, Tony will piss of to annoy another board in another country. Things are looking up!
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Seriously.Where else in the world would you get people flying "home" to vote when the outcome won't even effect them as they won't be living here anyway! ::)
This outcome doesn't affect you either, as you won't be living in the South as you say.
Tony
Would you have preferred to live in The Republic of Ireland of the 1950s/60s/70s/80s
or - more pertinent perhaps, for us who actually live here to be spun back to the 1950s/60s/70s/80?
A belt of the crozier and child abuse
Fallen wimmin in laundries run by mad sadistic nuns
Industrial schools and hidden scandal.
Viva la difference and I, for one, welcome this newer Ireland
I presume the Sun will set tonight and rise tomorrow as it has done for billions of years.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 23, 2015, 01:50:42 PM
I presume the Sun will set tonight and rise tomorrow as it has done for billions of years.
I heard we'll have a pink sunset with a big rainbow over it.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 11:38:12 AM
Bryson is right for once.The referendum result will make Protestant resistance in the North to a United Ireland even more stronger and will also reduce its appeal to many sincere Catholics.With the SDLP and SF vote in decline,never has the time been more opportune for a unionist party to reach out to Northern Catholics,and cement partition for all time.
The Prince of Wales showed more respect to the Catholic Church and faith in Ireland this week than the average 26 county citizen does.
He's an unmarried father. How can you agree with someone who had sex before marriage?
I hope your outrage is real and not for the wind up. It keeps us entertained.
You and jamie bryson talking about morals - priceless. Two peas in a pod.
A great victory for the inherent decency of Irish men and women.
Looks like Mayo and Donegal voted YES.
Fair play, those two and maybe Kerry South were the ones I thought might vote no.
ShamrockShore I am a Social Conservative and I do,yes,have a hankering for the days of my youth,when people had a lot less but there was far more order and understanding,and dare I say it,happiness.Of course there were many injustices as there are many still today.
I was educated at primary and grammar level by nuns and priests,but only ever received corporal punishment from lay teachers.I accept that the Church like a lot of organisations did many bad things,but I believe it also did far more good than harm.
Watch BBC Songs of Praise tomorrow and see the fulfilment that life in a convent has given to Martina Purdy and Elaine Kelly both of whom turned their backs on high flying careers and are by all accounts now getting fulfilment that they never got from all the money,prestige etc in the secular world.
I would also hope that anyone who voted Yes does not have the hypocrisy to enter a church thus weekend,or ever again,given their direct defiance of their Pastors
https://twitter.com/dvatw/status/602084787642355712
Never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with this guy.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 02:39:35 PM
I would also hope that anyone who voted Yes does not have the hypocrisy to enter a church thus weekend,or ever again,given their direct defiance of their Pastors
and to think that some people worry about church attendance dropping off.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 02:39:35 PM
I would also hope that anyone who voted Yes does not have the hypocrisy to enter a church thus weekend,or ever again,given their direct defiance of their Pastors
I think we are fine. Theres no altar boys here for the priests to touch.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 02:39:35 PM
I would also hope that anyone who voted Yes does not have the hypocrisy to enter a church thus weekend,or ever again,given their direct defiance of their Pastors
What about the nuns and bishops who voted yes?
How do you reconcile your love of gambling with the Bible's implicit disapproval of it? Or your sectarianism? Or your presumption to judge others? The shadow you cast darkening the door of any church is much, mich darker than most of the people who vote yes?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 02:43:02 PM
https://twitter.com/dvatw/status/602084787642355712
Never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with this guy.
Yeah because those who blindly follow the teachings of an institution and its representatives who participate in the rape of children and subsequent cover ups are the ones thinking for themselves.
Quote from: muppet on May 23, 2015, 02:20:28 PM
Looks like Mayo and Donegal voted YES.
Fair play, those two and maybe Kerry South were the ones I thought might vote no.
Seems Ros/Sth Laythrum going NO.
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 23, 2015, 02:44:22 PM
I think we are fine. Theres no altar boys here for the priests to touch.
Quote from: gallsmanWhat about the nuns and bishops who voted yes?
Well they are not getting much respect as comments like the previous indicate. Mind you, certain members of the church do nothing to help their position.
Why should I have any respect for an organization that has covered the actions of paedophiles ?
Hard not to be proud of your country on a day like this. We've made a hell of a country to live and love in over the last century.
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 23, 2015, 03:18:39 PM
Why should I have any respect for an organization that has covered the actions of paedophiles ?
You should have respect for the vast majority of people in that organisation who have not covered up or condoned in any way the actions of paedophiles which was why I conflated your post with Gallsman.
Delighted with today's result.
We are the talk of the world right now and all for good reasons for a change.
This wonderful Republic of ours has come a long way in the last 20 years.
Thanks for letting me know who I should or shouldn't have respect for.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFsDf91WYAAJejA.png:large)
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 23, 2015, 03:44:04 PM
Thanks for letting me know who I should or shouldn't have respect for.
You obviously need some guidance.
Tony, what would the Pastor in Chief, Pope Francis, think of your call for people who voted YES to stay away from church? I think he'd admire those who followed their conscience instead of blindly following some edict. Don't think JC would be driving away people either. You have a curious notion of Christianity.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 23, 2015, 03:49:12 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 23, 2015, 03:44:04 PM
Thanks for letting me know who I should or shouldn't have respect for.
You obviously need some guidance.
Nah, you're ok.
Oraisteach I don't know what Pope Francis would think.I only know that it is nonsensical to act contrary to the beliefs of a Church then attend the Church citing a conscience clause.
Anything to be said for another mass?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 04:06:07 PM
Oraisteach I don't know what Pope Francis would think.I only know that it is nonsensical to act contrary to the beliefs of a Church then attend the Church citing a conscience clause.
And what about your activities that are contrary to the beliefs of your church?
Sure the Bible says no gambling and Big T is at it flat out
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFsp5H_WEAAW2KY.jpg)
Two miraculous medals found in ballot box in #castlebar
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFsnRi8WYAAppJG.jpg)
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin says the Catholic Church needs to do a reality check right across the board.
https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/602142372848390144
Quote from: Agent Orange on May 23, 2015, 05:12:34 PM
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin says the Catholic Church needs to do a reality check right across the board.
https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/602142372848390144
In fairness this is not a rejection of the Catholic Church, no more than it is the endorsement of the Government.
The hypocrisy on this board defies belief, no one is allowed to question any facet of the gay community (well they can but they are homophobic!!) yet people here can quite happily lambaste and berate a whole religious order because of the actions of a minority. For all those patting Irish society on the back for standing up for one section of the Irish community whilst attacking another section of the Irish community you should all hold your heads in shame.
Did Renua have a position on this referendum? Would have thought they would have been on the conservative end of things
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 23, 2015, 05:40:49 PM
Did Renua have a position on this referendum? Would have thought they would have been on the conservative end of things
http://www.fairsociety.ie/renua-have-kept-their-heads-down-in-the-referendum-issue/ (http://www.fairsociety.ie/renua-have-kept-their-heads-down-in-the-referendum-issue/)
I suppose they're trying to appeal to both conservative Ireland and young Ireland
A good day to be a human - what's seldom is wonderful. Congrats Ireland on your maturity.
Hugely proud of my country today. Well done to all who canvased and voted. Spent the day at my god daughter's communion with my young son - we've left them a better republic to grow up in. And to those who voted No, and fought for their conscience, I hope there is a place for you as well in a nation that has changed irrevocably. Tolerance and understanding must go both ways for our country to fulfill its massive potential.
And now? Pints, say he, rubbing his hands.... ;)
Quote from: topcuppla on May 23, 2015, 05:21:45 PM
The hypocrisy on this board defies belief, no one is allowed to question any facet of the gay community (well they can but they are homophobic!!) yet people here can quite happily lambaste and berate a whole religious order because of the actions of a minority. For all those patting Irish society on the back for standing up for one section of the Irish community whilst attacking another section of the Irish community you should all hold your heads in shame.
http://www.con-telegraph.ie/news/roundup/articles/2015/05/06/4037499-fr-standn-im-voting-yes/ (http://www.con-telegraph.ie/news/roundup/articles/2015/05/06/4037499-fr-standn-im-voting-yes/)
Fr. Standún: I'm voting 'Yes'....
We in the Roman Catholic Church have made so many mistakes in the past half century or so that we need to stand back and question our motives in taking certain stances, in fighting unnecessary battles with outdated catchphrases.
It is time to be positive, to welcome gay, lesbian and transgender to the top table.....
Fearon thinks this priest shouldn't darken the door of a Church again. My money says God prefers Fr. Standún's pragmatism over Fearon's hatred and bigotry.
Quote from: GalwayBayBoy on May 23, 2015, 03:45:03 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFsDf91WYAAJejA.png:large)
I blame Leitrim.
A bit odd that they chose to represent Rosc/Leitrim in pink, they should have put the Choropleth scale the other way around.
chris o'dowd @BigBoyler 2h2 hours ago
I was awarded the freedom of Roscommon. Martin McAleese has the same honour. In protest to county's No vote, we're french-kissing right now.
Like them or loathe them you have to admire the DUP for remaining unwavering in their beliefs in spite of vile abuse.It is time for the Catholic Church to adopt a similarly robust approach,and defend what's ordained to be right by Divine Scripture.A useful start would be to excommunicate any so called priest who admits to having voted Yes.
Meanwhile Easy tiger adopts the fatally flawed opt out approach of his conscience (totally illogical and stupid) of voting Yes and attending a First Communion service.I'll let you into a secret mate,you cannot cherry pick according to your conscience.Scripture,not the Church,Pope etc is the supreme authority.
Quote from: From the Bunker on May 23, 2015, 07:29:05 PM
Quote from: Syferus on May 23, 2015, 06:20:48 PM
Quote from: GalwayBayBoy on May 23, 2015, 03:45:03 PM
I blame Leitrim.
or should that be south Leitrim?
Those bastards would tell you the sky is green if we said its blue. It's like a county of Ballagh Mayos really.
For Tony's B&B:
(http://www.todayifoundout.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/fruit-machine.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_machine_(homosexuality_test) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_machine_(homosexuality_test))
Fruit machine (homosexuality test)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Fruit machine" is a term for a device developed in Canada that was supposed to be able to identify homosexual people, or (offensively and derogatorily) "fruits". The subjects were made to view pornography, and the device measured the diameter of the pupils of the eyes (pupillary response test), perspiration, and pulse for a supposed erotic response.
The "fruit machine" was employed in Canada in the 1950s and 1960s during a campaign to eliminate all homosexuals from the civil service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the military. A substantial number of workers did lose their jobs. Although funding for the "fruit machine" project was cut off in the late 1960s, the investigations continued, and the RCMP collected files on over 9,000 "suspected" homosexuals.[1]
The chair was like one from a dentist's office. It had a pulley with a camera going towards the pupils. There was a black box in front of it that showed pictures. The pictures ranged from the mundane to sexually explicit photos of men and women. It had previously been determined that the pupils would dilate in relation to the amount of interest in the picture. This was called the pupillary response test.[2]
People were told the machine was to rate stress. After knowledge of its real purpose became widespread, few people volunteered for it.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 07:39:09 PM
Like them or loathe them you have to admire the DUP for remaining unwavering in their beliefs in spite of vile abuse.It is time for the Catholic Church to adopt a similarly robust approach,and defend what's ordained to be right by Divine Scripture.A useful start would be to excommunicate any so called priest who admits to having voted Yes.
Meanwhile Easy tiger adopts the fatally flawed opt out approach of his conscience (totally illogical and stupid) of voting Yes and attending a First Communion service.I'll let you into a secret mate,you cannot cherry pick according to your conscience.Scripture,not the Church,Pope etc is the supreme authority.
Who are you to demand the excommunication of anyone, let alone priests?
You seem to think that you are a monumental authority on the Church, yet time and time again, on thread after thread, you have been shown up as ignorant on almost everything got to do with the Church.
The purpose of the Church is to lead people toward salvation.How can one be s clergyman yet defy scriptural teaching?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 07:50:18 PM
The purpose of the Church is to lead people toward salvation.How can one be s clergyman yet defy scriptural teaching?
Every single one of us defies 'Scriptural Teaching' every single day. By your logic every member of the Church should now be excommunicated.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 07:50:18 PM
The purpose of the Church is to lead people toward salvation.How can one be s clergyman yet defy scriptural teaching?
You're some man for one man Tony!
You follow every little piece of scripture. Well played.
This is one of the most strongly played wind ups i've ever come across,good stuff Tony, you're perseverant at least ;D ;D ;D
We are all sinners, Tony, all of us, including you. How dare you arrogantly dismiss the very Catholic concept of informed conscience. Seems to me that you are veering very close to the Deadly Sin of pride. I'd suggest a trip to the confessional, though in your case it would do no good since you feel no remorse. Irritated (your goal achieved) by your tirade banishing Yes-voting Catholics from church attendance, I broached it with a priest I know who found your pronouncement absurd, devoid of the compassion that Jesus exemplified. But this will affect you not a whit since as you've shown throughout this thread and others, you are more aware of Church doctrine than even Pope Francis. If you truly care about others' salvation, which I don't believe, you should be welcoming people to the church, not driving them away.
I'm sorry,I'm not arrogant,but I simply cannot see how you can use your conscience to by pass a very simple concept that is scriptural disapproval of homosexuality. If you can use the conscience excuse what is the point of the Ten Commandments etc?
Now all sinners struggling with sin should be welcomed and assisted by the Church,particularly in their efforts to repent and turn away from sin,but constitutionally endorsing sin is certainly not right.
Tony why do you gamble if the Bible says that it is wrong?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 23, 2015, 05:21:45 PM
The hypocrisy on this board defies belief, no one is allowed to question any facet of the gay community (well they can but they are homophobic!!) yet people here can quite happily lambaste and berate a whole religious order because of the actions of a minority. For all those patting Irish society on the back for standing up for one section of the Irish community whilst attacking another section of the Irish community you should all hold your heads in shame.
Well said, if you were a no vote you tend to get treated like shite, on here is a good indicator of that.
I believe all people should be treated equally and am neither happy about the result or sad because of it, the people have spoken on a matter that has tremendous social impact on the country and we must all now accept the decision and move on.
Gambling isn't a sin so long as it is done in moderation.
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 23, 2015, 08:24:31 PM
We are all sinners, Tony, all of us, including you. How dare you arrogantly dismiss the very Catholic concept of informed conscience. Seems to me that you are veering very close to the Deadly Sin of pride. I'd suggest a trip to the confessional, though in your case it would do no good since you feel no remorse. Irritated (your goal achieved) by your tirade banishing Yes-voting Catholics from church attendance, I broached it with a priest I know who found your pronouncement absurd, devoid of the compassion that Jesus exemplified. But this will affect you not a whit since as you've shown throughout this thread and others, you are more aware of Church doctrine than even Pope Francis. If you truly care about others' salvation, which I don't believe, you should be welcoming people to the church, not driving them away.
Orais I would have a lot of time for you but f**k me people are entitled to their opinions, your vote was a winning one so stop bashing a no voter and celebrate the fact that gays in the country now have the same rights as straight people!
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 08:37:32 PM
I'm sorry,I'm not arrogant,but I simply cannot see how you can use your conscience to by pass a very simple concept that is scriptural disapproval of homosexuality. If you can use the conscience excuse what is the point of the Ten Commandments etc?
Now all sinners struggling with sin should be welcomed and assisted by the Church,particularly in their efforts to repent and turn away from sin,but constitutionally endorsing sin is certainly not right.
Which Commandment bans homosexuality?
Quote from: muppet on May 23, 2015, 08:53:20 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 08:37:32 PM
I'm sorry,I'm not arrogant,but I simply cannot see how you can use your conscience to by pass a very simple concept that is scriptural disapproval of homosexuality. If you can use the conscience excuse what is the point of the Ten Commandments etc?
Now all sinners struggling with sin should be welcomed and assisted by the Church,particularly in their efforts to repent and turn away from sin,but constitutionally endorsing sin is certainly not right.
Which Commandment bans homosexuality?
The 11th one, unfortunately that tit Moses dropped the fecking evidence! ;)
Muppet I'm trying to point out scriptural references to sin and the fact that if you can use your conscience to transform sin into non sin what is the point of the Ten Commandments
Quote from: topcuppla on May 23, 2015, 05:21:45 PM
The hypocrisy on this board defies belief, no one is allowed to question any facet of the gay community (well they can but they are homophobic!!) yet people here can quite happily lambaste and berate a whole religious order because of the actions of a minority. For all those patting Irish society on the back for standing up for one section of the Irish community whilst attacking another section of the Irish community you should all hold your heads in shame.
I think they call them illiberal liberals. Self righteousness of a few on this board is nauseating. Not that I voted no but the treatment of the no vote side in the media has been very hypocritical. Promoting tolerance while being intolerant of anyone who does not agree with them.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 08:44:00 PM
Gambling isn't a sin so long as it is done in moderation.
Can you provide scriptural evidence of this?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 09:01:24 PM
Muppet I'm trying to point out scriptural references to sin and the fact that if you can use your conscience to transform sin into non sin what is the point of the Ten Commandments
....and show us where Scripture says homosexuality is a sin.
The Church told us for 1,500 years that the Sun went around the Earth. Were all the people who knew they were wrong sinners before they copped on.
Quote from: muppet on May 23, 2015, 09:15:50 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 09:01:24 PM
Muppet I'm trying to point out scriptural references to sin and the fact that if you can use your conscience to transform sin into non sin what is the point of the Ten Commandments
....and show us where Scripture says homosexuality is a sin.
The Church told us for 1,500 years that the Sun went around the Earth. Were all the people who knew they were wrong sinners before they copped on.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2UytwNXpglU (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2UytwNXpglU)
http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html
The Bible says this,the Church is only repeating what the Bible says
Stew, I welcome diverse opinions. They get people thinking. For example, I believe that the Harps are and will remain the second best football team in the city of Armagh, but I know that many of a blue hue might think otherwise. What gets up my nose like a wire toilet brush about Tony's views is their holier-than-thou ness, that he is the keeper of the Rosetta Stone of right and wrong. His positions are unbending, inflexible, devoid of compassion, and, in my view, fundamentalist Catholic but decidedly un-Christian. But when he makes outlandish statements that Catholics who follow an informed conscience should be banned from church, that priests who waver from his straitjacket rules of orthodoxy should be excommunicated, that children are better off warehoused in an orphanage than in a loving home of a same-sex couple, then he needs to be challenged.
His is an easy world of black and white. Mine tends to be grey. He speaks in absolutes, more suited to a blinkered Bible-Belt evangelical than one who wrestles with ambiguity. Like a child, he wants rules not only for himself but that he can impose on others. He shows disdain for conscience and Moses-like holds up the Ten Commandments as absolutes. OK, let's take number 5, Thou Shalt Not Kill. Clear? As soapy water. Self defense OK? Capital Punishment? Not in my view. A Just War, perhaps. The church provides general principles, but life throws up nuance, the applied physics of conscience. Tony would have me bogged down in the first level of moral development.
So, Up the Ogs, actually the Cuchulainns.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 07:39:09 PM
Like them or loathe them you have to admire the DUP for remaining unwavering in their beliefs in spite of vile abuse.It is time for the Catholic Church to adopt a similarly robust approach,and defend what's ordained to be right by Divine Scripture.A useful start would be to excommunicate any so called priest who admits to having voted Yes.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/77/7773af9770acea44e2c046c6284ec7d1533d53c8d4091919f012c3f1a9d9adc9.jpg)
QuoteMeanwhile Easy tiger adopts the fatally flawed opt out approach of his conscience (totally illogical and stupid) of voting Yes and attending a First Communion service.I'll let you into a secret mate,you cannot cherry pick according to your conscience.Scripture,not the Church,Pope etc is the supreme authority.
Bats are just unclean birds according to Lev 11:13,19
Baby girls are twice as dirty as baby boys according to Lev 12:1-8
Menstruating women are unclean to God according to Lev 15:19-30
Don't mix seeds when sowing a field or wear a garment with mixed fibers according to Lev 19:19
If you have sex with a slave woman, you must then scourge her according to Lev 19:20
The unchaste daughters of priests must be burnt to death according to Lev 21:9
Children who curse their parents, adulterers, and homosexuals must be killed. Lev 20:9-12
Woman with "familiar spirits" must be stoned to death. Lev 20:27
"And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." Lev 26:29
Come on Tony boy! No cherry-picking! Get rid of those mixed-fibre garments immediately!
Quote from: mikehunt on May 23, 2015, 09:05:45 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 23, 2015, 05:21:45 PM
The hypocrisy on this board defies belief, no one is allowed to question any facet of the gay community (well they can but they are homophobic!!) yet people here can quite happily lambaste and berate a whole religious order because of the actions of a minority. For all those patting Irish society on the back for standing up for one section of the Irish community whilst attacking another section of the Irish community you should all hold your heads in shame.
I think they call them illiberal liberals. Self righteousness of a few on this board is nauseating. Not that I voted no but the treatment of the no vote side in the media has been very hypocritical. Promoting tolerance while being intolerant of anyone who does not agree with them.
Would agree, stew had a few decent posts there too. The guy quoted in the Irish independent leading the yes vote in Roscommon was of the opinion that the conservative nature of the locals would lead to the county haemorrhaging even more of its younger population. The reason younger people are leaving you fu.kwad is because there in no f,cking jobs, what about fighting for job equality throughout Ireland? This kind of shit talk really grinds my gears.
It is truly remarkable that some people can get offended, at people who are offended, by Tony Fearon's psychopathic need to offend, in this case by demanding that all YES voters should be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 09:33:29 PM
http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html
The Bible says this,the Church is only repeating what the Bible says
Where's the bit about gambling in moderation being okay?
Where can I get the results of each area in each constituency? Are they online yet?
Rte.ie has a map on it you just click into.
Quote from: stew on May 23, 2015, 08:42:17 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 23, 2015, 05:21:45 PM
The hypocrisy on this board defies belief, no one is allowed to question any facet of the gay community (well they can but they are homophobic!!) yet people here can quite happily lambaste and berate a whole religious order because of the actions of a minority. For all those patting Irish society on the back for standing up for one section of the Irish community whilst attacking another section of the Irish community you should all hold your heads in shame.
Well said, if you were a no vote you tend to get treated like shite, on here is a good indicator of that.
I believe all people should be treated equally and am neither happy about the result or sad because of it, the people have spoken on a matter that has tremendous social impact on the country and we must all now accept the decision and move on.
Have you read some of this guys posts?? Not everyone who says no is homophobic but this guy certainly is!! Complaining about intolerance of intolerance is more than a touch ironic! Voting no is not necessarily intolerant - views like unnatural blah blah blah are.
Can you provide a link? I'm only able to find constituency results not the individual areas in the constituencys. Thanks
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFsr_jfWoAAYlc0.jpg)
Ah sorry not sure on that. Read your post too quickly!
Quote from: michaelg on May 23, 2015, 10:13:11 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 09:33:29 PM
http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html
The Bible says this,the Church is only repeating what the Bible says
Where's the bit about gambling in moderation being okay?
If you can not find it, should you too be banned from church in the morning?
Tony, if you're such an originalist, shouldn't you be following the laws enumerated by Eamonn from Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Hear he, hear ye, public stoning of adulterers tomorrow in Poyntzpass. Limbo contest canceled since, well, the church has changed its stance on that sort of thing. Remember, there'll be changes or else things'll remain the same.
Any deviation from the laws implemented by the Church are as a result of divine intervention.The point is,whether the stoning is now defunct or the triviality of mixed fibres ignored,the Bible makes it clear homosexuality is sinful
Stoning is "defunct"? But it's right there in the Bible. So what other things will, by divine inspiration, become defunct. And was the Old Testament divinely inspired, and did God just have a change of heart?
Quote from: dferg on May 23, 2015, 11:13:39 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 11:06:13 PM
Any deviation from the laws implemented by the Church are as a result of divine intervention.The point is,whether the stoning is now defunct or the triviality of mixed fibres ignored,the Bible makes it clear homosexuality is sinful
It is also clear about mixed fibers, anyone who partakes in such practices should be stoned to death. Either that or force them to live in a lepers colony!
Hardstation, surely you believe in miracles. You're from Antrim, aren't you?
Well, I did see St. Jarlath's, Cleveland, win the North American Junior B wearing the saffron.
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 23, 2015, 11:18:49 PM
Stoning is "defunct"? But it's right there in the Bible. So what other things will, by divine inspiration, become defunct. And was the Old Testament divinely inspired, and did God just have a change of heart?
How do we know the referendum wasn't divinely inspired?
Quote from: muppet on May 23, 2015, 11:34:34 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 23, 2015, 11:18:49 PM
Stoning is "defunct"? But it's right there in the Bible. So what other things will, by divine inspiration, become defunct. And was the Old Testament divinely inspired, and did God just have a change of heart?
How do we know the referendum wasn't divinely inspired?
Enda Kenny is not God.
Even Donegal voted yes! :)
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 23, 2015, 10:31:22 PM
Quote from: stew on May 23, 2015, 08:42:17 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 23, 2015, 05:21:45 PM
The hypocrisy on this board defies belief, no one is allowed to question any facet of the gay community (well they can but they are homophobic!!) yet people here can quite happily lambaste and berate a whole religious order because of the actions of a minority. For all those patting Irish society on the back for standing up for one section of the Irish community whilst attacking another section of the Irish community you should all hold your heads in shame.
Well said, if you were a no vote you tend to get treated like shite, on here is a good indicator of that.
I believe all people should be treated equally and am neither happy about the result or sad because of it, the people have spoken on a matter that has tremendous social impact on the country and we must all now accept the decision and move on.
Have you read some of this guys posts?? Not everyone who says no is homophobic but this guy certainly is!! Complaining about intolerance of intolerance is more than a touch ironic! Voting no is not necessarily intolerant - views like unnatural blah blah blah are.
Muppet and everyone else would disagree!
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 11:06:13 PM
Any deviation from the laws implemented by the Church are as a result of divine intervention.The point is,whether the stoning is now defunct or the triviality of mixed fibres ignored,the Bible makes it clear homosexuality is sinful
Seems pretty clear about mixed fibres too. What's your stance on mixed-fibre garments, Tony?
Great result but probably a laughable one in 2115. Like admitting the earth ain't flat.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 08:44:00 PM
Gambling isn't a sin so long as it is done in moderation.
1 Timothy 6:10
Quote"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (but it's ok in moderation lol)
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 08:44:00 PM
Gambling isn't a sin so long as it is done in moderation.
Is homosexuality ok in moderation?
If someone can post conclusive proof that God does not exist, then I will post a picture of myself in a Down jersey riding a Zebra.
'A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: 'Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?' We must always consider the person.'
Pope Francis
Quote from: hardstation on May 23, 2015, 11:15:17 PM
God doesn't even exist, yis headers.
Ah now HS he does. Has his own Twitter account and all - @TheTweetOfGod
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 23, 2015, 06:15:35 PM
A good day to be a human - what's seldom is wonderful. Congrats Ireland on your maturity.
Maturity my hole! Ireland has been raped by it's political figures! it's populace, banks and politicians have bankrupt the Country and it is a country that stands for nothing at this juncture save Gay Rights.
Ireland assisted the Nazi's! lets not forget that nugget, it's children got raped at the hands of the clergy and it's Bishops covered it up, great day to be Irish my hole, I am glad the rights of the homosexuals have been introduced as law as all people, regardless of race, color or creed deserve to be treated equally, but I am aghast at the attitude of some pontificating arseholes on here and their attitude toward those who were no voters!
Be glad you got the vote you wanted and show respect for those with an opposing view, not much to ask I believe.
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 24, 2015, 12:22:27 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 08:44:00 PM
Gambling isn't a sin so long as it is done in moderation.
1 Timothy 6:10
Quote"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (but it's ok in moderation lol)
A hungrier country than Ireland may only be found in the US of A.
You've some deadly food down there though Stew.
How's the lads.
Must get down again soon to sample the finest pint of porter in the world.
QuoteIreland assisted the Nazi's! lets not forget that nugget,
How could we forget something that wasn't true in the first place?
Quote from: stew on May 24, 2015, 12:32:12 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 23, 2015, 06:15:35 PM
A good day to be a human - what's seldom is wonderful. Congrats Ireland on your maturity.
Maturity my hole! Ireland has been raped by it's political figures! it's populace, banks and politicians have bankrupt the Country and it is a country that stands for nothing at this juncture save Gay Rights.
Ireland assisted the Nazi's! lets not forget that nugget, it's children got raped at the hands of the clergy and it's Bishops covered it up, great day to be Irish my hole, I am glad the rights of the homosexuals have been introduced as law as all people, regardless of race, color or creed deserve to be treated equally, but I am aghast at the attitude of some pontificating arseholes on here and their
attitude toward those who were no voters!
Be glad you got the vote you wanted and show respect for those with an opposing view, not much to ask I believe.
Good stuff, was of the no opinion, however I fully respect the democratic will of the people. The above post is utter class. Fair play Stewie.
Quote from: stew on May 24, 2015, 12:32:12 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 23, 2015, 06:15:35 PM
A good day to be a human - what's seldom is wonderful. Congrats Ireland on your maturity.
Maturity my hole! Ireland has been raped by it's political figures! it's populace, banks and politicians have bankrupt the Country and it is a country that stands for nothing at this juncture save Gay Rights.
Ireland assisted the Nazi's! lets not forget that nugget, it's children got raped at the hands of the clergy and it's Bishops covered it up, great day to be Irish my hole, I am glad the rights of the homosexuals have been introduced as law as all people, regardless of race, color or creed deserve to be treated equally, but I am aghast at the attitude of some pontificating arseholes on here and their attitude toward those who were no voters!
Be glad you got the vote you wanted and show respect for those with an opposing view, not much to ask I believe.
You're either ignoring it deliberately or simply continue to repeatedly miss the point. This "pontificating" you speak of is a myth. People are not criticising or mocking no voters simply because they voted no, everyone on here respects the right of people to hold their own opinion.
What is unacceptable, and rightly condemned on here, is people believing, for example, that it's OK to glibly call homosexuals "faggots" and then pass it off as just a bit of light hearted humor. Calling people out on this is not "intolerance" or "arrogance".
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 12:02:25 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 23, 2015, 10:31:22 PM
Quote from: stew on May 23, 2015, 08:42:17 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 23, 2015, 05:21:45 PM
The hypocrisy on this board defies belief, no one is allowed to question any facet of the gay community (well they can but they are homophobic!!) yet people here can quite happily lambaste and berate a whole religious order because of the actions of a minority. For all those patting Irish society on the back for standing up for one section of the Irish community whilst attacking another section of the Irish community you should all hold your heads in shame.
Well said, if you were a no vote you tend to get treated like shite, on here is a good indicator of that.
I believe all people should be treated equally and am neither happy about the result or sad because of it, the people have spoken on a matter that has tremendous social impact on the country and we must all now accept the decision and move on.
Have you read some of this guys posts?? Not everyone who says no is homophobic but this guy certainly is!! Complaining about intolerance of intolerance is more than a touch ironic! Voting no is not necessarily intolerant - views like unnatural blah blah blah are.
Muppet and everyone else would disagree!
Not everyone who votes no is homophobic.
But Tony I would disown a gay person in my family Fearon and you who stated that a same sex couple adopting is tantamount to child abuse, are certainly homophobic.
Quote from: stew on May 24, 2015, 12:32:12 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 23, 2015, 06:15:35 PM
A good day to be a human - what's seldom is wonderful. Congrats Ireland on your maturity.
Maturity my hole! Ireland has been raped by it's political figures! it's populace, banks and politicians have bankrupt the Country and it is a country that stands for nothing at this juncture save Gay Rights.
Ireland assisted the Nazi's! lets not forget that nugget, it's children got raped at the hands of the clergy and it's Bishops covered it up, great day to be Irish my hole, I am glad the rights of the homosexuals have been introduced as law as all people, regardless of race, color or creed deserve to be treated equally, but I am aghast at the attitude of some pontificating arseholes on here and their attitude toward those who were no voters!
Be glad you got the vote you wanted and show respect for those with an opposing view, not much to ask I believe.
Yeah, was thinking the same myself when we were clapping ourselves on the back for todays result! We lied down like lambs for the last 7 years and took a good riding up the rear end ( no homosexual pun intended). There was no maturity there. Like Kids we just did as we were told. From the top down. Great result today. But don't loose the run of ourselves, we are still a long way from being a good never mind a great country. Today enjoy the party - Bigger fish have to be fried! Our equal LGBT friends are now needed for a new focus for the bigger fight! And there is no better allay that a ally used to warfare.
Quote from: From the Bunker on May 24, 2015, 01:17:52 AM
Quote from: stew on May 24, 2015, 12:32:12 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 23, 2015, 06:15:35 PM
A good day to be a human - what's seldom is wonderful. Congrats Ireland on your maturity.
Maturity my hole! Ireland has been raped by it's political figures! it's populace, banks and politicians have bankrupt the Country and it is a country that stands for nothing at this juncture save Gay Rights.
Ireland assisted the Nazi's! lets not forget that nugget, it's children got raped at the hands of the clergy and it's Bishops covered it up, great day to be Irish my hole, I am glad the rights of the homosexuals have been introduced as law as all people, regardless of race, color or creed deserve to be treated equally, but I am aghast at the attitude of some pontificating arseholes on here and their attitude toward those who were no voters!
Be glad you got the vote you wanted and show respect for those with an opposing view, not much to ask I believe.
Yeah, was thinking the same myself when we were clapping ourselves on the back for todays result! We lied down like lambs for the last 7 years and took a good riding up the rear end ( no homosexual pun intended). There was no maturity there. Like Kids we just did as we were told. From the top down. Great result today. But don't loose the run of ourselves, we are still a long way from being a good never mind a great country. Today enjoy the party - Bigger fish have to be fried! Our equal LGBT friends are now needed for a new focus for the bigger fight! And there is no better allay that a ally used to warfare.
The young people that made this such an emphatic win for the Yes side don't listen to or give a shit about the major political parties; a lot of them do not and will not vote again. This was the very essence of a country deciding it wanted something by itself. It is rightly being celebrated as an important moment in Irish history.
On the scale of countries that exist today or have ever existed Ireland is easily one of the most open, most giving and best places to live on the planet. Few countries are ahead of us on any quality of life or freedom index. We forget that too often in the rush to be offended about the next issue and the next scandal. Hell, forget about being 'the best small country in the world' - Ireland has a decent claim to being the best country in the world, period.
Quote from: gallsman on May 24, 2015, 01:07:45 AM
Quote from: stew on May 24, 2015, 12:32:12 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 23, 2015, 06:15:35 PM
A good day to be a human - what's seldom is wonderful. Congrats Ireland on your maturity.
Maturity my hole! Ireland has been raped by it's political figures! it's populace, banks and politicians have bankrupt the Country and it is a country that stands for nothing at this juncture save Gay Rights.
Ireland assisted the Nazi's! lets not forget that nugget, it's children got raped at the hands of the clergy and it's Bishops covered it up, great day to be Irish my hole, I am glad the rights of the homosexuals have been introduced as law as all people, regardless of race, color or creed deserve to be treated equally, but I am aghast at the attitude of some pontificating arseholes on here and their attitude toward those who were no voters!
Be glad you got the vote you wanted and show respect for those with an opposing view, not much to ask I believe.
You're either ignoring it deliberately or simply continue to repeatedly miss the point. This "pontificating" you speak of is a myth. People are not criticising or mocking no voters simply because they voted no, everyone on here respects the right of people to hold their own opinion.
What is unacceptable, and rightly condemned on here, is people believing, for example, that it's OK to glibly call homosexuals "faggots" and then pass it off as just a bit of light hearted humor. Calling people out on this is not "intolerance" or "arrogance".
Read this thread and look at the comments directed at non voters then get back to me!
You would think listening to the likes of you that Ireland is some some of social utopia, it is not, MONEY is far more important to voters than gay rights, big houses they cannot afford is more important than building a modern infrastructure for all Irish men and women.
One last thing you sanctimonious p***k, have you ever made a mistake, ever say something or someone was gay or are you mother Theresa?
Arsehole!
If you
Quote from: Syferus on May 24, 2015, 01:37:25 AM
Quote from: From the Bunker on May 24, 2015, 01:17:52 AM
Quote from: stew on May 24, 2015, 12:32:12 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 23, 2015, 06:15:35 PM
A good day to be a human - what's seldom is wonderful. Congrats Ireland on your maturity.
Maturity my hole! Ireland has been raped by it's political figures! it's populace, banks and politicians have bankrupt the Country and it is a country that stands for nothing at this juncture save Gay Rights.
Ireland assisted the Nazi's! lets not forget that nugget, it's children got raped at the hands of the clergy and it's Bishops covered it up, great day to be Irish my hole, I am glad the rights of the homosexuals have been introduced as law as all people, regardless of race, color or creed deserve to be treated equally, but I am aghast at the attitude of some pontificating arseholes on here and their attitude toward those who were no voters!
Be glad you got the vote you wanted and show respect for those with an opposing view, not much to ask I believe.
Yeah, was thinking the same myself when we were clapping ourselves on the back for todays result! We lied down like lambs for the last 7 years and took a good riding up the rear end ( no homosexual pun intended). There was no maturity there. Like Kids we just did as we were told. From the top down. Great result today. But don't loose the run of ourselves, we are still a long way from being a good never mind a great country. Today enjoy the party - Bigger fish have to be fried! Our equal LGBT friends are now needed for a new focus for the bigger fight! And there is no better allay that a ally used to warfare.
The young people that made this such an emphatic win for the Yes side don't listen to or give a shit about the major political parties; a lot of them do not and will not vote again. This was the very essence of a country deciding it wanted something by itself. It is rightly being celebrated as an important moment in Irish history.
On the scale of countries that exist today or have ever existed Ireland is easily one of the most open, most giving and best places to live on the planet. Few countries are ahead of us on any quality of life or freedom index. We forget that too often in the rush to be offended about the next issue and the next scandal. Hell, forget about being 'the best small country in the world' - Ireland has a decent claim to being the best country in the world, period.
Get off the drugs for fucks sake!
Ireland is a mediocre country at best pertaining to the western world.
Too may greedy, money hungry politicans that are not held accountable by the sheep/electorate, too many gobshites handing out big mortgages to too many idiots willing to take the on, add on the deplorable state of the Hospitals and social care in general and you have a country rotten from the top down with greed, stupidity and ignorance.
The only thing Ireland has going for it is it's beauty, it's games and some tremendous people smattered here and there, drugs is also eroding Irish culture so we are hardly world beaters in anything given the issues.
Quote from: stew on May 24, 2015, 12:32:12 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 23, 2015, 06:15:35 PM
A good day to be a human - what's seldom is wonderful. Congrats Ireland on your maturity.
Maturity my hole! Ireland has been raped by it's political figures! it's populace, banks and politicians have bankrupt the Country and it is a country that stands for nothing at this juncture save Gay Rights.
Ireland assisted the Nazi's! lets not forget that nugget, it's children got raped at the hands of the clergy and it's Bishops covered it up, great day to be Irish my hole, I am glad the rights of the homosexuals have been introduced as law as all people, regardless of race, color or creed deserve to be treated equally, but I am aghast at the attitude of some pontificating arseholes on here and their attitude toward those who were no voters!
Be glad you got the vote you wanted and show respect for those with an opposing view, not much to ask I believe.
Lay off the gargle stew. Jaysus. Now the Nazis are involved.
Quote from: stew on May 24, 2015, 02:07:20 AM
Quote from: gallsman on May 24, 2015, 01:07:45 AM
Quote from: stew on May 24, 2015, 12:32:12 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 23, 2015, 06:15:35 PM
A good day to be a human - what's seldom is wonderful. Congrats Ireland on your maturity.
Maturity my hole! Ireland has been raped by it's political figures! it's populace, banks and politicians have bankrupt the Country and it is a country that stands for nothing at this juncture save Gay Rights.
Ireland assisted the Nazi's! lets not forget that nugget, it's children got raped at the hands of the clergy and it's Bishops covered it up, great day to be Irish my hole, I am glad the rights of the homosexuals have been introduced as law as all people, regardless of race, color or creed deserve to be treated equally, but I am aghast at the attitude of some pontificating arseholes on here and their attitude toward those who were no voters!
Be glad you got the vote you wanted and show respect for those with an opposing view, not much to ask I believe.
You're either ignoring it deliberately or simply continue to repeatedly miss the point. This "pontificating" you speak of is a myth. People are not criticising or mocking no voters simply because they voted no, everyone on here respects the right of people to hold their own opinion.
What is unacceptable, and rightly condemned on here, is people believing, for example, that it's OK to glibly call homosexuals "faggots" and then pass it off as just a bit of light hearted humor. Calling people out on this is not "intolerance" or "arrogance".
Read this thread and look at the comments directed at non voters then get back to me!
You would think listening to the likes of you that Ireland is some some of social utopia, it is not, MONEY is far more important to voters than gay rights, big houses they cannot afford is more important than building a modern infrastructure for all Irish men and women.
One last thing you sanctimonious p***k, have you ever made a mistake, ever say something or someone was gay or are you mother Theresa?
Arsehole!
If you
Oh so now it's a mistake? At the time you robustly defended it.
Everyone makes mistakes, yes, including me. And when they do, they tend to apologise. Going out of the way to type the word "f**got" in a discussion about gay rights was neither a mistake nor an accident. It was a deliberately calculated and executed slur. I'll just grab a quick flight to your beloved Green Bay and throw the word "nigger" around. Or head for Brooklyn and start talking about "kikes". Let me off the hook though. Sorry about those mistakes lads. Don't be such a hypocritical bunch of judgmental, sneering, arrogant, liberal patsies. It was only a joke. That'd be OK, yeah?
As for money being more important to voters, who the f**k are you to decide that? Considering the scale of the turnout, that's some assumption you've made. If it were correct though, what sort of life would people with money want to lead in a country that didn't give equal rights to all its citizens? Nobody is claiming Ireland is flawless. Nobody is claiming Ireland is fixed. But this is a good thing that's worth celebrating.
Quote from: stew on May 24, 2015, 02:07:20 AM
Read this thread and look at the comments directed at non voters then get back to me!
You would think listening to the likes of you that Ireland is some some of social utopia, it is not, MONEY is far more important to voters than gay rights, big houses they cannot afford is more important than building a modern infrastructure for all Irish men and women.
One last thing you sanctimonious p***k, have you ever made a mistake, ever say something or someone was gay or are you mother Theresa?
Arsehole!
If you
What's that you were saying about how the no crowd is entitled to a bit of respect?
Gabriel,it was a great day yesterday! A 34/1 accumulator came up for me involving 3 French and 3 Spanish teams! Utterly brilliant adrenalin rush,with the three Spanish clubs all winning in the afternoon,while the three French teams kicked off at 8pm,so following them on livescore as they each held on to one goal leads was brilliant.Seeing Full Time pop up in each of the three games was sheer ecstasy,I could have proposed to David Norris I was so happy!
But I don't gamble to make money (if I did I would be staking huge sums) I gamble for the adrenalin rush hence I am not committing any sin.
If there's ever any public stoning of adulterers count me in,and all my clothes are mixed fibres so if I don't wear any its an offence against public decency not to mention a crime so what am I to do?
Quote from: Syferus on May 23, 2015, 03:23:06 PM
Hard not to be proud of your country on a day like this. We've made a hell of a country to live and love in over the last century.
You think so???
I presume you've forgotten about the "irish" the free state left to rot over the other side of the border for starters.
Then there's the corruption of successive governments, the death of communities, emigration...
What a great country. must be very proud.
The sheeple feel good about themselves today because they have voted for "equality". Give the eejits a soundbite and a chance to feel smug and they gobble it all up.
Quote from: stew on May 24, 2015, 02:16:03 AM
Quote from: Syferus on May 24, 2015, 01:37:25 AM
Quote from: From the Bunker on May 24, 2015, 01:17:52 AM
Quote from: stew on May 24, 2015, 12:32:12 AM
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 23, 2015, 06:15:35 PM
A good day to be a human - what's seldom is wonderful. Congrats Ireland on your maturity.
Maturity my hole! Ireland has been raped by it's political figures! it's populace, banks and politicians have bankrupt the Country and it is a country that stands for nothing at this juncture save Gay Rights.
Ireland assisted the Nazi's! lets not forget that nugget, it's children got raped at the hands of the clergy and it's Bishops covered it up, great day to be Irish my hole, I am glad the rights of the homosexuals have been introduced as law as all people, regardless of race, color or creed deserve to be treated equally, but I am aghast at the attitude of some pontificating arseholes on here and their attitude toward those who were no voters!
Be glad you got the vote you wanted and show respect for those with an opposing view, not much to ask I believe.
Yeah, was thinking the same myself when we were clapping ourselves on the back for todays result! We lied down like lambs for the last 7 years and took a good riding up the rear end ( no homosexual pun intended). There was no maturity there. Like Kids we just did as we were told. From the top down. Great result today. But don't loose the run of ourselves, we are still a long way from being a good never mind a great country. Today enjoy the party - Bigger fish have to be fried! Our equal LGBT friends are now needed for a new focus for the bigger fight! And there is no better allay that a ally used to warfare.
The young people that made this such an emphatic win for the Yes side don't listen to or give a shit about the major political parties; a lot of them do not and will not vote again. This was the very essence of a country deciding it wanted something by itself. It is rightly being celebrated as an important moment in Irish history.
On the scale of countries that exist today or have ever existed Ireland is easily one of the most open, most giving and best places to live on the planet. Few countries are ahead of us on any quality of life or freedom index. We forget that too often in the rush to be offended about the next issue and the next scandal. Hell, forget about being 'the best small country in the world' - Ireland has a decent claim to being the best country in the world, period.
Get off the drugs for f**ks sake!
Ireland is a mediocre country at best pertaining to the western world.
Too may greedy, money hungry politicans that are not held accountable by the sheep/electorate, too many gobshites handing out big mortgages to too many idiots willing to take the on, add on the deplorable state of the Hospitals and social care in general and you have a country rotten from the top down with greed, stupidity and ignorance.
The only thing Ireland has going for it is it's beauty, it's games and some tremendous people smattered here and there, drugs is also eroding Irish culture so we are hardly world beaters in anything given the issues.
Top post Stew. Unfortunately the sheeple have their heads turned by thinking they are Mother Theresa or Ghandi today by voting for "Equality"..
It's just as pathetic as the Obama "Change" slogan they rhymed off in the states.
And what was all the celebrations about (akin to welcoming the football team home from another failed World Cup Finals campaign) on the streets of Dublin yesterday? Like it's hardly that the LGBT community have been oppressed,driven underground,or wrongly incarcerated like the Guildford four.Utter embarrassment these pictures beaming across the globe,and if the result had been No there would have been a rerun in 6 months time for a Yes.
Lot of anger, vitriol and intolerance emanating from the north.
come down and share in the love and tolerance of your southern brethren, it's a much nicer existence ;-)
Anyone have a link to where I can find the results of areas with a constituency?
Very bitter no side. I wouldn't have the patience to keep calling out intolerance, narrow mindedness and begrudgery from the same posters over and over again on here. so well done to those who do. Opinions presented as fact need to be questioned, it is not bullying or intimation to do so. IMHO.
Quote from: muppet on May 24, 2015, 01:08:36 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 12:02:25 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 23, 2015, 10:31:22 PM
Quote from: stew on May 23, 2015, 08:42:17 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 23, 2015, 05:21:45 PM
The hypocrisy on this board defies belief, no one is allowed to question any facet of the gay community (well they can but they are homophobic!!) yet people here can quite happily lambaste and berate a whole religious order because of the actions of a minority. For all those patting Irish society on the back for standing up for one section of the Irish community whilst attacking another section of the Irish community you should all hold your heads in shame.
Well said, if you were a no vote you tend to get treated like shite, on here is a good indicator of that.
I believe all people should be treated equally and am neither happy about the result or sad because of it, the people have spoken on a matter that has tremendous social impact on the country and we must all now accept the decision and move on.
Have you read some of this guys posts?? Not everyone who says no is homophobic but this guy certainly is!! Complaining about intolerance of intolerance is more than a touch ironic! Voting no is not necessarily intolerant - views like unnatural blah blah blah are.
Muppet and everyone else would disagree!
Not everyone who votes no is homophobic.
But Tony I would disown a gay person in my family Fearon and you who stated that a same sex couple adopting is tantamount to child abuse, are certainly homophobic.
Quote from: muppet on May 18, 2015, 02:22:51 PM
Other than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree.
And given the intolerance to the church on this board or anyone who supports the church, that pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic, but it is ok to insult, berate and lambaste a religious institution and those who support as long as everyone is supporting gay rights and patting themselves on the back for being tolerant and forward thinking, you seriously couldn't make the hypocrisy on this board up!
It's some laugh to see that Tony's latest attention seeking guise has been to morph himself into a religious arch-bigot.
This is same fella who once claimed the best shag of his life was with a Summerhill woman back in 1983. ;)
Exactly.If the No side had won there wouldn't have been any street celebrations as if some huge injustice had just been righted like the freeing of the Guildford Four or Birmingham 6.Truly cringeworthy and embarrassing,as are patronising tweets from the British Prime Minister on the outcome.
Now now Tony. Scripture is very clear about mixed fibers. I thought you said you couldn't cherry-pick.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 08:55:30 AM
And given the intolerance to the church on this board or anyone who supports the church, that pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic, but it is ok to insult, berate and lambaste a religious institution and those who support as long as everyone is supporting gay rights and patting themselves on the back for being tolerant and forward thinking, you seriously couldn't make the hypocrisy on this board up!
Oh play me the world's smallest violin. Even the Iona crowd had a bit of dignity in defeat unlike some of the butthurt homophobes on here. Take your bate'n, you whinging shower of apes!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 24, 2015, 09:16:56 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 08:55:30 AM
And given the intolerance to the church on this board or anyone who supports the church, that pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic, but it is ok to insult, berate and lambaste a religious institution and those who support as long as everyone is supporting gay rights and patting themselves on the back for being tolerant and forward thinking, you seriously couldn't make the hypocrisy on this board up!
Oh play me the world's smallest violin. Even the Iona crowd had a bit of dignity in defeat unlike some of the butthurt homophobes on here. Take your bate'n, you whinging shower of apes!
I was on the YES vote, you are showing some dignity to people who don't have your views, where about's in Ireland are you celebrating currently?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 24, 2015, 09:16:56 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 08:55:30 AM
And given the intolerance to the church on this board or anyone who supports the church, that pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic, but it is ok to insult, berate and lambaste a religious institution and those who support as long as everyone is supporting gay rights and patting themselves on the back for being tolerant and forward thinking, you seriously couldn't make the hypocrisy on this board up!
Oh play me the world's smallest violin. Even the Iona crowd had a bit of dignity in defeat unlike some of the butthurt homophobes on here. Take your bate'n, you whinging shower of apes!
Feck me, worlds smallest violin :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
Seriously mate. These comments are shocking. If they are not homophobic what is?
Quote from: stew on May 24, 2015, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 24, 2015, 09:16:56 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 08:55:30 AM
And given the intolerance to the church on this board or anyone who supports the church, that pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic, but it is ok to insult, berate and lambaste a religious institution and those who support as long as everyone is supporting gay rights and patting themselves on the back for being tolerant and forward thinking, you seriously couldn't make the hypocrisy on this board up!
Oh play me the world's smallest violin. Even the Iona crowd had a bit of dignity in defeat unlike some of the butthurt homophobes on here. Take your bate'n, you whinging shower of apes!
Feck me, worlds smallest violin :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
What particular part of the expression is it that you're struggling with?
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 24, 2015, 10:42:26 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
Seriously mate. These comments are shocking. If they are not homophobic what is?
An honest representation of today's society.
How do you equate someone who came out being camp to it being a choice? Had the fella not"turned" camp would it not have been a choice?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 08:55:30 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 18, 2015, 02:22:51 PM
Other than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree.
And given the intolerance to the church on this board or anyone who supports the church, that pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic, but it is ok to insult, berate and lambaste a religious institution and those who support as long as everyone is supporting gay rights and patting themselves on the back for being tolerant and forward thinking, you seriously couldn't make the hypocrisy on this board up!
I apologise, I can see now that english isn't your first language.
'hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree' = 'pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic'
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
But as imtommygunn pointed out above, your views are completely homophobic. Stop trying to hide behind the rest of the decent NO voters and just admit it.
"...the word "homophobia" is no longer available to gay people. Which is a spectacular and neat Orwellian trick because now it turns out that gay people are not the victims of homophobia - homophobes are."
The violin Finbarr Mc Connell played in Clones in 2001 was so small it was invisible.
Sensible points raised by Nuala O'Loane on BBC's Sunday Sequence this morning about the whole ramifications of so called gay marriage which stretch well beyond two same sex people having a wedding ceremony! Plenty of headaches now in store for the freestate government who can't think beyond the popular vote! Hell slap it up them.
Care to share what these ramifications would be?
Any talk of maturity here is self satisfied nonsense. This was a referendum conducted against a typical political contention that you could have something for nothing, so we get people having a party in Dublin without any concern for the future. With a complete media blitz that there was no actual issue of public policy here, and that everyone who asks any questions is a predjudiced homophobe then of course people voted yes. But a country which no interest in its next generation and how they are raised is a country on the skids, whatever back patting that is going on this morning. The point is that this simplistic debate is welcomed by people in this case because the end justifies the means, although those same people argue for a more realistic complex analysis on other issues. This risible reduction of the issue to imaginary rights feeds the abuse of people arguing for a nuanced analysis and the triumphalist carry on this weekend which resembles DUP election victory.
There is a enormous public mobilisation to have people change the name of their relationship from civil partnership to marriage, a purely token change. Where will be the public mobilisation to ensure that people have proper health treatment? The Minister for Health is going around undermining marriage instead of reducing waiting lists or ensuring that babies do not die from neglect. How many of these people who are living in England for years and who are coming here to vote fraudulently will vote to sort out these matters?
There is no reason for anyone, even a homosexual, to be satisfied at the state of the this State.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 24, 2015, 12:57:57 PM
Any talk of maturity here is self satisfied nonsense. This was a referendum conducted against a typical political contention that you could have something for nothing, so we get people having a party in Dublin without any concern for the future. With a complete media blitz that there was no actual issue of public policy here, and that everyone who asks any questions is a predjudiced homophobe then of course people voted yes. But a country which no interest in its next generation and how they are raised is a country on the skids, whatever back patting that is going on this morning. The point is that this simplistic debate is welcomed by people in this case because the end justifies the means, although those same people argue for a more realistic complex analysis on other issues. This risible reduction of the issue to imaginary rights feeds the abuse of people arguing for a nuanced analysis and the triumphalist carry on this weekend which resembles DUP election victory.
There is a enormous public mobilisation to have people change the name of their relationship from civil partnership to marriage, a purely token change. Where will be the public mobilisation to ensure that people have proper health treatment? The Minister for Health is going around undermining marriage instead of reducing waiting lists or ensuring that babies do not die from neglect. How many of these people who are living in England for years and who are coming here to vote fraudulently will vote to sort out these matters?
There is no reason for anyone, even a homosexual, to be satisfied at the state of the this State.
Forget votes about anything else. What is the complex analysis of the ramifications of gay marriage? I'm genuinely interested to know.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 24, 2015, 12:57:57 PM
Any talk of maturity here is self satisfied nonsense. This was a referendum conducted against a typical political contention that you could have something for nothing, so we get people having a party in Dublin without any concern for the future. With a complete media blitz that there was no actual issue of public policy here, and that everyone who asks any questions is a predjudiced homophobe then of course people voted yes. But a country which no interest in its next generation and how they are raised is a country on the skids, whatever back patting that is going on this morning. The point is that this simplistic debate is welcomed by people in this case because the end justifies the means, although those same people argue for a more realistic complex analysis on other issues. This risible reduction of the issue to imaginary rights feeds the abuse of people arguing for a nuanced analysis and the triumphalist carry on this weekend which resembles DUP election victory.
There is a enormous public mobilisation to have people change the name of their relationship from civil partnership to marriage, a purely token change. Where will be the public mobilisation to ensure that people have proper health treatment? The Minister for Health is going around undermining marriage instead of reducing waiting lists or ensuring that babies do not die from neglect. How many of these people who are living in England for years and who are coming here to vote fraudulently will vote to sort out these matters?
There is no reason for anyone, even a homosexual, to be satisfied at the state of the this State.
If it was just a token change then why such passion in your opposition to it?
By the way, your first paragraph makes no sense whatsoever, either grammatically or logically. No change there then.
If it is purely token, then why such talk about ramifications leading from it?
Can you write a post without blatantly contradicting yourself? No lost not because of a media bias to Yes, but because anytime No campaigners tried to logically argue their position they were hopelessly exposed. Which left people not with a choice between gay and straight, but between rationality and irrationality. And you were always going to be outnumbered on that.
As I've said during the campaign and Eamon Sweeney also pointed out this morning in the Sindo, the argument from Faith was the only No one that rung true with voters and that should have been front and centre at all times. You'd have lost still, but with a far slimmer margin, and a good deal more respect from all concerned.
Maybe next time, bin the posters saying children deserve a mother and a father, and all the other arguments that antagonized not just gays, but single parents, separated parents, divorced parents, widowed spouses....Jesus the list goes on, and you're still blaming other people.
The one thing missing from your campaign was empathy - empathy for others whose families do not add up to the Biblical ideal, and the ability to induce empathy in Yes voters for No catholics struggling with their conscience. Without it, you were on a loser.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 24, 2015, 01:18:02 PM
If it is purely token, then why such talk about ramifications leading from it?
No real need to write 3 posts in response to mine, you could just write one sensible one. Thanks for pointing out the problems with my grammar, it is important to aim to do things right and not settle for lower standards.
I think that both the Constitution are Marriage are important things, not something to be used for tokenism. Others may not think this, obviously they make up 62% of the population.
Quote from: imtommygunnCare to share what these ramifications would be?
I don't wish to refight the who thing again. But it isn't rocket science, if you had an institution, marriage, more or less setup to support people having children and bringing them up in stable circumstances and you redefine it as having nothing to do with that then that can only reduce its support for its original aim. This is a long term thing I can't say exactly what is going to happen in 10 years or 20 and of course the emphasis here is short term, the long term be damned.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 24, 2015, 01:33:35 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 24, 2015, 01:18:02 PM
If it is purely token, then why such talk about ramifications leading from it?
No real need to write 3 posts in response to mine, you could just write one sensible one. Thanks for pointing out the problems with my grammar, it is important to aim to do things right and not settle for lower standards.
I think that both the Constitution are Marriage are important things, not something to be used for tokenism. Others may not think this, obviously they make up 62% of the population.
Or maybe the 62% think marriage is so important that gays should be entitled to take part too?
QuoteI think that both the Constitution are Marriage are important things, not something to be used for tokenism. Others may not think this, obviously they make up 62% of the population.
That's not what you said, and even now, you seek to avoid questions that you know you can't answer. You said first
QuoteThere is a enormous public mobilisation to have people change the name of their relationship from civil partnership to marriage, a purely token change
Now it can be either a token change, which, by definition, can have no ramifications, or it can be a change motivated by tokenism, which could have ramifications.
Your complete lack of intellectual honesty has been a hallmark of your contributions to this debate, and not only did it weaken your argument, it displays a deep lack of respect for other posters on this board.
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 24, 2015, 02:00:35 PM
Now it can be either a token change, which, by definition, can have no ramifications, or it can be a change motivated by tokenism, which could have ramifications.
I'm not fighting this over again. But I would have been happier if the public debate had at least discussed issues like the above.
QuoteYour complete lack of intellectual honesty has been a hallmark of your contributions to this debate, and not only did it weaken your argument, it displays a deep lack of respect for other posters on this board.
I've put forward my analysis, you may not agree with me, but there is no reason to say that it was dishonest. I put forward this analysis and have received feck all respect for being willing to do so when I ran into the blanket defence.
QuoteI'm not fighting this over again. But I would have been happier if the public debate had at least discussed issues like the above.
that is the very definition of dishonest - you have made two diametrically opposed statements in the space of two posts, you do not clarify which is your position, then you say you would have been "happier if the debate had discussed issues like the above".
I'd be happier if you would give a straight answer to a straight question, but given your behaviour so far, we're both likely to end up disappointed.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 24, 2015, 06:33:10 AM
Gabriel,it was a great day yesterday! A 34/1 accumulator came up for me involving 3 French and 3 Spanish teams! Utterly brilliant adrenalin rush,with the three Spanish clubs all winning in the afternoon,while the three French teams kicked off at 8pm,so following them on livescore as they each held on to one goal leads was brilliant.Seeing Full Time pop up in each of the three games was sheer ecstasy,I could have proposed to David Norris I was so happy!
But I don't gamble to make money (if I did I would be staking huge sums) I gamble for the adrenalin rush hence I am not committing any sin.
You'll be donating your winnings to charity then??
I hear the Christian Institute are looking a few bob to help out your favourite bakery so they can keep making those fruit scones you like
(http://i.imgur.com/tsWKwzO.jpg)
Easy tiger why are you looking for straight answers to gay marriage issues?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 24, 2015, 01:33:35 PM
Quote from: imtommygunnCare to share what these ramifications would be?
I don't wish to refight the who thing again. But it isn't rocket science, if you had an institution, marriage, more or less setup to support people having children and bringing them up in stable circumstances and you redefine it as having nothing to do with that then that can only reduce its support for its original aim. This is a long term thing I can't say exactly what is going to happen in 10 years or 20 and of course the emphasis here is short term, the long term be damned.
I really don't agree with this at all to be honest. I vaguely read what you wrote before and thought your argument was about potential ramifications which you can't qualify or quantify. The family unit is very different to what it was years ago. Children no longer have to born in wedlock and people who marry no longer do it purely for children. Anyway no point in covering old ground.
To be fair you make better arguments than topcuppla or fearon though topcuppla seems like a very confused individual.
Gabriel another 15/1 bet up today! Roscommon,Minaghan,Celtic -1,Newcastle!
2 Corinthians 11:30
If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.
James 4:16
As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil
Quote from: muppet on May 24, 2015, 11:08:09 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 08:55:30 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 18, 2015, 02:22:51 PM
Other than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree.
And given the intolerance to the church on this board or anyone who supports the church, that pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic, but it is ok to insult, berate and lambaste a religious institution and those who support as long as everyone is supporting gay rights and patting themselves on the back for being tolerant and forward thinking, you seriously couldn't make the hypocrisy on this board up!
I apologise, I can see now that english isn't your first language.
'hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree' = 'pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic'
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
But as imtommygunn pointed out above, your views are completely homophobic. Stop trying to hide behind the rest of the decent NO voters and just admit it.
If the prejudice you allure to isn't the well played card of homophobia what is it?
Where did the use of the phrase "playing the racist / homophobic card" when you call somebody on saying something blatantly racist / homophobic come from? It's an interesting way of avoiding having to back up your remarks while at the same time leveling an accusation at the other person
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 24, 2015, 07:48:19 PM
Where did the use of the phrase "playing the racist / homophobic card" when you call somebody on saying something blatantly racist / homophobic come from? It's an interesting way of avoiding having to back up your remarks while at the same time leveling an accusation at the other person
Originally the phrase came from Churchill ' s uncle i.e. the Orange card being the one to play. More recently, the US right wing, whenever someone mentions inequality, it's class warfare; minority/black issues, you're playing the race card. It's a way of shutting down conversations they don't want to have.
Gabriel when did making a statement of fact become a boast?
When you use the fact to intentionally draw praise from others and thereby pat yourself on the back.
Still, as impressed as I am that you win these competitions, I'm even more astounded that you're able to find them. So competitive are you, Tony, that if there were a competition whose first prize was a gay rights rainbow flag, you'd enter because it's in the genes, like homosexuality, and good for you. I'd be curious to know how many of these competitions you've won in your storied life, and better yet, you should post a photo of your haul. Do you recall the first prize you ever won?
Believe it or not it was a bottle of whiskey for writing the star letter in the Sunday People sports pages way back in the early 70s.Also remember winning tickets from RTE Radio 2 for Rolling Stones at Slane in 1982,that was when the bug bit.
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 24, 2015, 04:35:37 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 24, 2015, 01:33:35 PM
Quote from: imtommygunnCare to share what these ramifications would be?
I don't wish to refight the who thing again. But it isn't rocket science, if you had an institution, marriage, more or less setup to support people having children and bringing them up in stable circumstances and you redefine it as having nothing to do with that then that can only reduce its support for its original aim. This is a long term thing I can't say exactly what is going to happen in 10 years or 20 and of course the emphasis here is short term, the long term be damned.
I really don't agree with this at all to be honest. I vaguely read what you wrote before and thought your argument was about potential ramifications which you can't qualify or quantify. The family unit is very different to what it was years ago. Children no longer have to born in wedlock and people who marry no longer do it purely for children. Anyway no point in covering old ground.
To be fair you make better arguments than topcuppla or fearon though topcuppla seems like a very confused individual.
There is no point in covering old ground as we are talking at cross purposes. I am talking about what is the best environment for children and you are talking about the best setup for facilitating adults. There is no agreement possible because we are not answering the same question and you don't consider my question valid nor do you think you should have to think about it.
Every country which has introduced gay marriage has a birthrate below replacement, although this is not confined to such countries. They will have a rainbow culture for a declining number of people, or they will have immigration from places who may not fit into the rainbow culture at all, with all that entails.
Are we going extinct so?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 24, 2015, 09:42:29 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 24, 2015, 04:35:37 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 24, 2015, 01:33:35 PM
Quote from: imtommygunnCare to share what these ramifications would be?
I don't wish to refight the who thing again. But it isn't rocket science, if you had an institution, marriage, more or less setup to support people having children and bringing them up in stable circumstances and you redefine it as having nothing to do with that then that can only reduce its support for its original aim. This is a long term thing I can't say exactly what is going to happen in 10 years or 20 and of course the emphasis here is short term, the long term be damned.
I really don't agree with this at all to be honest. I vaguely read what you wrote before and thought your argument was about potential ramifications which you can't qualify or quantify. The family unit is very different to what it was years ago. Children no longer have to born in wedlock and people who marry no longer do it purely for children. Anyway no point in covering old ground.
To be fair you make better arguments than topcuppla or fearon though topcuppla seems like a very confused individual.
There is no point in covering old ground as we are talking at cross purposes. I am talking about what is the best environment for children and you are talking about the best setup for facilitating adults. There is no agreement possible because we are not answering the same question and you don't consider my question valid nor do you think you should have to think about it.
Every country which has introduced gay marriage has a birthrate below replacement, although this is not confined to such countries. They will have a rainbow culture for a declining number of people, or they will have immigration from places who may not fit into the rainbow culture at all, with all that entails.
so what has been the trend of this birthrate being below replacement? Has it decreased the birthrate since gay marriage has been introduced, has there been a downward trend or was it always there?Genuinely interested to know this.
[edit] first country i looked at - sweden. Gay marriage legalised in 09. Birthrate has since went up.
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 24, 2015, 10:12:14 PM
[so what has been the trend of this birthrate being below replacement? Has it decreased the birthrate since gay marriage has been introduced, has there been a downward trend or was it always there?Genuinely interested to know this.
[edit] first country i looked at - sweden. Gay marriage legalised in 09. Birthrate has since went up.
A 6 year variation is not the time scale involved.
I'm not claiming a direct connection between gay marriage and the birth rate. I am saying that a national debate where the section of the constitution about the family is said to have nothing to do with children is indicative of particular frame of mind. I suggest that the original writers of the constitution in 1937 had a longer view than we do today.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 24, 2015, 10:28:59 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 24, 2015, 10:12:14 PM
[so what has been the trend of this birthrate being below replacement? Has it decreased the birthrate since gay marriage has been introduced, has there been a downward trend or was it always there?Genuinely interested to know this.
[edit] first country i looked at - sweden. Gay marriage legalised in 09. Birthrate has since went up.
A 6 year variation is not the time scale involved.
I'm not claiming a direct connection between gay marriage and the birth rate. I am saying that a national debate where the section of the constitution about the family is said to have nothing to do with children is indicative of particular frame of mind. I suggest that the original writers of the constitution in 1937 had a longer view than we do today.
So you had a vote then?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 06:31:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 24, 2015, 11:08:09 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 08:55:30 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 18, 2015, 02:22:51 PM
Other than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree.
And given the intolerance to the church on this board or anyone who supports the church, that pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic, but it is ok to insult, berate and lambaste a religious institution and those who support as long as everyone is supporting gay rights and patting themselves on the back for being tolerant and forward thinking, you seriously couldn't make the hypocrisy on this board up!
I apologise, I can see now that english isn't your first language.
'hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree' = 'pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic'
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
But as imtommygunn pointed out above, your views are completely homophobic. Stop trying to hide behind the rest of the decent NO voters and just admit it.
If the prejudice you allure to isn't the well played card of homophobia what is it?
The phrase was 'prejudice to some degree'.
There are homophobes.
There are those who are quite uncomfortable with homosexuality, but might prefer not to show it.
There are those that are comfortable with homosexuality as long as it isn't in your face.
There are those who have no issues with any aspect of homosexuality whatsoever.
There is 4 different examples of degrees of prejudice, off the top of my head. Different posters will see themselves in one or two of the above, or maybe feel there should be more categories. Maybe many more categories. Other than the first category, I think most people can empathise with the different levels of tolerance. In fact, with education or life experience or whatever, people can move from one category to another over time.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 24, 2015, 10:28:59 PM
A 6 year variation is not the time scale involved.
I'm not claiming a direct connection between gay marriage and the birth rate. I am saying that a national debate where the section of the constitution about the family is said to have nothing to do with children is indicative of particular frame of mind. I suggest that the original writers of the constitution in 1937 had a longer view than we do today.
Why are you bringing up birth rates then?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 24, 2015, 10:28:59 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 24, 2015, 10:12:14 PM
[so what has been the trend of this birthrate being below replacement? Has it decreased the birthrate since gay marriage has been introduced, has there been a downward trend or was it always there?Genuinely interested to know this.
[edit] first country i looked at - sweden. Gay marriage legalised in 09. Birthrate has since went up.
A 6 year variation is not the time scale involved.
I'm not claiming a direct connection between gay marriage and the birth rate. I am saying that a national debate where the section of the constitution about the family is said to have nothing to do with children is indicative of particular frame of mind. I suggest that the original writers of the constitution in 1937 had a longer view than we do today.
Yeah as stated why bring up birth rates and then say 6 years isn't long enough.
To be honest you haven't very good at making whatever point you're trying to make and also it was quite noticeable that only when it became clear yes was winning did you bring up the "illegal" voters which kind of seems like sour grapes.
My recent comments started when I criticised the simplistic and trivial nature of the discussion prior to the referendum, and the previous 2 posts prove my point, so I'll leave it at that.
You may have noticed the votes are cast and counted.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 24, 2015, 11:15:44 PM
My recent comments started when I criticised the simplistic and trivial nature of the discussion prior to the referendum, and the previous 2 posts prove my point, so I'll leave it at that.
I understand why they started. You seem to be trying to make a deep and profound point and don't seem to have the ability to articulate it.
Anyway not much point in this. As tb says case closed.
Given the cataclysmic effects over population will have on the planet over the next century, lower birth rates might not be the worst thing in the world.
By the way, and this is only a hunch, but I doubt too many gay people would have thought "ah, sure I can't get married, may as well be straight and have a couple of kids".
Can look forward to more stories like this one now in the free state.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199076/Grandparents-children-given-gay-couple-adoption-denied-access-years.html
You know it's going to happen and if some don't get their way they will label others and bully into submission. Seems to be the trend.
The biggest winners in this referendum will be the legal eagles with tons of new cases to leech from.
I hope all the massgoers who voted yes yesterday had the decency to stay away today.
A dark day for the family unit.
Well if it's in the Daily Mail then it must be true. ::)
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 09:29:00 AM
where about's in Ireland are you celebrating currently?
And just what, prey tell, does that have to do with the price of fish? Hmm?
I never asked about the price of fish, I asked where about's in Ireland are you currently celebrating?
Quote from: muppet on May 24, 2015, 10:54:07 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 06:31:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 24, 2015, 11:08:09 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 08:55:30 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 18, 2015, 02:22:51 PM
Other than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree.
And given the intolerance to the church on this board or anyone who supports the church, that pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic, but it is ok to insult, berate and lambaste a religious institution and those who support as long as everyone is supporting gay rights and patting themselves on the back for being tolerant and forward thinking, you seriously couldn't make the hypocrisy on this board up!
I apologise, I can see now that english isn't your first language.
'hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree' = 'pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic'
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
But as imtommygunn pointed out above, your views are completely homophobic. Stop trying to hide behind the rest of the decent NO voters and just admit it.
If the prejudice you allure to isn't the well played card of homophobia what is it?
The phrase was 'prejudice to some degree'.
There are homophobes.
There are those who are quite uncomfortable with homosexuality, but might prefer not to show it.
There are those that are comfortable with homosexuality as long as it isn't in your face.
There are those who have no issues with any aspect of homosexuality whatsoever.
There is 4 different examples of degrees of prejudice, off the top of my head. Different posters will see themselves in one or two of the above, or maybe feel there should be more categories. Maybe many more categories. Other than the first category, I think most people can empathise with the different levels of tolerance. In fact, with education or life experience or whatever, people can move from one category to another over time.
The gay rights activists on this board would beg to differ, though your post does give more of an insight into your rational that you let on, I would guess you fall into the second and third, but keep at the keyboard warrior you are playing a blinder!
Quote from: foxcommander on May 25, 2015, 03:14:39 AM
Can look forward to more stories like this one now in the free state.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199076/Grandparents-children-given-gay-couple-adoption-denied-access-years.html
You know it's going to happen and if some don't get their way they will label others and bully into submission. Seems to be the trend.
The biggest winners in this referendum will be the legal eagles with tons of new cases to leech from.
I hope all the massgoers who voted yes yesterday had the decency to stay away today.
A dark day for the family unit.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: foxcommander on May 25, 2015, 03:14:39 AM
Can look forward to more stories like this one now in the free state.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199076/Grandparents-children-given-gay-couple-adoption-denied-access-years.html
You know it's going to happen and if some don't get their way they will label others and bully into submission. Seems to be the trend.
The biggest winners in this referendum will be the legal eagles with tons of new cases to leech from.
I hope all the massgoers who voted yes yesterday had the decency to stay away today.
A dark day for the family unit.
Yes because that couldn't possibly happen if a heterosexual couple had adopted them.
The daily mail is the lowest of the low as a paper. The story printed after stephen gateley died was as homophobic as it gets and one of the most disgusting atories i've ever seen in the media. (Second only to a picture of someone hanging on the front of the sunday world)
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 01:09:21 AM
The vote applies to the free state only.If proper democracy applied on this island,a No vote would be recorded as all unionists in the north are opposed to gay marriage as are the majority of Catholics.
You would think that the the end of the campaign, the cotes being counted and the result being announced would signal the end of the lies but alas no. Keep deluding yourself there Tony
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 01:48:32 AM
I am saying that a substantial majority of Northern Catholics would vote No in any Gay marriage referendum
Hinges on your definition of "catholic".
I would wager that an overwhelming majority of people from a catholic/nationalist/republican background would vote in favour of marriage equality given the chance. The same applies to those from a protestant/unionist/loyalist background. It reaaly depends on whether they can be bothered voting. As it happens this is an issue that seems to get the under 40s on to the polling register and out on polling day itself.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 11:38:12 AM
Bryson is right for once.The referendum result will make Protestant resistance in the North to a United Ireland even more stronger and will also reduce its appeal to many sincere Catholics.With the SDLP and SF vote in decline,never has the time been more opportune for a unionist party to reach out to Northern Catholics,and cement partition for all time.
The Prince of Wales showed more respect to the Catholic Church and faith in Ireland this week than the average 26 county citizen does.
Maybe the result will trigger an increase in respect FOR the average 26 county citizen BY the Catholic Church. That would be a very good thing
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Seriously.Where else in the world would you get people flying "home" to vote when the outcome won't even effect them as they won't be living here anyway! ::)
Maybe in the future they would love to come back to a country that was different to the one they left. Maybe one that challenges the view from the pulpit rather than takes instruction from the pulpit represents a great leap forward and people who loved the country wanted to be part of that. A fantastic day for Ireland
Quote from: T Fearon on May 23, 2015, 07:39:09 PM
Like them or loathe them you have to admire the DUP for remaining unwavering in their beliefs in spite of vile abuse.It is time for the Catholic Church to adopt a similarly robust approach,and defend what's ordained to be right by Divine Scripture.A useful start would be to excommunicate any so called priest who admits to having voted Yes.
Meanwhile Easy tiger adopts the fatally flawed opt out approach of his conscience (totally illogical and stupid) of voting Yes and attending a First Communion service.I'll let you into a secret mate,you cannot cherry pick according to your conscience.Scripture,not the Church,Pope etc is the supreme authority.
Finally some sense from Tony. Tony is correct. The cherry picking has to stop. That is why Tony is not only against gay marriage but mixed fabric clothes, 2 crops growing in the same field, sex between a man and woman during the woman period of menstrual uncleanliness, working on the sabbath, eating shellfish, approaching the alter with less than perfect eyesight or cutting the hair around the temples of ones' head. Tony is not only against these behaviours for himself but is against them for everyone else and advocates the biblically sanctioned punishments for each of these crimes against god. This includes the murder of the perpetrators. This is because Tony does not cherrypick and is logical and consistent in his views.
Five posts when one would have sufficed?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 24, 2015, 07:11:11 AM
And what was all the celebrations about (akin to welcoming the football team home from another failed World Cup Finals campaign) on the streets of Dublin yesterday? Like it's hardly that the LGBT community have been oppressed,driven underground,or wrongly incarcerated like the Guildford four.Utter embarrassment these pictures beaming across the globe,and if the result had been No there would have been a rerun in 6 months time for a Yes.
There were some quite embarrassing scenes throughout the whole thing. Thankfully it all sorted itself in the end.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 25, 2015, 09:07:00 AM
Five posts when one would have sufficed?
Point being?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 22, 2015, 08:04:59 PM
I stand by every word, especially two men adopting a child, whats your point, let them marry, let them have the same rights as the rest, what they do is NOT normal in my opinion, and you would shit a brick if your son brought Barry home as his partner but you would never admit it here, deep down though you know it is true. Am I homophobic - no but I do have opinions, tell this if anyone questions any facet of black culture are they racist? Is no one allowed to have an opinion anymore without being branded by keyboard warriors like yourself who probably types one thing and thinks another, you keep suppressing them thoughts!!
No but if they argued for people to be denied equality based upon the colour of their skin then yes they would be labelled racist. Its a basic point
Point being that you could have condensed your flawed points into one post
Quote from: LCohen on May 25, 2015, 09:22:45 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 22, 2015, 08:04:59 PM
I stand by every word, especially two men adopting a child, whats your point, let them marry, let them have the same rights as the rest, what they do is NOT normal in my opinion, and you would shit a brick if your son brought Barry home as his partner but you would never admit it here, deep down though you know it is true. Am I homophobic - no but I do have opinions, tell this if anyone questions any facet of black culture are they racist? Is no one allowed to have an opinion anymore without being branded by keyboard warriors like yourself who probably types one thing and thinks another, you keep suppressing them thoughts!!
No but if they argued for people to be denied equality based upon the colour of their skin then yes they would be labelled racist. Its a basic point
But you don't agree with muppet that people could vote no and not be homophobic?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 25, 2015, 09:42:24 AM
Point being that you could have condensed your flawed points into one post
Ahem, the 5 posts were all replies to your 5 posts. Surely the same logic would apply to your good self?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 25, 2015, 09:43:48 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 25, 2015, 09:22:45 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 22, 2015, 08:04:59 PM
I stand by every word, especially two men adopting a child, whats your point, let them marry, let them have the same rights as the rest, what they do is NOT normal in my opinion, and you would shit a brick if your son brought Barry home as his partner but you would never admit it here, deep down though you know it is true. Am I homophobic - no but I do have opinions, tell this if anyone questions any facet of black culture are they racist? Is no one allowed to have an opinion anymore without being branded by keyboard warriors like yourself who probably types one thing and thinks another, you keep suppressing them thoughts!!
No but if they argued for people to be denied equality based upon the colour of their skin then yes they would be labelled racist. Its a basic point
But you don't agree with muppet that people could vote no and not be homophobic?
I would not know why someone would have voted no. But of the reasons that were voiced on this forum for voting No I did not see a single one that was not homophobic.
Quote from: muppet on May 24, 2015, 10:54:07 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 06:31:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 24, 2015, 11:08:09 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 08:55:30 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 18, 2015, 02:22:51 PM
Other than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree.
And given the intolerance to the church on this board or anyone who supports the church, that pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic, but it is ok to insult, berate and lambaste a religious institution and those who support as long as everyone is supporting gay rights and patting themselves on the back for being tolerant and forward thinking, you seriously couldn't make the hypocrisy on this board up!
I apologise, I can see now that english isn't your first language.
'hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree' = 'pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic'
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
But as imtommygunn pointed out above, your views are completely homophobic. Stop trying to hide behind the rest of the decent NO voters and just admit it.
If the prejudice you allure to isn't the well played card of homophobia what is it?
The phrase was 'prejudice to some degree'.
There are homophobes.
There are those who are quite uncomfortable with homosexuality, but might prefer not to show it.
There are those that are comfortable with homosexuality as long as it isn't in your face.
There are those who have no issues with any aspect of homosexuality whatsoever.
There is 4 different examples of degrees of prejudice, off the top of my head. Different posters will see themselves in one or two of the above, or maybe feel there should be more categories. Maybe many more categories. Other than the first category, I think most people can empathise with the different levels of tolerance. In fact, with education or life experience or whatever, people can move from one category to another over time.
Muppet outlines two examples when trying to justify - Other than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree. Are you saying muppet or others are homophobic if they voted no with those opinions?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 25, 2015, 10:00:00 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 24, 2015, 10:54:07 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 06:31:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 24, 2015, 11:08:09 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 24, 2015, 08:55:30 AM
Quote from: muppet on May 18, 2015, 02:22:51 PM
Other than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree.
And given the intolerance to the church on this board or anyone who supports the church, that pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic, but it is ok to insult, berate and lambaste a religious institution and those who support as long as everyone is supporting gay rights and patting themselves on the back for being tolerant and forward thinking, you seriously couldn't make the hypocrisy on this board up!
I apologise, I can see now that english isn't your first language.
'hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree' = 'pretty much classifies everyone who voted no as homophobic'
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
But as imtommygunn pointed out above, your views are completely homophobic. Stop trying to hide behind the rest of the decent NO voters and just admit it.
If the prejudice you allure to isn't the well played card of homophobia what is it?
The phrase was 'prejudice to some degree'.
There are homophobes.
There are those who are quite uncomfortable with homosexuality, but might prefer not to show it.
There are those that are comfortable with homosexuality as long as it isn't in your face.
There are those who have no issues with any aspect of homosexuality whatsoever.
There is 4 different examples of degrees of prejudice, off the top of my head. Different posters will see themselves in one or two of the above, or maybe feel there should be more categories. Maybe many more categories. Other than the first category, I think most people can empathise with the different levels of tolerance. In fact, with education or life experience or whatever, people can move from one category to another over time.
Muppet outlines two examples when trying to justify - Other than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree. Are you saying muppet or others are homophobic if they voted no with those opinions?
I'm not taking the piss but could you please outline what your question is and I will attempt to answer it
Muppet doesn't believe everyone who votes no is homophobic, whereas you do - he mentions scenarios where he believes this is the case.
There are those who are quite uncomfortable with homosexuality, but might prefer not to show it.
There are those that are comfortable with homosexuality as long as it isn't in your face.
Would you concur?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 25, 2015, 10:10:11 AM
Muppet doesn't believe everyone who votes no is homophobic, whereas you do
That is not what I said (or repeated)
Quote from: topcuppla on May 25, 2015, 10:10:11 AM
he mentions scenarios where he believes this is the case.
There are those who are quite uncomfortable with homosexuality, but might prefer not to show it.
What are these non-homophobic reasons for being "quite uncomfortable" with homosexuality.
In what way would their preference for not displaying thier discomfort be important?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 25, 2015, 10:10:11 AM
There are those that are comfortable with homosexuality as long as it isn't in your face.
I don't understand this at all. Would these same people be comfortable with gender or race equality as it was not "in your face"? In what way would equality be "in your face"? and what fear of something being "in your face" lead someone to vote to deny equality?
Get to the truth behind those questions and we can debate the homophobia that might lurk there
http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/follow-the-money-american-entity-funded-irish-same-sex-marriage-campaign#.VWL5MXCkqK2
Hope all you Yes voters don't feel too bad about being duped.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 25, 2015, 11:29:52 AM
http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/follow-the-money-american-entity-funded-irish-same-sex-marriage-campaign#.VWL5MXCkqK2
Hope all you Yes voters don't feel too bad about being duped.
And the Iona institute is heavily by funded by the Vatican... Your point??
Ah, The National Catholic Register...the Fox News of biased, religious propaganda sheets.
Quote from: LCohen on May 25, 2015, 10:19:02 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 25, 2015, 10:10:11 AM
Muppet doesn't believe everyone who votes no is homophobic, whereas you do
That is not what I said (or repeated)
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 10:11:45 AM
If there are other arguments from the No camapign then they need to set them out. Otherwise it is difficult not to conclude that the only reason to vote no is that the voter doesn't like gays i.e. they suffer from homophobia. Sorry to have to point that out but as I say feel free to point out those other reasons for voting no.
So you think now you could have voted no and not be homophobic?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/ireland-promoted-as-gay-wedding-destination-as-soon-as-referendum-result-was-declared-31251243.html
No really,it's not about the money ::)
Quote from: T Fearon on May 25, 2015, 11:58:51 AM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/ireland-promoted-as-gay-wedding-destination-as-soon-as-referendum-result-was-declared-31251243.html
No really,it's not about the money ::)
It's not. That's just a fringe benefit. The same as annoying the likes of you.
I propose 24th September as Gay Marriage Day.
(https://i.imgflip.com/lytxg.jpg)
OK, serious question for one moment, not related to the referendum as such. Apologies if it betrays a deep ignorance, and I am not trying to be insulting to anyone, but it is a question I have thought before, and never really heard an answer for, and it came to mind again watching the celebrations. Maybe someone here has some insights, or has heard this before.
If a gay man is attracted to other men, and a lesbian is attracted to other women, why do some gay men dress up as women, and some lesbians try their best to look like men? Now, I'm not talking about transgender people here, as I understand that motivation, I'm talking about people who identify as gay, and in gay relationships.
In those cases, why would a gay man be attracted to a man looking like a woman? Or why would a lesbian be attracted to a girl who looks like a man?
I am a straight man, and I can't imagine being attracted to a woman who has tried her best to look masculine?
Again, apologies if this is ignorant or stupid, but I genuinely don't understand it.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 25, 2015, 11:58:51 AM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/ireland-promoted-as-gay-wedding-destination-as-soon-as-referendum-result-was-declared-31251243.html
No really,it's not about the money ::)
What are we talking about, Knock?
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 25, 2015, 03:02:57 PM
OK, serious question for one moment, not related to the referendum as such. Apologies if it betrays a deep ignorance, and I am not trying to be insulting to anyone, but it is a question I have thought before, and never really heard an answer for, and it came to mind again watching the celebrations. Maybe someone here has some insights, or has heard this before.
If a gay man is attracted to other men, and a lesbian is attracted to other women, why do some gay men dress up as women, and some lesbians try their best to look like men? Now, I'm not talking about transgender people here, as I understand that motivation, I'm talking about people who identify as gay, and in gay relationships.
In those cases, why would a gay man be attracted to a man looking like a woman? Or why would a lesbian be attracted to a girl who looks like a man?
I am a straight man, and I can't imagine being attracted to a woman who has tried her best to look masculine?
Again, apologies if this is ignorant or stupid, but I genuinely don't understand it.
Eagerly awaiting Tony's answer to this post. #excited
(http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/6421-michael-jackson-eating-popcorn.gif)
Quote from: topcuppla on May 25, 2015, 10:10:11 AM
Muppet doesn't believe everyone who votes no is homophobic, whereas you do - he mentions scenarios where he believes this is the case.
There are those who are quite uncomfortable with homosexuality, but might prefer not to show it.
There are those that are comfortable with homosexuality as long as it isn't in your face.
Would you concur?
Whereas you voted yes yet display homophobia ???
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 25, 2015, 03:37:30 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 25, 2015, 10:10:11 AM
Muppet doesn't believe everyone who votes no is homophobic, whereas you do - he mentions scenarios where he believes this is the case.
There are those who are quite uncomfortable with homosexuality, but might prefer not to show it.
There are those that are comfortable with homosexuality as long as it isn't in your face.
Would you concur?
Whereas you voted yes yet display homophobia ???
What about homosexuals that voted No? You'd expect that they're not homophobes.
Quote from: ballinaman on May 25, 2015, 03:13:23 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 25, 2015, 03:02:57 PM
OK, serious question for one moment, not related to the referendum as such. Apologies if it betrays a deep ignorance, and I am not trying to be insulting to anyone, but it is a question I have thought before, and never really heard an answer for, and it came to mind again watching the celebrations. Maybe someone here has some insights, or has heard this before.
If a gay man is attracted to other men, and a lesbian is attracted to other women, why do some gay men dress up as women, and some lesbians try their best to look like men? Now, I'm not talking about transgender people here, as I understand that motivation, I'm talking about people who identify as gay, and in gay relationships.
In those cases, why would a gay man be attracted to a man looking like a woman? Or why would a lesbian be attracted to a girl who looks like a man?
I am a straight man, and I can't imagine being attracted to a woman who has tried her best to look masculine?
Again, apologies if this is ignorant or stupid, but I genuinely don't understand it.
Eagerly awaiting Tony's answer to this post. #excited
Be careful what you wish for. There might be pictures...
AZoffaly only a member of the Gay Community could answer your questions.I can't even explain why a man fancies another man,full stop.
Someone mentioned Knock.Knock is a sacred site of pilgrimage,that not even the mercenary Bord Failte would dare use as a marketing tool.
Reminds me of the 'Jaysus I must be a lesbian too' joke.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 25, 2015, 04:28:42 PM
AZoffaly only a member of the Gay Community could answer your questions.I can't even explain why a man fancies another man,full stop.
Someone mentioned Knock.Knock is a sacred site of pilgrimage,that not even the mercenary Bord Failte would dare use as a marketing tool.
Arah will you stop, sure didn't Monsignor Horan use it as a marketing tool to build the airport back in the early 80s!!
Quote from: Tubberman on May 25, 2015, 04:39:59 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on May 25, 2015, 04:28:42 PM
AZoffaly only a member of the Gay Community could answer your questions.I can't even explain why a man fancies another man,full stop.
Someone mentioned Knock.Knock is a sacred site of pilgrimage,that not even the mercenary Bord Failte would dare use as a marketing tool.
Arah will you stop, sure didn't Monsignor Horan use it as a marketing tool to build the airport back in the early 80s!!
Tony is the colossus behind the board's version of McCarthyism. He can spot evil everywhere and in everyone, even in Bord Fáilte.
Monsignor Horan principally wanted to make it easier for pilgrims to access the Shrine of Knock.Of course he saw the wider economic benefits for the West as well,mainly job creation and stemming the flow of emigration.This was all about community sustainment and development,not greed or profit.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 25, 2015, 05:42:33 PM
Monsignor Horan principally wanted to make it easier for pilgrims to access the Shrine of Knock.Of course he saw the wider economic benefits for the West as well,mainly job creation and stemming the flow of emigration.This was all about community sustainment and development,not greed or profit.
Of course it was. Totally selfless.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 25, 2015, 11:42:41 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 25, 2015, 10:19:02 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 25, 2015, 10:10:11 AM
Muppet doesn't believe everyone who votes no is homophobic, whereas you do
That is not what I said (or repeated)
Quote from: LCohen on May 09, 2015, 10:11:45 AM
If there are other arguments from the No camapign then they need to set them out. Otherwise it is difficult not to conclude that the only reason to vote no is that the voter doesn't like gays i.e. they suffer from homophobia. Sorry to have to point that out but as I say feel free to point out those other reasons for voting no.
So you think now you could have voted no and not be homophobic?
Always been open to that idea but the fact remains that not one single non-homophobic argument for voting No has been advanced on this forum. As I said the quote you used "set them out"
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 25, 2015, 03:02:57 PM
OK, serious question for one moment, not related to the referendum as such. Apologies if it betrays a deep ignorance, and I am not trying to be insulting to anyone, but it is a question I have thought before, and never really heard an answer for, and it came to mind again watching the celebrations. Maybe someone here has some insights, or has heard this before.
If a gay man is attracted to other men, and a lesbian is attracted to other women, why do some gay men dress up as women, and some lesbians try their best to look like men? Now, I'm not talking about transgender people here, as I understand that motivation, I'm talking about people who identify as gay, and in gay relationships.
In those cases, why would a gay man be attracted to a man looking like a woman? Or why would a lesbian be attracted to a girl who looks like a man?
I am a straight man, and I can't imagine being attracted to a woman who has tried her best to look masculine?
Again, apologies if this is ignorant or stupid, but I genuinely don't understand it.
Maybe the answer lies in the fact that not all hetrosexual men think exactly the same and that remains true for homosexual men, hetrosexual females and lesbians
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 25, 2015, 03:40:21 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on May 25, 2015, 03:37:30 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 25, 2015, 10:10:11 AM
Muppet doesn't believe everyone who votes no is homophobic, whereas you do - he mentions scenarios where he believes this is the case.
There are those who are quite uncomfortable with homosexuality, but might prefer not to show it.
There are those that are comfortable with homosexuality as long as it isn't in your face.
Would you concur?
Whereas you voted yes yet display homophobia ???
What about homosexuals that voted No? You'd expect that they're not homophobes.
The existence of homophobic homosexuals is not unknown. My first, last and only confession was to one such man
Quote from: LCohen on May 25, 2015, 06:04:00 PM
The existence of homophobic homosexuals is not unknown. My first, last and only confession was to one such man
I'd say there was two fakes in that conversation.
Quote from: LCohen on May 25, 2015, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 25, 2015, 03:02:57 PM
OK, serious question for one moment, not related to the referendum as such. Apologies if it betrays a deep ignorance, and I am not trying to be insulting to anyone, but it is a question I have thought before, and never really heard an answer for, and it came to mind again watching the celebrations. Maybe someone here has some insights, or has heard this before.
If a gay man is attracted to other men, and a lesbian is attracted to other women, why do some gay men dress up as women, and some lesbians try their best to look like men? Now, I'm not talking about transgender people here, as I understand that motivation, I'm talking about people who identify as gay, and in gay relationships.
In those cases, why would a gay man be attracted to a man looking like a woman? Or why would a lesbian be attracted to a girl who looks like a man?
I am a straight man, and I can't imagine being attracted to a woman who has tried her best to look masculine?
Again, apologies if this is ignorant or stupid, but I genuinely don't understand it.
Maybe the answer lies in the fact that not all hetrosexual men think exactly the same and that remains true for homosexual men, hetrosexual females and lesbians
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. I know not everyone is the same. That's not what I'm asking. I don't know any straight men that find masculine looking women attractive, so I'm wondering how a lesbian that is attracted to women can find that look attractive. I'm genuinely not trying to be argumentative. I suppose I'm asking a very tough question but it seems a little incongruous.
The human condition maybe.
Have you seen Ex Machina? There's a great conversation in there that goes along the lines of:
"What's your type? Like, say you like black chicks. How do you break that down? How do you rationalize it or explain it? You can't. You just have a thing for black chicks."
Quote from: T Fearon on May 25, 2015, 11:29:52 AM
http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/follow-the-money-american-entity-funded-irish-same-sex-marriage-campaign#.VWL5MXCkqK2
Hope all you Yes voters don't feel too bad about being duped.
Let's be honest here, Free State decision makers can be bought fairly easily and the country has a history of treachery.
Who knows what Feeney's play was here - power play vs the church perhaps? Looks like it succeeded. Now on to the TTIP and GMOs.
As Ex-Minister Phil Hogan and now EU commissioner on Agriculture gleefully announced "Spain is a country that is guaranteeing food" through it's use of GMO's and the fat focker is proud of it. Soylent Green awaits.
I see your Americans funding the Yes campaign and I raise you:
QuoteUS Christians 'bankrolling' No campaign in Ireland's gay marriage referendum
Row over funding of both campaigns in vote for legalisation of same-sex nuptials, yet despite accusations over foreign money, poll finds 58% will vote yes
With just five days to go before Ireland's historic referendum on the legalisation of gay marriage, a bitter row has broken out between supporters and opponents over the funding of their respective campaigns. Supporters of a yes vote have accused opponents of a lack of transparency over finances and of accepting funding from rightwing Christian groups in the US.
Ireland's referendum is the only one in the world where a national electorate is being asked to legalise gay marriage. If it is passed on Friday, gay couples will have the right under the state's constitution to marry – at present only civil partnerships are recognised in law. Marriage equality would provide full rights of inheritance but, despite it being a contentious issue in the campaign, would not alter the law on adoption, which was recently changed to allow gay couples to adopt.
A yes vote would also mark yet another defeat for the Catholic church and the political power it used to wield in Ireland.
The yes campaign says its opponents have a huge advantage in terms of resources for buying billboard and poster space and have spent tens of thousands of euros in the last few weeks alone. Now no campaigners have booked full-page advertisements to appear later this week in dozens of regional Irish papers, calling on voters to reject incorporating the right for gay couples to marry into the republic's constitution.
One of the no side's strongest supporters in the US is the lavishly funded National Organisation for Marriage (NOM). In a letter to supporters around the world, it has urged evangelical Christians to visit keepmarriage.org, which is campaigning for a no vote.
Ireland days away from gay marriage equality according to latest polls
Read more
"Just like in campaigns for marriage here in America," the letter says, "slanted public opinion polls become fodder to influence and depress supporters of marriage. This is happening in Ireland. If [the no campaign] can manage to pull off a victory, it will be a tremendous boost to the cause of marriage worldwide. Please do what you can to bring awareness to their efforts."
Advertisement
However, a spokesperson for NOM in the US denied this weekend that it had channelled funds to any of the three main opposition groups to gay marriage during the campaign. NOM is aware that foreign donations to lobby groups during referendums in Ireland are banned, the spokesperson said.
Some in the no campaign have countered with claims that the yes side has benefited from millions of dollars donated by the Irish-American multimillionaire Chuck Feeney and his Atlantic Philanthropies agency.
John Waters, the award-winning Irish columnist and writer, heads the First Families First group, which opposes gay marriage. Waters said it was outrageous that Feeney's agency had been "allowed to swamp the Irish democratic process". He and independent Irish senator Rónán Mullen allege that Atlantic Philanthropies is financially backing the yes campaign because it funds a series of pro-gay marriage organisations ranging from the Gay and Lesbian Network to Amnesty International in Ireland.
Asked who funds his own group, Waters said: "We have no funding whatsoever and are not seeking any, being simply three private citizens seeking to defend certain constitutional rights and protections."
Atlantic Philanthropies declined to answer questions about the claims, but backers of the yes campaign firmly rejected them. They said their group adhered to the strict rules on campaign funding set up by Ireland's Standards in Public Office (Sipo) commission. The Sipo register of lobby groups shows that at least 10 of the pro-gay marriage organisations have fully complied with its rules, including a ban on foreign donations.
Brian Sheehan, the co-director of pro-gay marriage group Yes Equality, said: "Atlantic Philanthropies are not funding the Yes Equality referendum campaign. Yes Equality is fully funded through its supporters organising fundraising initiatives throughout Ireland.
"In addition we ran a crowdfunding campaign to raise monies for our poster, bus tour and booklet campaigns. All elements of the Yes Equality campaign are appropriately registered with the Standards in Public Office commission. Yes Equality is entirely dependent on generous small donations from around the country. The average donation made to Yes Equality has been €70."
Despite the accusations and counter-accusations over foreign money, the no camp appears to be facing an uphill struggle in its battle to defeat proposals to legalise gay marriage. A poll by Ipsos MRBI for the Irish Times this weekend found that 58% will vote yes while 25% will say no, with 17% of the 1,200 surveyed undecided.
And in a late bid to stop gay marriage become legal in a state where homosexuality was a crime until 1993, four Irish Catholic bishops released pastoral letters late on Saturday night urging their parishioners to vote no on 22 May. The statements, from Bishops Kieran O'Reilly, Kevin Doran, Martin Drennan and John Fleming will be read out in churches on Sunday. The pro-gay marriage cause also received a significant boost in this last weekend of campaigning when the Republic's most famous country music star, Daniel O'Donnell, who has an enormous fanbase in rural, conservative Ireland, came out in favour of a yes vote.
Source (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/16/us-christians-no-campaign-ireland-gay-marriage-referendum)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on May 26, 2015, 05:58:14 AM
I see your Americans funding the Yes campaign and I raise you:
Not beyond a bit of whataboutery I see ;D
While the funding of the No campaign is pretty straightforward to understand you got to admit there is something not quite right about pumping that amount of money into the yes campaign without expecting something in return.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 25, 2015, 06:56:56 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 25, 2015, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 25, 2015, 03:02:57 PM
OK, serious question for one moment, not related to the referendum as such. Apologies if it betrays a deep ignorance, and I am not trying to be insulting to anyone, but it is a question I have thought before, and never really heard an answer for, and it came to mind again watching the celebrations. Maybe someone here has some insights, or has heard this before.
If a gay man is attracted to other men, and a lesbian is attracted to other women, why do some gay men dress up as women, and some lesbians try their best to look like men? Now, I'm not talking about transgender people here, as I understand that motivation, I'm talking about people who identify as gay, and in gay relationships.
In those cases, why would a gay man be attracted to a man looking like a woman? Or why would a lesbian be attracted to a girl who looks like a man?
I am a straight man, and I can't imagine being attracted to a woman who has tried her best to look masculine?
Again, apologies if this is ignorant or stupid, but I genuinely don't understand it.
Maybe the answer lies in the fact that not all hetrosexual men think exactly the same and that remains true for homosexual men, hetrosexual females and lesbians
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. I know not everyone is the same. That's not what I'm asking. I don't know any straight men that find masculine looking women attractive, so I'm wondering how a lesbian that is attracted to women can find that look attractive. I'm genuinely not trying to be argumentative. I suppose I'm asking a very tough question but it seems a little incongruous.
The human condition maybe.
My mates sister in law is a lesbian but is going out with a pre op transsexual. So you have a girl who likes girls going out with a boy who wants to be a girl (Im pretty sure there is a song there somewhere) , It is mind f**k and i cant get my head around it.
Quote from: ludermor on May 26, 2015, 07:57:50 AM
My mates sister in law is a lesbian but is going out with a pre op transsexual. So you have a girl who likes girls going out with a boy who wants to be a girl (Im pretty sure there is a song there somewhere) , It is mind f**k and i cant get my head around it.
There's a tongue twister (pardon the pun lol) does the Transgender person want to become a lesbian woman as opposed to a hetrosexual male as he is at present?
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 25, 2015, 06:56:56 PM
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. I know not everyone is the same. That's not what I'm asking. I don't know any straight men that find masculine looking women attractive, so I'm wondering how a lesbian that is attracted to women can find that look attractive. I'm genuinely not trying to be argumentative. I suppose I'm asking a very tough question but it seems a little incongruous.
The human condition maybe.
I'm guessing there's a zoological thing at work. I asked a friend of mine who studied the subject why it was that with some species of animal it was the male who was the looker (e.g. peacocks/hens) while with others it was the female (e.g. humans) and her answer was quite blunt: weakness. Women are hardwired to put on a display because they can't compete using brute strength. With that in mind, there are going to be males of the species who are more, shall we say, flamboyant without necessarily being gay and are drawn to the flamboyance of women.
Everyone feel free to shoot me down over this.
I think, deiseach, you might be making this more complicated than I meant.
Consider Sheila, a lesbian. She is a very feminine lady, dresses, long hair, the works. She likes women, is attracted to them, and is not attracted to men. (i.e. not Bi).
She sees Laura in a bar. Laura is also a lesbian, but feels much more comfortable with a more masculine appearance. She is not Transgender, she likes being a woman, but she likes to look like a man. therefore she is wearing a suit, has close cropped hair, no earrings, short nails.
In my simple view of the world, I can understand how Laura would be attracted to Sheila.
I cannot get to grips with how Sheila would be attracted to Laura.
I think you are overcomplicating things there. Redheads do not necessarily find other redheads attractive. Why shouldn't a lesbian woman who dresses like every heterosexual male fantasy not find butch women attractive?
Because she looks like a man? If they are not attracted to a man, why are they attracted to a woman that looks like a man?
That's my question :)
If I said I only liked red heads, why would I be attracted to a red head that wore a blond wig?
By the way, I'm not casting aspersions here or claiming they can't really be lesbian or anything like that!!! I'm just curious from an intellectual point of view of what the trigggers of attraction are? Maybe men are more visual (I've heard that before) and that's why I'm finding this hard to understand.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 26, 2015, 10:06:37 AM
Because she looks like a man? If they are not attracted to a man, why are they attracted to a woman that looks like a man?
That's my question :)
Because she's a woman. Every seen a picture of a drag artist and thought 'she looks hot'?* I bet the attraction faded when you found out the truth.
*This has never happened to me definitely not shut up!
Quote from: deiseach on May 26, 2015, 10:11:24 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 26, 2015, 10:06:37 AM
Because she looks like a man? If they are not attracted to a man, why are they attracted to a woman that looks like a man?
That's my question :)
Because she's a woman. Every seen a picture of a drag artist and thought 'she looks hot'?* I bet the attraction faded when you found out the truth.
*This has never happened to me definitely not shut up!
Exactly, you're saying the same thing as me. If I (a straight man) though a woman was hot, and she turned out to be a man I'd not be interested. So why would a gay man be attracted to a drag artist? What is it about looking like an attractive woman would interest a gay man?
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 26, 2015, 10:14:18 AM
Exactly, you're saying the same thing as me. If I (a straight man) though a woman was hot, and she turned out to be a man I'd not be interested. So why would a gay man be attracted to a drag artist? What is it about looking like an attractive woman would interest a gay man?
Doesn't that come back to my original point? He's attracted to the peacock.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 26, 2015, 10:14:18 AM
Quote from: deiseach on May 26, 2015, 10:11:24 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 26, 2015, 10:06:37 AM
Because she looks like a man? If they are not attracted to a man, why are they attracted to a woman that looks like a man?
That's my question :)
Because she's a woman. Every seen a picture of a drag artist and thought 'she looks hot'?* I bet the attraction faded when you found out the truth.
*This has never happened to me definitely not shut up!
Exactly, you're saying the same thing as me. If I (a straight man) though a woman was hot, and she turned out to be a man I'd not be interested. So why would a gay man be attracted to a drag artist? What is it about looking like an attractive woman would interest a gay man?
Is there not an element of being attracted to the personality in those cases rather than the look. Falling in love with a person as opposed to a man or woman.
Again unless somebody on the board is involved in that kind of relationship I'm not really sure but it would be interesting to get some kind of answer to it.
Quote from: MoChara on May 26, 2015, 08:37:11 AM
Quote from: ludermor on May 26, 2015, 07:57:50 AM
My mates sister in law is a lesbian but is going out with a pre op transsexual. So you have a girl who likes girls going out with a boy who wants to be a girl (Im pretty sure there is a song there somewhere) , It is mind f**k and i cant get my head around it.
There's a tongue twister (pardon the pun lol) does the Transgender person want to become a lesbian woman as opposed to a hetrosexual male as he is at present?
Yes the transgender person is in the process of become a woman, not sure what category she will fit into though.
Homophobia is not an irrational condition given the nature of this country's history and the culture that prevails. It is not illegal to feel uncomfortable around or outright not want to be around gay or lesbian people either. The moral argument is another question entirely but people are entitled to their beliefs and feelings so long as they don't act on them to interfere with the rights of others.
Quote from: screenexile on May 26, 2015, 10:23:24 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 26, 2015, 10:14:18 AM
Quote from: deiseach on May 26, 2015, 10:11:24 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 26, 2015, 10:06:37 AM
Because she looks like a man? If they are not attracted to a man, why are they attracted to a woman that looks like a man?
That's my question :)
Because she's a woman. Every seen a picture of a drag artist and thought 'she looks hot'?* I bet the attraction faded when you found out the truth.
*This has never happened to me definitely not shut up!
Exactly, you're saying the same thing as me. If I (a straight man) though a woman was hot, and she turned out to be a man I'd not be interested. So why would a gay man be attracted to a drag artist? What is it about looking like an attractive woman would interest a gay man?
Is there not an element of being attracted to the personality in those cases rather than the look. Falling in love with a person as opposed to a man or woman.
Again unless somebody on the board is involved in that kind of relationship I'm not really sure but it would be interesting to get some kind of answer to it.
Yeah, I'm talking about attraction here, as opposed to falling in love with the person. Obviously if they are attracted, and get talking or whatever, then that can happen. But I'm talking about the initial attraction. I don't think there's a huge amount of gay men who actively try to look like women, I think that's more a pantomime kind of thing, like Panti Bliss, but there does seem to be an inordinate amount of lesbian couples where one of the partners, at least, actually looks like a man. Obviously at the end of the day it's still a woman, and the partner knows that and is attracted to that, but I wonder about the attraction to the visual stimuli of a masculine looking woman. Why not be attracted to a man. Or are some lesbian women attracted to men, but only on a superficial level, and for intimacy and a real connection, it needs to be a woman for them?
Anyway, maybe I'll just put it down to C'est la vie and move on.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 26, 2015, 10:06:37 AM
Because she looks like a man? If they are not attracted to a man, why are they attracted to a woman that looks like a man?
That's my question :)
If I said I only liked red heads, why would I be attracted to a red head that wore a blond wig?
By the way, I'm not casting aspersions here or claiming they can't really be lesbian or anything like that!!! I'm just curious from an intellectual point of view of what the trigggers of attraction are? Maybe men are more visual (I've heard that before) and that's why I'm finding this hard to understand.
I've wondered about that myself but I think it's all related to their genetic make up. A person attracted to someone of their own sex would be wired that way and a lesbian woman might have a some elements of her genetic make up that are more like a man's than a woman's. That's why she may act and dress more like a man than a woman and like a heterosexual man she is attracted to women. The same concept with feminine gay men. There are plenty of 'normal' looking gay men and women (i.e. what we would consider straight looking) whose genetic make up means they still find their own gender sexually attractive but don't share the masculine/feminine traits of some other gay people.
Not sure I explained my point particularly well but to answer the question of why a lesbian woman might find a butch woman attractive then I'd say it's as simple as - she is a woman. I'm sure most gay people can appreciate an attractive person of the opposite sex but it just doesn't do anything for them sexually.
I've seen a fair few dogs (the four legged kind) that were gorgeous to look at and some girls that weren't but Fido was never in danger of drunken night of amour, some of the girls were!!
Quote from: DuffleKing on May 26, 2015, 10:38:19 AM
Homophobia is not an irrational condition given the nature of this country's history and the culture that prevails. It is not illegal to feel uncomfortable around or outright not want to be around gay or lesbian people either. The moral argument is another question entirely but people are entitled to their beliefs and feelings so long as they don't act on them to interfere with the rights of others.
Good post. I leave it to others to decide whether I am a homophobe but I know people who voted No and no amount of sly insinuations on the part of others about the need to conform will convince me those people have ever treated homosexuals any way other than the way they would expect to be treated themselves.
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.
Quote from: deiseach on May 26, 2015, 11:12:34 AM
Good post. I leave it to others to decide whether I am a homophobe but I know people who voted No and no amount of sly insinuations on the part of others about the need to conform will convince me those people have ever treated homosexuals any way other than the way they would expect to be treated themselves.
Treated the way they would expect to the treated themselves, equal marriage notwithstanding?
Quote from: DuffleKing on May 26, 2015, 10:38:19 AM
Homophobia is not an irrational condition given the nature of this country's history and the culture that prevails. It is not illegal to feel uncomfortable around or outright not want to be around gay or lesbian people either. The moral argument is another question entirely but people are entitled to their beliefs and feelings so long as they don't act on them to interfere with the rights of others.
Yes, feelings are not illegal.
However, they are not owed respect, especially when they are used to justify actions and votes.
People have to justify their vote?
Did you have to submit the reasoning in a paragraph at the bottom that was considered by the electoral officer before approving or otherwise each vote? That's harsh
Quote from: DuffleKing on May 26, 2015, 03:09:13 PM
People have to justify their vote?
Did you have to submit the reasoning in a paragraph at the bottom that was considered by the electoral officer before approving or otherwise each vote? That's harsh
Is this a serious question?
Why are you voting for a unionist party?
1. seeking to complete the Ulster plantation and bring Ulster under God's righteous rule
2. making loads of money from the community schemes
3. do not want to be associated with homosexuals in the Freestate
4. Gerry Adams is a bollix.
5. they have to pay for doctors in the South
6. haven't a clue
7. all of the above
Quote from: J70 on May 26, 2015, 03:35:53 PM
Quote from: DuffleKing on May 26, 2015, 03:09:13 PM
People have to justify their vote?
Did you have to submit the reasoning in a paragraph at the bottom that was considered by the electoral officer before approving or otherwise each vote? That's harsh
Is this a serious question?
This question put the whole board down last evening...
(http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1284733557544_9552408.png)
Two classics I heard recently
Overheard in Dublin @OverheardDublin
· May 23
Elderly lady in Cabra yesterday looking for the Polling Station stops a Guard - "Excuse me love, where do I vote for the gays?" #MarRef
Ad the new gay anthem - Come back, Paddy Reilly, to marry James Duff -
Quote from: DuffleKing on May 26, 2015, 10:38:19 AM
Homophobia is not an irrational condition given the nature of this country's history and the culture that prevails.
On that basis you could pick any number of examples from across the globe and history where racism, sectarism or sexism would not be an irrational condition goven what had went before. They are not however models for how to move things forward.
Quote from: DuffleKing on May 26, 2015, 10:38:19 AM
It is not illegal to feel uncomfortable around or outright not want to be around gay or lesbian people either. The moral argument is another question entirely but people are entitled to their beliefs and feelings so long as they don't act on them to interfere with the rights of others.
Thats the point. Being homophobic is not illegal but basing a law, a constitution or a vote in a constitutional referendum on homophobic arguments would be immoral and interfere in the rights of others
Quote from: deiseach on May 26, 2015, 11:12:34 AM
Quote from: DuffleKing on May 26, 2015, 10:38:19 AM
Homophobia is not an irrational condition given the nature of this country's history and the culture that prevails. It is not illegal to feel uncomfortable around or outright not want to be around gay or lesbian people either. The moral argument is another question entirely but people are entitled to their beliefs and feelings so long as they don't act on them to interfere with the rights of others.
Good post. I leave it to others to decide whether I am a homophobe but I know people who voted No and no amount of sly insinuations on the part of others about the need to conform will convince me those people have ever treated homosexuals any way other than the way they would expect to be treated themselves.
So those people would expect the constitution of the land to prevent them getting married to the person they loved and wanted to marry?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 26, 2015, 11:25:23 AM
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.
Quote from: DuffleKing on May 26, 2015, 03:09:13 PM
People have to justify their vote?
Did you have to submit the reasoning in a paragraph at the bottom that was considered by the electoral officer before approving or otherwise each vote? That's harsh
In a referendum - No.
On a discussion forum - Yes
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 03:53:44 PM
So those people would expect the constitution of the land to prevent them getting married to the person they loved and wanted to marry?
'Those people' believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. If that makes them homophobes then people who voted No in the Presidential age referendum are, uh, youthophobes because they don't believe in equal rights for those under the age of 35.
The thing is, if you really think that anyone who voted No is a homophobe, have the courage of your convictions to say as much rather than dancing around it.
Quote from: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 04:12:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 03:53:44 PM
So those people would expect the constitution of the land to prevent them getting married to the person they loved and wanted to marry?
'Those people' believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. If that makes them homophobes then people who voted No in the Presidential age referendum are, uh, youthophobes because they don't believe in equal rights for those under the age of 35.
The thing is, if you really think that anyone who voted No is a homophobe, have the courage of your convictions to say as much rather than dancing around it.
Why do they believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman?
"Oh because that's the only thing that's natural. The gays are not natural therefore they should not be allowed to marry people of the same sex"
Hmmmm that's quite homophobic.
"How dare you I'm just religious so therefore cannot be homophobic."
That's not even getting into the other nonsense spouted on here about abuse of Children with same sex parents... children will grow up to be gay if they have same sex parents which is all homophobic.
Quote from: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 04:12:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 03:53:44 PM
So those people would expect the constitution of the land to prevent them getting married to the person they loved and wanted to marry?
'Those people' believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. If that makes them homophobes then people who voted No in the Presidential age referendum are, uh, youthophobes because they don't believe in equal rights for those under the age of 35.
The thing is, if you really think that anyone who voted No is a homophobe, have the courage of your convictions to say as much rather than dancing around it.
I'm not dancing around anything. Tell me the motivation that someone had for voting No and I will tell you if I think it was homophobic
Quote from: screenexile on May 27, 2015, 04:16:27 PM
Why do they believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman?
"Oh because that's the only thing that's natural. The gays are not natural therefore they should not be allowed to marry people of the same sex"
Hmmmm that's quite homophobic.
"How dare you I'm just religious so therefore cannot be homophobic."
That's not even getting into the other nonsense spouted on here about abuse of Children with same sex parents... children will grow up to be gay if they have same sex parents which is all homophobic.
I admire your candour. Are you so blunt with people out in the real world?
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 04:18:36 PM
I'm not dancing around anything. Tell me the motivation that someone had for voting No and I will tell you if I think it was homophobic
If you think that you are open to the possibility of someone presenting you with an argument for voting No that you don't think is homophobic, you are fooling yourself.
I'm not a homophobe, but I probably sound like one because I'm a homophone.
Quote from: Hardy on May 27, 2015, 04:42:46 PM
I'm not a homophobe, but I probably sound like one because I'm a homophone.
Can we just call you Homer?
You can call me anything you like, as long as it's not to account.
(Sitting in for John Hurley today.)
Quote from: Hardy on May 27, 2015, 04:52:20 PM
You can call me anything you like, as long as it's not to account.
(Sitting in for John Hurley today.)
Ah yes, you are sorry, and accept responsibility, except the bit about the part where things went wrong.
Quote from: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 04:24:03 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 04:18:36 PM
I'm not dancing around anything. Tell me the motivation that someone had for voting No and I will tell you if I think it was homophobic
If you think that you are open to the possibility of someone presenting you with an argument for voting No that you don't think is homophobic, you are fooling yourself.
Ah go on try me.
Quote from: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 04:22:27 PM
Quote from: screenexile on May 27, 2015, 04:16:27 PM
Why do they believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman?
"Oh because that's the only thing that's natural. The gays are not natural therefore they should not be allowed to marry people of the same sex"
Hmmmm that's quite homophobic.
"How dare you I'm just religious so therefore cannot be homophobic."
That's not even getting into the other nonsense spouted on here about abuse of Children with same sex parents... children will grow up to be gay if they have same sex parents which is all homophobic.
I admire your candour. Are you so blunt with people out in the real world?
Well yeah if I'm asked my opinion or involved in a discussion I would be. Generally any reason people give for thinking homosexuality is not natural can be debunked except for the "some guy who 'talked to God' said it was unnatural over 2000 years ago!"
Then religious eejits try and say Leviticus blah blah blah sodomy blah blah blah and when I say that they shouldn't touch pigskin lest they become unclean they say "Yeah but you can't take it all literally" and round and round we go!!!
I'm not sure I don't believe in God but I think the Bible is 90% a load of drivel and surely he doesn't believe that I should deny people the right to get married no matter who they are ... love one another etc. etc.
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 05:13:08 PM
Quote from: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 04:24:03 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 04:18:36 PM
I'm not dancing around anything. Tell me the motivation that someone had for voting No and I will tell you if I think it was homophobic
If you think that you are open to the possibility of someone presenting you with an argument for voting No that you don't think is homophobic, you are fooling yourself.
Ah go on try me.
Nah, it can't be right to encourage someone to lie to themselves.
Quote from: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 07:33:57 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 05:13:08 PM
Quote from: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 04:24:03 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 04:18:36 PM
I'm not dancing around anything. Tell me the motivation that someone had for voting No and I will tell you if I think it was homophobic
If you think that you are open to the possibility of someone presenting you with an argument for voting No that you don't think is homophobic, you are fooling yourself.
Ah go on try me.
Nah, it can't be right to encourage someone to lie to themselves.
The list of excuses for avoiding the presentation of a non-homophobic reason for voting no in the marriage equality referendum is growing.
The list of non-homophobic reasons for voting No is not growing. It remains firmly fixed at Zero despite repeated invitation. Telling.
As for lying to onself was it not yourself who calimed a few posts ago that they knew people who had voted no and that they would be happy for the constitution of the land to prevent them getting married to the person they loved and wanted to marry. Without getting personal I genuinely think you were lying
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 04:18:36 PM
Quote from: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 04:12:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 03:53:44 PM
So those people would expect the constitution of the land to prevent them getting married to the person they loved and wanted to marry?
'Those people' believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. If that makes them homophobes then people who voted No in the Presidential age referendum are, uh, youthophobes because they don't believe in equal rights for those under the age of 35.
The thing is, if you really think that anyone who voted No is a homophobe, have the courage of your convictions to say as much rather than dancing around it.
I'm not dancing around anything. Tell me the motivation that someone had for voting No and I will tell you if I think it was homophobic
Some People believe marriage should be between a man and a woman because the Bible states quite clearly that homosexuality 'is an abomination in the eyes of God' Does that make them homophobes just because they do want want to go against their Gods words?
Since you cannot answer the question at hand I will answer it for you, you think that there is no excuse for anyone to vote no because if they do, in your eyes they are homophobes!!!!
See, that wasnt that hard!
Would homophobic people be born homophobic, or do they decide to be homophobic? Like is it always a nurtured phobia or can it be that some people have a innate phobia.
Irrational phobias exist, I've a friend who practically starts crying and freaking out if a banana comes anywhere near him. We thought it was a joke at first and so would lob one at him in University but turned out he was serious. Couldn't explain why....no being trapped in a rooms full of bananas situation or assaulted with one reason ect....
Was in the Supermarket earlier...waiting to go to self scanner...two lads ahead of me started shifting...like less than 1 meter from me..courtside seats.
The wasn't one change in thought process in the frontal lobe of my brain...other than...there's two lads shifting...meh. Any chance ye can hurry on lads...need to get home and cook me tea.
So say if you were a homophobic person, I reckon that would have been a very uncomfortable few moments....
Quote from: stew on May 27, 2015, 10:12:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 04:18:36 PM
Quote from: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 04:12:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 03:53:44 PM
So those people would expect the constitution of the land to prevent them getting married to the person they loved and wanted to marry?
'Those people' believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. If that makes them homophobes then people who voted No in the Presidential age referendum are, uh, youthophobes because they don't believe in equal rights for those under the age of 35.
The thing is, if you really think that anyone who voted No is a homophobe, have the courage of your convictions to say as much rather than dancing around it.
I'm not dancing around anything. Tell me the motivation that someone had for voting No and I will tell you if I think it was homophobic
Some People believe marriage should be between a man and a woman because the Bible states quite clearly that homosexuality 'is an abomination in the eyes of God' Does that make them homophobes just because they do want want to go against their Gods words?
Since you cannot answer the question at hand I will answer it for you, you think that there is no excuse for anyone to vote no because if they do, in your eyes they are homophobes!!!!
See, that wasnt that hard!
Who, precisely, wrote that?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/equality-quango-can-expect-our-full-opposition-31252183.html
This is what all catholic priests should be saying.
Quote from: stew on May 27, 2015, 10:12:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 04:18:36 PM
Quote from: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 04:12:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 03:53:44 PM
So those people would expect the constitution of the land to prevent them getting married to the person they loved and wanted to marry?
'Those people' believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. If that makes them homophobes then people who voted No in the Presidential age referendum are, uh, youthophobes because they don't believe in equal rights for those under the age of 35.
The thing is, if you really think that anyone who voted No is a homophobe, have the courage of your convictions to say as much rather than dancing around it.
I'm not dancing around anything. Tell me the motivation that someone had for voting No and I will tell you if I think it was homophobic
Some People believe marriage should be between a man and a woman because the Bible states quite clearly that homosexuality 'is an abomination in the eyes of God' Does that make them homophobes just because they do want want to go against their Gods words?
Do these people adhere to everything else in the bible just as rigidly? What about all the other abominations in there?
Quote from: T Fearon on May 27, 2015, 11:47:54 PM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/equality-quango-can-expect-our-full-opposition-31252183.html
This is what all catholic priests should be saying.
This?
Northern Ireland women pay these men for sex (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/gigolo-john-northern-ireland-women-pay-this-man-for-sex-31248094.html)
Gigolo John: Northern Ireland women pay this man for sex
A Co Antrim grandfather reveals the ups and downs of working as a male escort - and says business is booming across NI
John is a grandfather but says he enjoys his escort work too much to ever settle down again
24 MAY 2015
Meet the unlikely Northern Ireland gigolo who claims he is providing women with the perfect dating experience.
ALSO IN THIS SECTION
Gay cake row: Ashers Bakery limits offerings after Sunday Life request replica of Support Gay Marriage cake
North West 200 horror crash woman says it's a miracle she is alive
Shopping meets sport at Victoria Square game day
Carrick man's starved spaniels like 'walking skeletons'
Co Antrim man John, 57 (who preferred not to give his surname), openly advertises his services as a male escort online.
And now John — who caters exclusively for women — has told Sunday Life about his experiences giving women what they want.
John says there has been a huge change in society's attitudes towards the sex industry — and women are increasingly willing to pay for company and sex.
JOHN
This balding, middle-aged Co Antrim grandfather wants to change the public's image of the male escort business.
The 57-year-old insists it's a "lifestyle choice" and that female company is his motivator for selling his escorting services to women.
"I'm not into bodybuilding and trying to make myself something I'm not," says John.
Instead he feels he has something "unique" to offer women.
"I have more respect for what I'm doing and the way I'm doing it. I didn't go into it for sex".
John insists he "wanted to meet people".
"There's nothing better than walking into places with a nice woman on your arm. It makes me feel good," he says.
He believes escorts are becoming more acceptable in Northern Ireland.
"It's been going on for years, it's not a new thing, it's not just a 21st century thing.
"Today there are a lot of women who are single and don't want to remarry and there are the businesswomen who need company when they are in Belfast for a function and don't want to stand out like a sore thumb."
Old friends have noticed his swagger since he took up the escort game.
"My friends say I remind them of a teenager, my confidence has improved. I'm not ashamed of who I am. We are all adults and have the right to choose our path."
Grandfather John does not let his nerves get the better of him when he is booked for the evening.
"I look at it as a job. I can talk to most people about anything. With my client I behave as if we are friends."
Clients can be guaranteed John will remain on his best behaviour.
"I wouldn't order a T-bone steak. I drink from a glass when I order beer and stay away from the shorts — the mad stuff!"
John has been requested for his services by males, but he protests he does not "swing the other way".
"Some men have requested me to have sex with their partners while they watched. I'm really not into that.
"Women know what they want — it makes my job easier. Women are very simple creatures — body language is important, women aren't a bit of meat. Remember it's some man's daughter or sister, so treat them right.
"Growing up my Ma would have given me a clout over the head if I did not treat a woman right."
He claims that he is helping marriages by providing an outlet for women in lonely relationships. He also says he wants a partner but doubts he could change his ways.
"I'd like to meet a partner but I like my freedom. I'm stuck in my ways," says John.
Quote from: T Fearon on May 27, 2015, 11:47:54 PM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/equality-quango-can-expect-our-full-opposition-31252183.html
This is what all catholic priests should be saying.
Yes Tony!!! The Catholic Church should oppose the Equality Commission at every turn... Especially in cases like this:
http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Cases%20and%20Settlements/2013/McKenna_v_B-Q_McCord.pdf?ext=.pdf
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 03:59:47 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 26, 2015, 11:25:23 AM
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.
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 09:23:38 PM
Quote from: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 07:33:57 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 05:13:08 PM
Quote from: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 04:24:03 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 04:18:36 PM
I'm not dancing around anything. Tell me the motivation that someone had for voting No and I will tell you if I think it was homophobic
If you think that you are open to the possibility of someone presenting you with an argument for voting No that you don't think is homophobic, you are fooling yourself.
Ah go on try me.
Nah, it can't be right to encourage someone to lie to themselves.
The list of excuses for avoiding the presentation of a non-homophobic reason for voting no in the marriage equality referendum is growing.
It was a referendum, people had a democratic right to vote yes or no, you are happily trampling on the equality rights of anyone who voted NO by branding them all homophobic unless they provide a detailed explanation that you deem acceptable. There were gay people on throughout the debate who said they were going to vote NO, are they homophobic, this moral high ground you have adopted and your smugness that you did the right thing for equality is quite frankly pathetic when on the other hand you show no respect or dignity to those who voted no, branding 40% of voter homophobic.
I'm a little confused topcuppla :o
Quote from: topcuppla on May 02, 2015, 07:59:27 AM
Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.
Ok, so you're against two men adopting a child. Fair enough as the referendum has nothing to do with adoption or parenting, right??
Quote from: topcuppla on May 04, 2015, 12:15:13 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 04, 2015, 10:06:48 AM
This referendum has nothing to do with same-sex parenting
A yes vote will completely open the door to it.
Although you seem to think it does.
So let's just get this straight, two men being parents is the equivalent of child abuse and a Yes vote will promote this child abuse. It would logically follow that you voted No, right??
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 08:43:56 AM
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.
You didn't vote No?? So you voted for child abuse??
Hmmmm, something somewhere doesn't add up ::)
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.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 10:01:08 AM
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
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 10:01:08 AM
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.
You're a gas ticket toppy
;D ;D ;D ;D;D ;D
The Vatican Secretary of State says the Irish gay marriage vote was a "defeat for humanity".
Good man your eminence, but you can stick that crossways up your ecclesiastical drainpipe as you lads bleat on about being called homophobic while casually labelling the rest of us as anti-humanity.
Quote from: stew on May 27, 2015, 10:12:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 04:18:36 PM
Quote from: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 04:12:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 03:53:44 PM
So those people would expect the constitution of the land to prevent them getting married to the person they loved and wanted to marry?
'Those people' believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. If that makes them homophobes then people who voted No in the Presidential age referendum are, uh, youthophobes because they don't believe in equal rights for those under the age of 35.
The thing is, if you really think that anyone who voted No is a homophobe, have the courage of your convictions to say as much rather than dancing around it.
I'm not dancing around anything. Tell me the motivation that someone had for voting No and I will tell you if I think it was homophobic
Some People believe marriage should be between a man and a woman because the Bible states quite clearly that homosexuality 'is an abomination in the eyes of God' Does that make them homophobes just because they do want want to go against their Gods words?
Since you cannot answer the question at hand I will answer it for you, you think that there is no excuse for anyone to vote no because if they do, in your eyes they are homophobes!!!!
See, that wasnt that hard!
I know of religions that claim that the bible is the word of god. A believer of that church might find themselves obligated to follow the word of bible lterally including all its insanities. I'm not aware of any religion that claims men should cherry pick the bible. Anyone that chooses to believe that it is wrong for 2 men to marry but acceptable for a shirt to be made from a cotton/polyester blend (or any number of other examples I could give) has made a choice and that choice has not been made due to a compulsion to follow the word of god.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 08:43:56 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 03:59:47 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 26, 2015, 11:25:23 AM
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.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 08:49:59 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 09:23:38 PM
Quote from: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 07:33:57 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 05:13:08 PM
Quote from: deiseach on May 27, 2015, 04:24:03 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 04:18:36 PM
I'm not dancing around anything. Tell me the motivation that someone had for voting No and I will tell you if I think it was homophobic
If you think that you are open to the possibility of someone presenting you with an argument for voting No that you don't think is homophobic, you are fooling yourself.
Ah go on try me.
Nah, it can't be right to encourage someone to lie to themselves.
The list of excuses for avoiding the presentation of a non-homophobic reason for voting no in the marriage equality referendum is growing.
It was a referendum, people had a democratic right to vote yes or no, you are happily trampling on the equality rights of anyone who voted NO by branding them all homophobic unless they provide a detailed explanation that you deem acceptable. There were gay people on throughout the debate who said they were going to vote NO, are they homophobic, this moral high ground you have adopted and your smugness that you did the right thing for equality is quite frankly pathetic when on the other hand you show no respect or dignity to those who voted no, branding 40% of voter homophobic.
You are imaginging things if you believe I or anyone else has said that people did not have the right to vote No. They don't have to explain thier vote to the public. But this is the discussion forum and there isn't any point in posting your view but not standing by it. The question that has been posed is for a no voter or anyone else to post a non-homophobic reason for voting no. It is completing telling that nobody before or after the vote was able to meet the challenge.
I have had a go and the best that I can come up with is that they misunderstood the question/lost concentration/got confused between the 2 referenda and ticked the wrong box.
Anybody hear the Reverend Ian Brown (Free Presbyterian) on the Nolan show this morning. Cracking stuff. Brown should be given his own show. Sorry I don't have a link to post. The programme is an hour and and a half long and he gets the 20 mins after the hour mark.
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 04:00:32 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 08:43:56 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 03:59:47 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 26, 2015, 11:25:23 AM
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.
Quote from: muppet on May 28, 2015, 11:31:51 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 10:01:08 AM
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.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 04:51:17 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 04:00:32 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 08:43:56 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 03:59:47 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 26, 2015, 11:25:23 AM
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?
Quote from: J70 on May 28, 2015, 06:10:17 PM
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.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 04:51:17 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 04:00:32 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 08:43:56 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 03:59:47 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 26, 2015, 11:25:23 AM
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
Quote from: armaghniac on May 28, 2015, 06:15:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 28, 2015, 06:10:17 PM
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?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 05:42:06 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 28, 2015, 11:31:51 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 10:01:08 AM
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??
Quote from: armaghniac on May 28, 2015, 06:15:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 28, 2015, 06:10:17 PM
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
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 06:28:34 PM
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.
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 06:22:02 PM
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...
Quote from: armaghniac on May 28, 2015, 06:36:52 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 06:28:34 PM
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.
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 06:41:18 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Looking like a 200 pager :)
Humour us, please!
Quote from: J70 on May 28, 2015, 07:03:09 PM
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?
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 04:51:17 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 04:00:32 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 08:43:56 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 27, 2015, 03:59:47 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 26, 2015, 11:25:23 AM
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.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 28, 2015, 07:14:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 28, 2015, 07:03:09 PM
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!
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 05:42:06 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 28, 2015, 11:31:51 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 10:01:08 AM
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.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 06:39:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 06:22:02 PM
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.
Quote from: J70 on May 28, 2015, 07:26:06 PM
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.
Quote
Honestly!
A word misused in this debate.
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.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 07:37:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 07:47:52 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 07:37:41 PM
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"....
Quote from: armaghniac on May 28, 2015, 07:34:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 28, 2015, 07:26:06 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 07:53:24 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 07:47:52 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 07:37:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 08:00:23 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 07:53:24 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 07:47:52 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 07:37:41 PM
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....
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 08:09:22 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 08:00:23 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 07:53:24 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 07:47:52 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 07:37:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 08:21:49 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 08:09:22 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 08:00:23 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 07:53:24 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 07:47:52 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 07:37:41 PM
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... ?
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 08:25:30 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 08:21:49 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 08:09:22 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 08:00:23 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 07:53:24 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 07:47:52 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 07:37:41 PM
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.
Quote from: J70 on May 28, 2015, 07:59:30 PM
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.
Quote from: J70And 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.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 28, 2015, 08:53:37 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 28, 2015, 07:59:30 PM
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.
Quote from: J70And 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.
Iceman
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 07:37:41 PM
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.
QuoteThese 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
Quoteunreasoning 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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteMy 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.
I appreciate your tone and choice of words easytiger - thanks for keeping it classy
Although the referendum was not about Christian marriage i have to apply ,y Christian outlook to my vote. As i apply it to every vote. If you go back to the start of the thread i did concede that the YES camp would win and that Christians lost claim to marriage a long time ago - but it doesn't mean I would vote yes.
In a Christian world all life matters. From conception to natural death. In an atheist world that isnt always the case. I say always because I have met many atheists who are very much pro-life. Who detest abortion. Why? Because it doesn't feel right. They know in their hearts and in the pits of their stomach it just isn't right. Is that feeling wrong? Or only if it comes from a Christian? Is it wrong for an atheist to not feel right about the destruction of a clump of cells when that said atheist is just a clump of cells too? I don't know....
My decision to embrace my faith was a very logical one. Our lives are part of a story - therefore there must be a storyteller. I am created therefore there must be a creator. I am here for a reason therefore... and on and on I can go. You yourself said you believe in "something" I say God. Whether or not he exists is a philosophical question. One that can't be answered by science. Before the Atheist machine started forcing God out of the equation - God was at the heart of everything. Questions about sexuality, and marriage and family could not be answered without reference to our creation in God's image and without regard for His intentions: What does it mean to say God created us in His image as male and female? What is the purpose of human sexuality? What is marriage for?
But now all of these things are viewed through the lens of evolutionary biology, sociology and psychology. The outdated God is out the window and science can now assist us with forming our own personal perspectives on what is normal and good.
There are two world views. Two very opposing world views. I know what side I stand on and why.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 06:39:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 06:22:02 PM
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...
You are perfectly entitle to your faith in jesus/god. That is not being disputed. If the police lifted you tomorrow for some crime and their evidence was that they believed you to be guilty and the judge was a similar way of "thinking" you might re-evaluate your opinion on belief without supporting evidence. Belief without supporting evidence is like your own reference to "gut feeling". Your brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.
Your definition of phobia is no longer fit for purpose. And I know that you are open to the evolving use of words. Just look at your own inventive use of "persecution"
Quote from: armaghniac on May 28, 2015, 06:54:36 PM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 06:41:18 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Sorry are hetrosexual peolpe losing focus??
OK spell out the damage. Gay marriage exists elsewhere. Who has been damaged and to what extent?
Iceman, you seem like a decent chap, and your post opens up a Pandora's Box of philosophical questions. I do think the point you make about abortion is a red herring in a discussion of same-sex marriage, but that aside, I do have a question for you. You profess that God is the creator, the storyteller, as you put it. If God created all things, all people, then he created homosexuals, didn't he? And since homosexuals are born that way and don't simply elect a lifestyle, then one of two options remains. Either God created homosexuals, and therefore homosexuality is sanctioned by God, or else he screwed up in the creation process. Is it likely that an omnipotent God screwed up? Do you accept that God created homosexuals?
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 07:53:24 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 28, 2015, 07:47:52 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 07:37:41 PM
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"....
What about a lesbian couple? Any problem with them engaging in acts of physical love? Does the Bible have a problem with it?
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 28, 2015, 10:31:35 PM
Iceman, you seem like a decent chap, and your post opens up a Pandora's Box of philosophical questions. I do think the point you make about abortion is a red herring in a discussion of same-sex marriage, but that aside, I do have a question for you. You profess that God is the creator, the storyteller, as you put it. If God created all things, all people, then he created homosexuals, didn't he? And since homosexuals are born that way and don't simply elect a lifestyle, then one of two options remains. Either God created homosexuals, and therefore homosexuality is sanctioned by God, or else he screwed up in the creation process. Is it likely that an omnipotent God screwed up? Do you accept that God created homosexuals?
Sure that is just the start of it. If the "I exist therefore I was created, therefore there was a creator, therefore "he" must be still hanging about, therefore we better impress him and even worship him and he is bound to reward that with some sort of everlasting utopia" is going to be assess it will fall down way before the question posed by the necessity that homosexuals are in that version of things the creation of god in his infinite wisdom.
I mean who created the creator? what was the creator doing before "he" created the universe? what was he doing with the period before the bits of his creation that were in his image came along? were the earlier evolutionary steps him just practicing? is it just the humans that get the everlasting rewards? What about cows in 2015 or the predecessors of homo sapiens sapiens in the previous geologicals periods? And that is just the start.
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 28, 2015, 10:31:35 PM
Iceman, you seem like a decent chap, and your post opens up a Pandora's Box of philosophical questions. I do think the point you make about abortion is a red herring in a discussion of same-sex marriage, but that aside, I do have a question for you. You profess that God is the creator, the storyteller, as you put it. If God created all things, all people, then he created homosexuals, didn't he? And since homosexuals are born that way and don't simply elect a lifestyle, then one of two options remains. Either God created homosexuals, and therefore homosexuality is sanctioned by God, or else he screwed up in the creation process. Is it likely that an omnipotent God screwed up? Do you accept that God created homosexuals?
Creation is no accident. Just as a building points to the evidence of the builder so too do we, all of us, everyone and everything, the cosmos, the created, point to the Creator. God created all of us in His image. Those are strong statements of truth that I stand by. But your question presumes that people are born homosexual. I don't know if they are. And if they are why is it a screw up? Do you or I understand God's plan? Can we understand the position of 1 person in all of this? The world teaches us that people who have same sex attractions have two choices:
1. Suppress who you are. Be miserable and live your life in denial according to the will of others.
2. Respond to your instincts, follow your desires and act on them - be who you want to be.
But God has a 3rd option:
3. Follow me, receive my love, know me and follow my will for your life.
I think most of the long timers on the board are decent chaps. We enjoy intelligent conversation, a bit of slagging and banter, our gaelic sports and traditions and our country. It's why we stick around. Very few of us are here to cause hurt or harm to any other board members. Some of us shouldn't post when we're drunk or late at night but for the most part we're a decent bunch. I don't try to ride a high horse into conversations. I try to communicate the other side to some of the arguments put forth here. I know that makes me an easy target for some but I don't have all the answers. I seek them with a sincere heart. I genuinely seek to grow closer to God everyday and be the man He calls me to be, for my wife, ,my kids and the world around me. I'm sorry if my posts frustrate you or anyone else. I will note that because of this board, the challenges I have been presented by other posters, the questions I have been asked that I had to seek deeper answers to, have increased my faith and made me a better Christian. A lot of the posters I have clashed with here in the past are quite cordial with me now..... Maguire will come around eventually, maybe even Gallsman too :)
The reason I ask whether it was a screw up is that if God created homosexuals then it wasn't a screw up and therefore as God's creations they ought to be accorded equal treatment to God's other human creations. That's all.
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 28, 2015, 11:58:42 PM
The reason I ask whether it was a screw up is that if God created homosexuals then it wasn't a screw up and therefore as God's creations they ought to be accorded equal treatment to God's other human creations. That's all.
But you go down a dangerous path with that presumption. Did God indeed then create killers, rapists..... the list goes on....?
The beautiful truth of the Catholic Church is there is always an AND
He loves us AND there is no limit to His love and mercy. He loves ALL of us AND there is no limit to His love and mercy. He hates sin AND there is no limit to His love and mercy. He created people who developed same sex attractions AND there is no limit to His love and mercy.
Some people are called to be married, some to religious life and just as important as both is the call to be single. Chaste and single.
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 28, 2015, 11:58:42 PM
The reason I ask whether it was a screw up is that if God created homosexuals then it wasn't a screw up and therefore as God's creations they ought to be accorded equal treatment to God's other human creations. That's all.
God created psychopaths, kleptomaniacs, paedophiles, nymphomaniacs, smokers, pyromaniacs and a variety of other people who can only be treated in the context of the effect of their behaviour on society.
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 10:25:36 PMYour brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.
I like this.
And now, Armaghniac, you've opened the Pandora's Box to which I referred. If God created all of these things, then that asks some serious questions about the very existence of God.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2015, 11:46:11 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 28, 2015, 10:31:35 PM
Iceman, you seem like a decent chap, and your post opens up a Pandora's Box of philosophical questions. I do think the point you make about abortion is a red herring in a discussion of same-sex marriage, but that aside, I do have a question for you. You profess that God is the creator, the storyteller, as you put it. If God created all things, all people, then he created homosexuals, didn't he? And since homosexuals are born that way and don't simply elect a lifestyle, then one of two options remains. Either God created homosexuals, and therefore homosexuality is sanctioned by God, or else he screwed up in the creation process. Is it likely that an omnipotent God screwed up? Do you accept that God created homosexuals?
Creation is no accident. Just as a building points to the evidence of the builder so too do we, all of us, everyone and everything, the cosmos, the created, point to the Creator. God created all of us in His image. Those are strong statements of truth that I stand by. But your question presumes that people are born homosexual. I don't know if they are. And if they are why is it a screw up? Do you or I understand God's plan? Can we understand the position of 1 person in all of this? The world teaches us that people who have same sex attractions have two choices:
1. Suppress who you are. Be miserable and live your life in denial according to the will of others.
2. Respond to your instincts, follow your desires and act on them - be who you want to be.
But God has a 3rd option:
3. Follow me, receive my love, know me and follow my will for your life.
I think most of the long timers on the board are decent chaps. We enjoy intelligent conversation, a bit of slagging and banter, our gaelic sports and traditions and our country. It's why we stick around. Very few of us are here to cause hurt or harm to any other board members. Some of us shouldn't post when we're drunk or late at night but for the most part we're a decent bunch. I don't try to ride a high horse into conversations. I try to communicate the other side to some of the arguments put forth here. I know that makes me an easy target for some but I don't have all the answers. I seek them with a sincere heart. I genuinely seek to grow closer to God everyday and be the man He calls me to be, for my wife, ,my kids and the world around me. I'm sorry if my posts frustrate you or anyone else. I will note that because of this board, the challenges I have been presented by other posters, the questions I have been asked that I had to seek deeper answers to, have increased my faith and made me a better Christian. A lot of the posters I have clashed with here in the past are quite cordial with me now..... Maguire will come around eventually, maybe even Gallsman too :)
This place would get pretty damn boring without differing points of view to discuss.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 05:42:06 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 28, 2015, 11:31:51 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 28, 2015, 10:01:08 AM
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.
This is as stupid as me now saying: so by your rationale the rights of nazis trumps that of transexual fish.
There is no 'social experiment'. The issue of the 'protection of young children' is not relevant here either. Notice how it is now 'young' children. The word 'children' isn't enough anymore, now that the 'will someone think of the children' schtick has been completely overplayed, so you think by exaggerating the already ludicrously exaggerated point, that somehow it proves something. What it proves is the lack of substance to your argument.
Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 10:42:31 AM
There is no 'social experiment'. The issue of the 'protection of young children' is not relevant here either. Notice how it is now 'young' children. The word 'children' isn't enough anymore, now that the 'will someone think of the children' schtick has been completely overplayed, so you think by exaggerating the already ludicrously exaggerated point, that somehow it proves something. What it proves is the lack of substance to your argument.
Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.
Unbelievable from a muppet who constantly plays the homophobic card, Jesus Wept!!
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 10:42:31 AM
Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.
Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 29, 2015, 03:57:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 10:42:31 AM
There is no 'social experiment'. The issue of the 'protection of young children' is not relevant here either. Notice how it is now 'young' children. The word 'children' isn't enough anymore, now that the 'will someone think of the children' schtick has been completely overplayed, so you think by exaggerating the already ludicrously exaggerated point, that somehow it proves something. What it proves is the lack of substance to your argument.
Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.
Unbelievable from a muppet who constantly plays the homophobic card, Jesus Wept!!
YOU are completely homophobic as has been demonstrated over and over. YOU constantly play the 'someone think of the children' card.
Amazingly YOU find this unbelievable. Maybe you should have a word with yourself.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 29, 2015, 12:20:18 AM
Quote from: Oraisteach on May 28, 2015, 11:58:42 PM
The reason I ask whether it was a screw up is that if God created homosexuals then it wasn't a screw up and therefore as God's creations they ought to be accorded equal treatment to God's other human creations. That's all.
But you go down a dangerous path with that presumption. Did God indeed then create killers, rapists..... the list goes on....?
The beautiful truth of the Catholic Church is there is always an AND
He loves us AND there is no limit to His love and mercy. He loves ALL of us AND there is no limit to His love and mercy. He hates sin AND there is no limit to His love and mercy. He created people who developed same sex attractions AND there is no limit to His love and mercy.
Some people are called to be married, some to religious life and just as important as both is the call to be single. Chaste and single.
I reckon the next referendum will be about whether we refer to God as 'him' or 'her'.
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 10:25:36 PMYour brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.
I like this.
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
Em, what's the word "so", doing in that sentence?
Quote from: J70 on May 29, 2015, 02:27:10 AM
This place would get pretty damn boring without differing points of view to discuss.
I agree. When it doesn't descend into insults it's a great spot for discussion
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 10:25:36 PMYour brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.
I like this.
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 04:23:19 PM
Em, what's the word "so", doing in that sentence?
As a continuation and conclusion from having no soul.
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 04:12:04 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 29, 2015, 03:57:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 10:42:31 AM
There is no 'social experiment'. The issue of the 'protection of young children' is not relevant here either. Notice how it is now 'young' children. The word 'children' isn't enough anymore, now that the 'will someone think of the children' schtick has been completely overplayed, so you think by exaggerating the already ludicrously exaggerated point, that somehow it proves something. What it proves is the lack of substance to your argument.
Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.
Unbelievable from a muppet who constantly plays the homophobic card, Jesus Wept!!
YOU are completely homophobic as has been demonstrated over and over. YOU constantly play the 'someone think of the children' card.
Amazingly YOU find this unbelievable. Maybe you should have a word with yourself.
Yawn you are getting tiresome playing the homophobic card, as long as you sleep better putting gay rights ahead of the protection and welfare of young children that is entirely up to you.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 29, 2015, 05:07:47 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 04:12:04 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 29, 2015, 03:57:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 10:42:31 AM
There is no 'social experiment'. The issue of the 'protection of young children' is not relevant here either. Notice how it is now 'young' children. The word 'children' isn't enough anymore, now that the 'will someone think of the children' schtick has been completely overplayed, so you think by exaggerating the already ludicrously exaggerated point, that somehow it proves something. What it proves is the lack of substance to your argument.
Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.
Unbelievable from a muppet who constantly plays the homophobic card, Jesus Wept!!
YOU are completely homophobic as has been demonstrated over and over. YOU constantly play the 'someone think of the children' card.
Amazingly YOU find this unbelievable. Maybe you should have a word with yourself.
Yawn you are getting tiresome playing the homophobic card, as long as you sleep better putting gay rights ahead of the protection and welfare of young children that is entirely up to you.
That is BOTH homophobic and playing the 'will someone think of the children' card.
I see no link between the two issues so I cannot be putting one ahead of the other.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 29, 2015, 04:07:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 10:42:31 AM
Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.
Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.
The only reason Barry and Paddy's kid would suffer psychological (presumably that is the word you were looking for?) abuse and social rejection is because ignorant fuckwits teach their kids that there is something wrong with and something to be feared with homosexuality. Just like with racists, some people will have to face down the ignoramuses for a while, but it will pass, along with the social acceptability of the prejudice.
Quote from: J70 on May 29, 2015, 08:36:11 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 29, 2015, 04:07:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 10:42:31 AM
Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.
Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.
The only reason Barry and Paddy's kid would suffer psychological (presumably that is the word you were looking for?) abuse and social rejection is because ignorant fuckwits teach their kids that there is something wrong with and something to be feared with homosexuality. Just like with racists, some people will have to face down the ignoramuses for a while, but it will pass, along with the social acceptability of the prejudice.
I don't think thats fair J70. This isn't about color of skin. And shouldn't be compared to that or any other nostalgic cause... I will teach my kids that some people have same sex attractions and these are not sinful but same sex acts are.
I will teach them to stand up for people and make sure they do not use words for hate or bigotry. Regardless of color or creed, gender or sexual orientation. They will have love and respect for everyone (hopefully).
There is nothing ignorant or f**k-wit about it
Quote from: J70 on May 29, 2015, 08:36:11 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 29, 2015, 04:07:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 10:42:31 AM
Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.
Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.
The only reason Barry and Paddy's kid would suffer psychological (presumably that is the word you were looking for?) abuse and social rejection is because ignorant fuckwits teach their kids that there is something wrong with and something to be feared with homosexuality. Just like with racists, some people will have to face down the ignoramuses for a while, but it will pass, along with the social acceptability of the prejudice.
While I don't agree that its a reason to stop gay adoption, the reasoning that only the children of ignorant parents partake aint quite right either.
I used to give ginger and blonde kids crap at school, as well pretty much anyone that you could poke a hole in. Despite being taught to the contrary by my parents and fearing their wrath if they ever found out.
Kids will tease, slag and bully anyone and everything you aint gonna stop it, which is also incidentally the reason you can't use it as an argument to ban gay adoption.
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 08:52:39 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 29, 2015, 08:36:11 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 29, 2015, 04:07:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 10:42:31 AM
Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.
Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.
The only reason Barry and Paddy's kid would suffer psychological (presumably that is the word you were looking for?) abuse and social rejection is because ignorant fuckwits teach their kids that there is something wrong with and something to be feared with homosexuality. Just like with racists, some people will have to face down the ignoramuses for a while, but it will pass, along with the social acceptability of the prejudice.
While I don't agree that its a reason to stop gay adoption, the reasoning that only the children of ignorant parents aint quite right either.
I used to give ginger and blonde kids crap at school, as well pretty much anyone that you could poke a hole in. Despite being taught to the contrary by my parents and fearing their wrath if they ever found out.
Kids will tease, slag and bully anyone and everything you aint gonna stop it, which is also incidentally the reason you can't use it as an argument to ban gay adoption.
Fair point, but i understood Topcuppla to be talking about something above and beyond normal, background level childhood bullying. Basically kids who would be consistently singled out, like kids of a different race or background might have been back in the day.
Quote from: The Iceman on May 29, 2015, 08:51:52 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 29, 2015, 08:36:11 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 29, 2015, 04:07:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 10:42:31 AM
Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.
Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.
The only reason Barry and Paddy's kid would suffer psychological (presumably that is the word you were looking for?) abuse and social rejection is because ignorant fuckwits teach their kids that there is something wrong with and something to be feared with homosexuality. Just like with racists, some people will have to face down the ignoramuses for a while, but it will pass, along with the social acceptability of the prejudice.
I don't think thats fair J70. This isn't about color of skin. And shouldn't be compared to that or any other nostalgic cause... I will teach my kids that some people have same sex attractions and these are not sinful but same sex acts are.
I will teach them to stand up for people and make sure they do not use words for hate or bigotry. Regardless of color or creed, gender or sexual orientation. They will have love and respect for everyone (hopefully).
There is nothing ignorant or f**k-wit about it
If you teach your kids that homosexuals are to be feared and are "not like us" and that abusing their kids is ok, then you're an ignorant fuckwit.
Clearly you would not teach your kids that.
Quote from: J70 on May 29, 2015, 09:13:31 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 08:52:39 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 29, 2015, 08:36:11 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 29, 2015, 04:07:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 10:42:31 AM
Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.
Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.
The only reason Barry and Paddy's kid would suffer psychological (presumably that is the word you were looking for?) abuse and social rejection is because ignorant fuckwits teach their kids that there is something wrong with and something to be feared with homosexuality. Just like with racists, some people will have to face down the ignoramuses for a while, but it will pass, along with the social acceptability of the prejudice.
While I don't agree that its a reason to stop gay adoption, the reasoning that only the children of ignorant parents aint quite right either.
I used to give ginger and blonde kids crap at school, as well pretty much anyone that you could poke a hole in. Despite being taught to the contrary by my parents and fearing their wrath if they ever found out.
Kids will tease, slag and bully anyone and everything you aint gonna stop it, which is also incidentally the reason you can't use it as an argument to ban gay adoption.
Fair point, but i understood Topcuppla to be talking about something above and beyond normal, background level childhood bullying. Basically kids who would be consistently singled out, like kids of a different race or background might have been back in the day.
Probably seems like Im stalking you a bit J70 and labouring points, sorry but I am agreeing with you (of sorts) this time. :)
Anyway Some kids used to get slagged for straight hair, curly hair, freckles, swarthy skin, I used to get slagged cos we were from a farm ffs, all things that somehow made us different and what we were born with through no fault of our own.
The slaggin could be quite brutal at times too, and had the potential to be as damaging to a child as slaggin around adult political sensitive stuff. Its all the same to kids.
But then that opens up a whole other can of worms if one kids gets grief about the colour of their hair and returns the compliment about the colour of other child's skin. Is one worse than the other because it is a politically sensitive issue?
Maybe not the thread for this but you see where I am going, basically what I am saying is we live in rainbow (sorry!) society with many different types of people, we can't make it mollycoddled politically correct world, our kids will soon make a mockery of it.
I agree (and I don't! :P). On the one hand, it somewhat negates concerns about kids getting bullied due to gay parents because, if they're not picking on this kid for one thing, they'll be picking on the next kid for another. Kids seek out little differences and abhor non-conformity, but one would hope that we will reach a point where being gay or having gay parents will not be seen as anything out of the ordinary. Right now, and this is where I wouldn't agree, I think there is still a significant stigma concerning homosexuality in the adult population that I would fear that kids would be taught to or would interpret it as ok to ostracize kids from gay families. I guess I would be more fearful of adult prejudice - fueled singling out rather than your (and my own ) farm background being used as a stick. But then again, does it really matter to the kid who us the target where the motivation comes from?
Quote from: J70 on May 29, 2015, 10:32:23 PM
I agree (and I don't! :P). On the one hand, it somewhat negates concerns about kids getting bullied due to gay parents because, if they're not picking on this kid for one thing, they'll be picking on the next kid for another. Kids seek out little differences and abhor non-conformity, but one would hope that we will reach a point where being gay or having gay parents will not be seen as anything out of the ordinary. Right now, and this is where I wouldn't agree, I think there is still a significant stigma concerning homosexuality in the adult population that I would fear that kids would be taught to or would interpret it as ok to ostracize kids from gay families. I guess I would be more fearful of adult prejudice - fueled singling out rather than your (and my own ) farm background being used as a stick. But then again, does it really matter to the kid who us the target where the motivation comes from?
I agree that there is prejudice surrounding the adult population and it should be weeded out as it is unacceptable.
But if you think that eliminating prejudice in adults will mean it will filter down to kids that aint gonna happen. Kids slag each other about freckles, FFS! Anything that is remotely different. Having anything other than a Mam and Dad will always be seen as different to kids as it will always be in a minority.
But you are right, where the motivation it comes from for a kid for abuse is irrelevant, as it has the same affect.
On a sort of a side note a couple of my neighbours were confronted with the simplicity of a child's mind when one of them was in the other's shop with a GAA jersey on. The owner's child told them that if they were Catholic they had better get out. Of course there was inital shock and embarrassment, followed by apologies, laughter and likely a very confused child getting the hairdryer treatment. :D
Quote from: J70 on May 29, 2015, 08:36:11 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 29, 2015, 04:07:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 10:42:31 AM
Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.
Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.
The only reason Barry and Paddy's kid would suffer psychological (presumably that is the word you were looking for?) abuse and social rejection is because ignorant fuckwits teach their kids that there is something wrong with and something to be feared with homosexuality. Just like with racists, some people will have to face down the ignoramuses for a while, but it will pass, along with the social acceptability of the prejudice.
Yip can't spell apologies, spelling aside as much as the highly educated and enlightened people on this board think that their liberal outlook is the norm, let me assure you it is not. For everyone one here who like Barry and Paddy's arrangement adopting Mary or Sean hundreds of thousands of people will not be as embracing to the situation, that is life, that is the world we live in so dry your eyes about ignorant fuckwits because thye out number the rest by 100,000 to 1, are you telling me you are going to face them all down - so why put a child in that horrible position in the first place, and what prey tell do Barry and Paddy do when Mary gets to 11 or 12 and her body changes wtf will they know to help her, oh that's right google or ask a female friend, or maybe Mary will just be embarrassed to ask her daddies.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 30, 2015, 08:17:24 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 29, 2015, 08:36:11 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 29, 2015, 04:07:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 10:42:31 AM
Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.
Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.
The only reason Barry and Paddy's kid would suffer psychological (presumably that is the word you were looking for?) abuse and social rejection is because ignorant fuckwits teach their kids that there is something wrong with and something to be feared with homosexuality. Just like with racists, some people will have to face down the ignoramuses for a while, but it will pass, along with the social acceptability of the prejudice.
Yip can't spell apologies, spelling aside as much as the highly educated and enlightened people on this board think that their liberal outlook is the norm, let me assure you it is not. For everyone one here who like Barry and Paddy's arrangement adopting Mary or Sean hundreds of thousands of people will not be as embracing to the situation, that is life, that is the world we live in so dry your eyes about ignorant fuckwits because thye out number the rest by 100,000 to 1, are you telling me you are going to face them all down - so why put a child in that horrible position in the first place, and what prey tell do Barry and Paddy do when Mary gets to 11 or 12 and her body changes wtf will they know to help her, oh that's right google or ask a female friend, or maybe Mary will just be embarrassed to ask her daddies.
Hmmm, so the liberals are outnumbered 100,000 to 1 yet the referendum was passed with 62% voting in favour. Maths isn't your strong point.
As for that last bit - well they could ask a single parent for advice - many single fathers and mothers have been doing a great job raising children for years. If one parent can do it, the why wouldn't two be able to?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 30, 2015, 08:17:24 AM
Quote from: J70 on May 29, 2015, 08:36:11 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 29, 2015, 04:07:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 29, 2015, 10:42:31 AM
Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.
Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.
The only reason Barry and Paddy's kid would suffer psychological (presumably that is the word you were looking for?) abuse and social rejection is because ignorant fuckwits teach their kids that there is something wrong with and something to be feared with homosexuality. Just like with racists, some people will have to face down the ignoramuses for a while, but it will pass, along with the social acceptability of the prejudice.
Yip can't spell apologies, spelling aside as much as the highly educated and enlightened people on this board think that their liberal outlook is the norm, let me assure you it is not. For everyone one here who like Barry and Paddy's arrangement adopting Mary or Sean hundreds of thousands of people will not be as embracing to the situation, that is life, that is the world we live in so dry your eyes about ignorant fuckwits because thye out number the rest by 100,000 to 1, are you telling me you are going to face them all down - so why put a child in that horrible position in the first place, and what prey tell do Barry and Paddy do when Mary gets to 11 or 12 and her body changes wtf will they know to help her, oh that's right google or ask a female friend, or maybe Mary will just be embarrassed to ask her daddies.
I am embarrassed for you now.
I pray that no daughter of yours ends up in that situation relying on you for guidance. Imagine if she had to ask her Daddy! I am certain that the gay Daddies would handle it a lot more sensitively than you.
Many here will know families who sadly lost their mother's early and managed very well. You of course couldn't comprehend anything like that.
You are in good company though:
http://www.downvids.net/westboro-baptist-church-protests-wrong-country-636401.html (http://www.downvids.net/westboro-baptist-church-protests-wrong-country-636401.html)
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 10:04:06 AM
I pray that no daughter of yours ends up in that situation relying on you for guidance. Imagine if she had to ask her Daddy! I am certain that the gay Daddies would handle it a lot more sensitively than you.
Many here will know families who sadly lost their mother's early and managed very well. You of course couldn't comprehend anything like that.
Of course we all know families missing a father or a mother where they've managed well. But why on earth would you deliberately contrive to bring about such a situation?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 30, 2015, 12:43:37 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 10:04:06 AM
I pray that no daughter of yours ends up in that situation relying on you for guidance. Imagine if she had to ask her Daddy! I am certain that the gay Daddies would handle it a lot more sensitively than you.
Many here will know families who sadly lost their mother's early and managed very well. You of course couldn't comprehend anything like that.
Of course we all know families missing a father or a mother where they've managed well. But why on earth would you deliberately contrive to bring about such a situation?
We are not contriving to bring about such a situation.
Any child with a mother and father in a healthy relationship will continue to have a mother and father. The vote doesn't change that. Pretending it does is disingenuous in the extreme.
Isn't it time to move on from the 'will someone think of the children' bullshit?
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 01:05:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 30, 2015, 12:43:37 PM
Of course we all know families missing a father or a mother where they've managed well. But why on earth would you deliberately contrive to bring about such a situation?
We are not contriving to bring about such a situation
yeah right.
QuoteAny child with a mother and father in a healthy relationship will continue to have a mother and father. The vote doesn't change that. Pretending it does is disingenuous in the extreme.
Who is pretending that? it is disingenuous to pretend that people are pretending that. What you are proposing is new relationships with children without a mother or father.
QuoteIsn't it time to move on from the 'will someone think of the children' bullshit?
If you think the interests of children are bullshit, then I suppose it is.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 30, 2015, 01:11:14 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 01:05:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 30, 2015, 12:43:37 PM
Of course we all know families missing a father or a mother where they've managed well. But why on earth would you deliberately contrive to bring about such a situation?
We are not contriving to bring about such a situation
yeah right.
QuoteAny child with a mother and father in a healthy relationship will continue to have a mother and father. The vote doesn't change that. Pretending it does is disingenuous in the extreme.
Who is pretending that? it is disingenuous to pretend that people are pretending that. What you are proposing is new relationships with children without a mother or father.
QuoteIsn't it time to move on from the 'will someone think of the children' bullshit?
If you think the interests of children are bullshit, then I suppose it is.
The old thumb to the nose argument. I suppose I should be glad as it is a change from 'will someone think of the children'.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2015, 08:28:51 AM
Hmmm, so the liberals are outnumbered 100,000 to 1 yet the referendum was passed with 62% voting in favour. Maths isn't your strong point.
As for that last bit - well they could ask a single parent for advice - many single fathers and mothers have been doing a great job raising children for years. If one parent can do it, the why wouldn't two be able to?
The referendum wasn't 60% of people voting in favour of gay marriage, I'd say most were protest voters against the church or whatever and rightly so, it's a sham of an institution, but if you think 60%+ people on this island, are liberal on matters of homosexuality you have your head in the clouds. As for your other quip, yeah because the child will only need emotional support for a day until she has it explained and then she be grand!
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 10:04:06 AM
I am embarrassed for you now.
I pray that no daughter of yours ends up in that situation relying on you for guidance. Imagine if she had to ask her Daddy! I am certain that the gay Daddies would handle it a lot more sensitively than you.
Many here will know families who sadly lost their mother's early and managed very well. You of course couldn't comprehend anything like that.
Yeah because they have a normal family support group to rally around, who will rally around Paddy and Barry, Seamus and John?
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 01:14:55 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 30, 2015, 01:11:14 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 01:05:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 30, 2015, 12:43:37 PM
Of course we all know families missing a father or a mother where they've managed well. But why on earth would you deliberately contrive to bring about such a situation?
We are not contriving to bring about such a situation
yeah right.
QuoteAny child with a mother and father in a healthy relationship will continue to have a mother and father. The vote doesn't change that. Pretending it does is disingenuous in the extreme.
Who is pretending that? it is disingenuous to pretend that people are pretending that. What you are proposing is new relationships with children without a mother or father.
QuoteIsn't it time to move on from the 'will someone think of the children' bullshit?
If you think the interests of children are bullshit, then I suppose it is.
The old thumb to the nose argument. I suppose I should be glad as it is a change from 'will someone think of the children'.
I would rather think of the children that constantly play the homophobic card.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 30, 2015, 03:35:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 10:04:06 AM
I am embarrassed for you now.
I pray that no daughter of yours ends up in that situation relying on you for guidance. Imagine if she had to ask her Daddy! I am certain that the gay Daddies would handle it a lot more sensitively than you.
Many here will know families who sadly lost their mother's early and managed very well. You of course couldn't comprehend anything like that.
Yeah because they have a normal family support group to rally around, who will rally around Paddy and Barry, Seamus and John?
Wow! You can't comprehend that a gay couple might actually have 'a normal family support group to rally round'. You actually think that an all male couple could only have all male couple support groups.
And you get offended when you are called homophobic. ;D
You weren't involved in this topcuppla by any chance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pe2Pa8yYuM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pe2Pa8yYuM)
;D
Quote from: topcuppla on May 30, 2015, 03:33:13 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2015, 08:28:51 AM
Hmmm, so the liberals are outnumbered 100,000 to 1 yet the referendum was passed with 62% voting in favour. Maths isn't your strong point.
As for that last bit - well they could ask a single parent for advice - many single fathers and mothers have been doing a great job raising children for years. If one parent can do it, the why wouldn't two be able to?
The referendum wasn't 60% of people voting in favour of gay marriage, I'd say most were protest voters against the church or whatever and rightly so, it's a sham of an institution, but if you think 60%+ people on this island, are liberal on matters of homosexuality you have your head in the clouds. As for your other quip, yeah because the child will only need emotional support for a day until she has it explained and then she be grand!
Thanks for telling me why I and others voted for ssm - I was confused.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 30, 2015, 03:35:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 10:04:06 AM
I am embarrassed for you now.
I pray that no daughter of yours ends up in that situation relying on you for guidance. Imagine if she had to ask her Daddy! I am certain that the gay Daddies would handle it a lot more sensitively than you.
Many here will know families who sadly lost their mother's early and managed very well. You of course couldn't comprehend anything like that.
Yeah because they have a normal family support group to rally around, who will rally around Paddy and Barry, Seamus and John?
I'd say Seamus and John, their parents and siblings (also known as grandparents, aunts and uncles), in short, their families.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 30, 2015, 03:37:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 01:14:55 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 30, 2015, 01:11:14 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 01:05:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 30, 2015, 12:43:37 PM
Of course we all know families missing a father or a mother where they've managed well. But why on earth would you deliberately contrive to bring about such a situation?
We are not contriving to bring about such a situation
yeah right.
QuoteAny child with a mother and father in a healthy relationship will continue to have a mother and father. The vote doesn't change that. Pretending it does is disingenuous in the extreme.
Who is pretending that? it is disingenuous to pretend that people are pretending that. What you are proposing is new relationships with children without a mother or father.
QuoteIsn't it time to move on from the 'will someone think of the children' bullshit?
If you think the interests of children are bullshit, then I suppose it is.
The old thumb to the nose argument. I suppose I should be glad as it is a change from 'will someone think of the children'.
I would rather think of the children by constantly saying homophobic things
Fixed that for you.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 30, 2015, 03:33:13 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 30, 2015, 08:28:51 AM
Hmmm, so the liberals are outnumbered 100,000 to 1 yet the referendum was passed with 62% voting in favour. Maths isn't your strong point.
As for that last bit - well they could ask a single parent for advice - many single fathers and mothers have been doing a great job raising children for years. If one parent can do it, the why wouldn't two be able to?
The referendum wasn't 60% of people voting in favour of gay marriage, I'd say most were protest voters against the church or whatever and rightly so, it's a sham of an institution, but if you think 60%+ people on this island, are liberal on matters of homosexuality you have your head in the clouds. As for your other quip, yeah because the child will only need emotional support for a day until she has it explained and then she be grand!
No, it was 62%.
And the only issue on the ballot was asking if you approved of amending an Bhunreacht to say that Marriage can be contracted by 2 people irrespective of their sex.
If people were protesting against Govt. or whatever they'd have voted NO.
Just accept the result topcuppla and get on with your life. You'll feel all the better for it.
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 03:44:10 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 30, 2015, 03:35:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 10:04:06 AM
I am embarrassed for you now.
I pray that no daughter of yours ends up in that situation relying on you for guidance. Imagine if she had to ask her Daddy! I am certain that the gay Daddies would handle it a lot more sensitively than you.
Many here will know families who sadly lost their mother's early and managed very well. You of course couldn't comprehend anything like that.
Yeah because they have a normal family support group to rally around, who will rally around Paddy and Barry, Seamus and John?
Wow! You can't comprehend that a gay couple might actually have 'a normal family support group to rally round'. You actually think that an all male couple could only have all male couple support groups.
And you get offended when you are called homophobic. ;D
How many same sex male couples do you, your family and friends socialize with? How many gay men for that matter do you socialize with?
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 30, 2015, 03:46:34 PM
I'd say Seamus and John, their parents and siblings (also known as grandparents, aunts and uncles), in short, their families.
Do you not think for a young girl a mother would be a better source of comfort, direction and guidance as she grows than an auntie or a friend being dragged in for the odd piece of advise, cop yourself on. I will repeat I think gays, should be able to married whom they like but two men have no right being able to adopt any child.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 30, 2015, 11:37:26 PM
And the only issue on the ballot was asking if you approved of amending an Bhunreacht to say that Marriage can be contracted by 2 people irrespective of their sex.
If people were protesting against Govt. or whatever they'd have voted NO.
Just accept the result topcuppla and get on with your life. You'll feel all the better for it.
Stephen Fry said he would vote yes if he was Irish, I suppose that is the debate closed.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 31, 2015, 01:19:53 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 03:44:10 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 30, 2015, 03:35:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 10:04:06 AM
I am embarrassed for you now.
I pray that no daughter of yours ends up in that situation relying on you for guidance. Imagine if she had to ask her Daddy! I am certain that the gay Daddies would handle it a lot more sensitively than you.
Many here will know families who sadly lost their mother's early and managed very well. You of course couldn't comprehend anything like that.
Yeah because they have a normal family support group to rally around, who will rally around Paddy and Barry, Seamus and John?
Wow! You can't comprehend that a gay couple might actually have 'a normal family support group to rally round'. You actually think that an all male couple could only have all male couple support groups.
And you get offended when you are called homophobic. ;D
How many same sex male couples do you, your family and friends socialize with? How many gay men for that matter do you socialize with?
Is this where you hope I say 'none', and then claim I can't possibly know that gay people have straight friends and family members?
I know lots of gay people. I can't think of any that I routinely socialise with, but I have noticed that gay people speak the same language as me and often are interested in similar things. Many, incredibly, even have brothers and sisters and some even have parents. But as I don't socialise with all of these, I can't confirm this.
Quote from: topcuppla on May 31, 2015, 01:24:13 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 30, 2015, 03:46:34 PM
I'd say Seamus and John, their parents and siblings (also known as grandparents, aunts and uncles), in short, their families.
Do you not think for a young girl a mother would be a better source of comfort, direction and guidance as she grows than an auntie or a friend being dragged in for the odd piece of advise, cop yourself on. I will repeat I think gays, should be able to married whom they like but two men have no right being able to adopt any child.
Well actually they do, and did have before the referendum. If one man can raise a child, why not two?
Quote from: topcuppla on May 31, 2015, 01:24:13 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 30, 2015, 03:46:34 PM
I'd say Seamus and John, their parents and siblings (also known as grandparents, aunts and uncles), in short, their families.
Do you not think for a young girl a mother would be a better source of comfort, direction and guidance as she grows than an auntie or a friend being dragged in for the odd piece of advise, cop yourself on. I will repeat I think gays, should be able to married whom they like but two men have no right being able to adopt any child.
What I actually think is that you are either an idiot or a troll, and like all examples of the latter, don't care who you hurt to get your thrills. If it is the former, you are dumber than dirt and twice as ignorant.
So the jury is out on whether or not you are born gay. Some interesting theories and results posted in this blog/article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php (http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php)
I tried finding a news source that would be deemed more credible but given the sensitivity of the subject I wonder which of them would ever publish it.
From a scientific lens, what struck me was the twin study. Identical twins have identical DNA. From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay, But that was only the case in less than 15% of the twins studied.
I think it ties into some of the questions AZ asked about lesbians who are attracted to masculine lesbians. I spoke about this over the weekend and my wife recalled an episode of America's next top model where one of the models was openly gay but said it was a choice as she was repulsed by men because of childhood abuse... all interesting.
Again, I'm not sure what I believe on it yet. But surely adds to the conversation - at least where it is now...
I stopped reading that page at "Exposing the myth of evolution."
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 01, 2015, 04:44:03 PM
I stopped reading that page at "Exposing the myth of evolution."
Eamonn I already apologized for the source - can you not skip over the parts that irk you to get to the content or would you prefer I cut and paste for your convenience...?
Quote from: The Iceman on June 01, 2015, 04:03:28 PM
So the jury is out on whether or not you are born gay. Some interesting theories and results posted in this blog/article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php (http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php)
I tried finding a news source that would be deemed more credible but given the sensitivity of the subject I wonder which of them would ever publish it.
From a scientific lens, what struck me was the twin study. Identical twins have identical DNA. From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay, But that was only the case in less than 15% of the twins studied.
I think it ties into some of the questions AZ asked about lesbians who are attracted to masculine lesbians. I spoke about this over the weekend and my wife recalled an episode of America's next top model where one of the models was openly gay but said it was a choice as she was repulsed by men because of childhood abuse... all interesting.
Again, I'm not sure what I believe on it yet. But surely adds to the conversation - at least where it is now...
That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?
Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?
Quote from: The Iceman on June 01, 2015, 04:03:28 PM
So the jury is out on whether or not you are born gay. Some interesting theories and results posted in this blog/article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php (http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php)
I tried finding a news source that would be deemed more credible but given the sensitivity of the subject I wonder which of them would ever publish it.
From a scientific lens, what struck me was the twin study. Identical twins have identical DNA. From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay, But that was only the case in less than 15% of the twins studied.
I think it ties into some of the questions AZ asked about lesbians who are attracted to masculine lesbians. I spoke about this over the weekend and my wife recalled an episode of America's next top model where one of the models was openly gay but said it was a choice as she was repulsed by men because of childhood abuse... all interesting.
Again, I'm not sure what I believe on it yet. But surely adds to the conversation - at least where it is now...
That may be true Iceman but they have separate genetics, which is actually is what is passed on through generations. So I feel the twin comparison is a bit of a red herring in this article especially when they had already discussed genetics. A good comparison might be left and right handedness in twins?
Bit of a head melter the old DNA, gentics, and chromosomes don't fully understand them myself
But you raise an interesting point about homosexuality and its scientific origins, it does appear to be a bit of a hot potato for the scientific community with no prominent theroy offered from them which looks strange at best considering they offer a theory on almost everything else. It would appear that using current scientific logic of evolution, survival etc homosexuality is difficult to rationalise.
The weird thing is tho that using theology, "we are the way God made us", "we have a soul", "love thy neighbour" etc. Homosexuality is much more acceptable thru this lens. Which I believe is the lens most people in Western society (theist, atheist and agnostic) actually use to rationalise homosexuality.
Quote from: muppet on May 31, 2015, 08:09:57 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 31, 2015, 01:19:53 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 03:44:10 PM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 30, 2015, 03:35:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 30, 2015, 10:04:06 AM
I am embarrassed for you now.
I pray that no daughter of yours ends up in that situation relying on you for guidance. Imagine if she had to ask her Daddy! I am certain that the gay Daddies would handle it a lot more sensitively than you.
Many here will know families who sadly lost their mother's early and managed very well. You of course couldn't comprehend anything like that.
Yeah because they have a normal family support group to rally around, who will rally around Paddy and Barry, Seamus and John?
Wow! You can't comprehend that a gay couple might actually have 'a normal family support group to rally round'. You actually think that an all male couple could only have all male couple support groups.
And you get offended when you are called homophobic. ;D
How many same sex male couples do you, your family and friends socialize with? How many gay men for that matter do you socialize with?
Is this where you hope I say 'none', and then claim I can't possibly know that gay people have straight friends and family members?
I know lots of gay people. I can't think of any that I routinely socialise with, but I have noticed that gay people speak the same language as me and often are interested in similar things. Many, incredibly, even have brothers and sisters and some even have parents. But as I don't socialise with all of these, I can't confirm this.
Well I didn't see that coming!!! So you don't know any gay male married couples, but you know all about them - don't figure!
Quote from: easytiger95 on June 01, 2015, 10:05:12 AM
Quote from: topcuppla on May 31, 2015, 01:24:13 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on May 30, 2015, 03:46:34 PM
I'd say Seamus and John, their parents and siblings (also known as grandparents, aunts and uncles), in short, their families.
Do you not think for a young girl a mother would be a better source of comfort, direction and guidance as she grows than an auntie or a friend being dragged in for the odd piece of advise, cop yourself on. I will repeat I think gays, should be able to married whom they like but two men have no right being able to adopt any child.
What I actually think is that you are either an idiot or a troll, and like all examples of the latter, don't care who you hurt to get your thrills. If it is the former, you are dumber than dirt and twice as ignorant.
You know and socialise with many gays yourself?
Quote from: muppet on June 01, 2015, 07:18:08 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 01, 2015, 04:03:28 PM
So the jury is out on whether or not you are born gay. Some interesting theories and results posted in this blog/article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php (http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php)
I tried finding a news source that would be deemed more credible but given the sensitivity of the subject I wonder which of them would ever publish it.
From a scientific lens, what struck me was the twin study. Identical twins have identical DNA. From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay, But that was only the case in less than 15% of the twins studied.
I think it ties into some of the questions AZ asked about lesbians who are attracted to masculine lesbians. I spoke about this over the weekend and my wife recalled an episode of America's next top model where one of the models was openly gay but said it was a choice as she was repulsed by men because of childhood abuse... all interesting.
Again, I'm not sure what I believe on it yet. But surely adds to the conversation - at least where it is now...
That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?
Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?
That's not true Muppet, they have the same DNA, but they can be different, they have different fingerprints for example and its not due to "mutations in DNA."
The biggest factor in twins looking and behaving different is not their genetics as I pointed out but environmental factors, it has a truly massive bearing on the outcomes. For what its worth the fingerprints are different because of the genetic code and also because of the different environment experienced in the womb, even tho its the same womb they are both in different positions etc
I read once about unborn children during their 2nd trimester in the Dutch famine in 1944 had a huge spike in obesity. Why? Because their bodies thought they were coming into a world that lacked food so they were trained to save any that they got with disastrous consequences.
Environmental factors affect on our bodies is far more complicated than DNA and way less understood. We are in no position to say whether or not environment has any affect on any our traits and features especially on those were there is no scientific consensus on them.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 01, 2015, 08:57:13 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 01, 2015, 07:18:08 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 01, 2015, 04:03:28 PM
So the jury is out on whether or not you are born gay. Some interesting theories and results posted in this blog/article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php (http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php)
I tried finding a news source that would be deemed more credible but given the sensitivity of the subject I wonder which of them would ever publish it.
From a scientific lens, what struck me was the twin study. Identical twins have identical DNA. From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay, But that was only the case in less than 15% of the twins studied.
I think it ties into some of the questions AZ asked about lesbians who are attracted to masculine lesbians. I spoke about this over the weekend and my wife recalled an episode of America's next top model where one of the models was openly gay but said it was a choice as she was repulsed by men because of childhood abuse... all interesting.
Again, I'm not sure what I believe on it yet. But surely adds to the conversation - at least where it is now...
That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?
Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?
That's not true Muppet, they have the same DNA, but they can be different, they have different fingerprints for example and its not due to "mutations in DNA."
The biggest factor in twins looking and behaving different is not their genetics as I pointed out but environmental factors, it has a truly massive bearing on the outcomes. For what its worth the fingerprints are different because of the genetic code and also because of the different environment experienced in the womb, even tho its the same womb they are both in different positions etc
I read once about unborn children during their 2nd trimester in the Dutch famine in 1944 had a huge spike in obesity. Why? Because their bodies thought they were coming into a world that lacked food so they were trained to save any that they got with disastrous consequences.
Environmental factors affect on our bodies is far more complicated than DNA and way less understood. We are in no position to say whether or not environment has any affect on any our traits and features especially on those were there is no scientific consensus on them.
I was disagreeing with the
identical DNA produces identical people theory. What did you think isn't true?
Quote from: muppet on June 01, 2015, 09:31:39 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 01, 2015, 08:57:13 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 01, 2015, 07:18:08 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 01, 2015, 04:03:28 PM
So the jury is out on whether or not you are born gay. Some interesting theories and results posted in this blog/article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php (http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php)
I tried finding a news source that would be deemed more credible but given the sensitivity of the subject I wonder which of them would ever publish it.
From a scientific lens, what struck me was the twin study. Identical twins have identical DNA. From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay, But that was only the case in less than 15% of the twins studied.
I think it ties into some of the questions AZ asked about lesbians who are attracted to masculine lesbians. I spoke about this over the weekend and my wife recalled an episode of America's next top model where one of the models was openly gay but said it was a choice as she was repulsed by men because of childhood abuse... all interesting.
Again, I'm not sure what I believe on it yet. But surely adds to the conversation - at least where it is now...
That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?
Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?
That's not true Muppet, they have the same DNA, but they can be different, they have different fingerprints for example and its not due to "mutations in DNA."
The biggest factor in twins looking and behaving different is not their genetics as I pointed out but environmental factors, it has a truly massive bearing on the outcomes. For what its worth the fingerprints are different because of the genetic code and also because of the different environment experienced in the womb, even tho its the same womb they are both in different positions etc
I read once about unborn children during their 2nd trimester in the Dutch famine in 1944 had a huge spike in obesity. Why? Because their bodies thought they were coming into a world that lacked food so they were trained to save any that they got with disastrous consequences.
Environmental factors affect on our bodies is far more complicated than DNA and way less understood. We are in no position to say whether or not environment has any affect on any our traits and features especially on those were there is no scientific consensus on them.
I was disagreeing with the identical DNA produces identical people theory. What did you think isn't true?
Your suggestion that mutations in DNA are the reasons twins are physically different, and that they can' be sure twins have 100% the same DNA.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 01, 2015, 09:48:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 01, 2015, 09:31:39 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 01, 2015, 08:57:13 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 01, 2015, 07:18:08 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 01, 2015, 04:03:28 PM
So the jury is out on whether or not you are born gay. Some interesting theories and results posted in this blog/article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php (http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php)
I tried finding a news source that would be deemed more credible but given the sensitivity of the subject I wonder which of them would ever publish it.
From a scientific lens, what struck me was the twin study. Identical twins have identical DNA. From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay, But that was only the case in less than 15% of the twins studied.
I think it ties into some of the questions AZ asked about lesbians who are attracted to masculine lesbians. I spoke about this over the weekend and my wife recalled an episode of America's next top model where one of the models was openly gay but said it was a choice as she was repulsed by men because of childhood abuse... all interesting.
Again, I'm not sure what I believe on it yet. But surely adds to the conversation - at least where it is now...
That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?
Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?
That's not true Muppet, they have the same DNA, but they can be different, they have different fingerprints for example and its not due to "mutations in DNA."
The biggest factor in twins looking and behaving different is not their genetics as I pointed out but environmental factors, it has a truly massive bearing on the outcomes. For what its worth the fingerprints are different because of the genetic code and also because of the different environment experienced in the womb, even tho its the same womb they are both in different positions etc
I read once about unborn children during their 2nd trimester in the Dutch famine in 1944 had a huge spike in obesity. Why? Because their bodies thought they were coming into a world that lacked food so they were trained to save any that they got with disastrous consequences.
Environmental factors affect on our bodies is far more complicated than DNA and way less understood. We are in no position to say whether or not environment has any affect on any our traits and features especially on those were there is no scientific consensus on them.
I was disagreeing with the identical DNA produces identical people theory. What did you think isn't true?
Your suggestion that mutations in DNA are the reasons twins are physically different, and that they can' be sure twins have 100% the same DNA.
I never suggested that. All I said is that no one can be certain that there aren't a couple mutations in the billions of genes of identical twins as no one has ever tested them all.
Quote from: muppet on June 01, 2015, 10:03:23 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 01, 2015, 09:48:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 01, 2015, 09:31:39 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 01, 2015, 08:57:13 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 01, 2015, 07:18:08 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 01, 2015, 04:03:28 PM
So the jury is out on whether or not you are born gay. Some interesting theories and results posted in this blog/article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php (http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php)
I tried finding a news source that would be deemed more credible but given the sensitivity of the subject I wonder which of them would ever publish it.
From a scientific lens, what struck me was the twin study. Identical twins have identical DNA. From that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay, But that was only the case in less than 15% of the twins studied.
I think it ties into some of the questions AZ asked about lesbians who are attracted to masculine lesbians. I spoke about this over the weekend and my wife recalled an episode of America's next top model where one of the models was openly gay but said it was a choice as she was repulsed by men because of childhood abuse... all interesting.
Again, I'm not sure what I believe on it yet. But surely adds to the conversation - at least where it is now...
That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?
Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?
That's not true Muppet, they have the same DNA, but they can be different, they have different fingerprints for example and its not due to "mutations in DNA."
The biggest factor in twins looking and behaving different is not their genetics as I pointed out but environmental factors, it has a truly massive bearing on the outcomes. For what its worth the fingerprints are different because of the genetic code and also because of the different environment experienced in the womb, even tho its the same womb they are both in different positions etc
I read once about unborn children during their 2nd trimester in the Dutch famine in 1944 had a huge spike in obesity. Why? Because their bodies thought they were coming into a world that lacked food so they were trained to save any that they got with disastrous consequences.
Environmental factors affect on our bodies is far more complicated than DNA and way less understood. We are in no position to say whether or not environment has any affect on any our traits and features especially on those were there is no scientific consensus on them.
I was disagreeing with the identical DNA produces identical people theory. What did you think isn't true?
Your suggestion that mutations in DNA are the reasons twins are physically different, and that they can' be sure twins have 100% the same DNA.
I never suggested that. All I said is that no one can be certain that there aren't a couple mutations in the billions of genes of identical twins as no one has ever tested them all.
So you are saying you are not suggesting that, but then re suggest it?
I'm confused?
Who can be certain of anything? No one can be 100% certain of anything. Have you seen the earth spinning?
Alls I am saying is that the available scientific evidence points to the contrary of your "suggestion".
For practical purposes or purposes of public policy as regards the rights of gay people, what is the point of the discussion as to whether people are born homosexual or not?
My bad Hardy - it was raised earlier during the discussions. As were lots of questions and there was some healthy discussion around the subject - I should have started another thread.
Quote from: Hardy on June 01, 2015, 11:44:18 PM
For practical purposes or purposes of public policy as regards the rights of gay people, what is the point of the discussion as to whether people are born homosexual or not?
A business is within its rights to put up a sign saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service." Or a bank can refuse to accept anyone coming in wearing a motorcycle helmet. This is not discrimination because it's possible to put on a pair of shoes, put on a shirt, and take off the helmet. When you refuse a service to someone on the grounds of something they cannot change because it's an inherent fact of the way they were born (race, gender, sexual orientation etc.), that's discrimination.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 02, 2015, 05:16:50 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 01, 2015, 11:44:18 PM
For practical purposes or purposes of public policy as regards the rights of gay people, what is the point of the discussion as to whether people are born homosexual or not?
A business is within its rights to put up a sign saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service." Or a bank can refuse to accept anyone coming in wearing a motorcycle helmet. This is not discrimination because it's possible to put on a pair of shoes, put on a shirt, and take off the helmet. When you refuse a service to someone on the grounds of something they cannot change because it's an inherent fact of the way they were born (race, gender, sexual orientation etc.), that's discrimination.
Isn't it more about perception than anything that is actually nailed down, like "with what your born with"? My previous point that environmental factors may well be the biggest factor in shaping us as people could well make a mockery of what we are supposedly born with.
Also what about political affiliation, age, nationality and religion none of these you are technically born with? But these days you can't discriminate against these either. Also at the risk of being pedantic you can change gender these days and what about the trannies where do they lie in gender discrimination?
I believe the current discrimination perception is governed by the following:
"If your not doing anyone else any harm then you should be able to do what you want without being discriminated against"
Quote from: The Iceman on June 02, 2015, 12:02:33 AM
My bad Hardy - it was raised earlier during the discussions. As were lots of questions and there was some healthy discussion around the subject - I should have started another thread.
I didn't have a problem with your post. It just prompted my observation, which is something that I've been thinking about during the wider debate.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 02, 2015, 05:16:50 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 01, 2015, 11:44:18 PM
For practical purposes or purposes of public policy as regards the rights of gay people, what is the point of the discussion as to whether people are born homosexual or not?
A business is within its rights to put up a sign saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service." Or a bank can refuse to accept anyone coming in wearing a motorcycle helmet. This is not discrimination because it's possible to put on a pair of shoes, put on a shirt, and take off the helmet. When you refuse a service to someone on the grounds of something they cannot change because it's an inherent fact of the way they were born (race, gender, sexual orientation etc.), that's discrimination.
I presume you're not suggesting that it would be OK to discriminate against gay people if they weren't born gay. This was the point of my post. The nature/nurture debate seems to have some kind of spurious status in the gay rights discourse. The "lifestyle choice" argument propounded by ant-gay elements makes hay with this bogus distinction. It seems to me that the concession of equal rights should not be determined by whether a person's sexual orientation is the result of genetics, conditioning or indeed choice.
I don't mean to portray homosexuality as a disability but for want of a better analogy, you wouldn't condone discrimination against disabled people on the basis that their disability was the result of an accident, rather than something they were born with.
I thought this was funny, or at least I did when I saw what party he belonged to. Different definition of 'liberal' down there I suppose.
http://www.newstalk.com/Grahame-Morris-Ireland-Irish-people-Australia-Liberal-Party-same-sex-marriage-MarRef (http://www.newstalk.com/Grahame-Morris-Ireland-Irish-people-Australia-Liberal-Party-same-sex-marriage-MarRef)
QuoteAn advisor to the Australian Liberal Party has launched an anti-Irish tirade, after members of the opposition called for a vote on gay marriage there.
Speaking yesterday on Sky News Australia, Grahame Morris made several claims about Ireland and the Irish people.
"The trigger was a vote in Ireland - I love the Irish and half the parliament's full of Irishmen, but these are people who can't grow potatoes, they've got a mutant lawn weed as their national symbol and they can't verbalise the difference between a tree and the number three" he said.
Mr Morris was complaining after a member of the opposition, Tanya Plibersek, had said her party was going to put up a vote on same-sex marriage, following the vote here.
The Australian Labour Party has introduced a bill to parliament. But Mr Morris says it's all Ireland's fault.
Mr Morris has more than 30 years' association with the Liberal and National Parties around Australia.
He has also served as parliamentary adviser to Liberal Leaders Andrew Peacock and Alexander Downer - and as Chief of Staff to former Prime Minister, John Howard.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 01, 2015, 10:12:02 PM
So you are saying you are not suggesting that, but then re suggest it?
I'm confused?
Who can be certain of anything? No one can be 100% certain of anything. Have you seen the earth spinning?
Alls I am saying is that the available scientific evidence points to the contrary of your "suggestion".
I have seen more than enough evidence that the earth spins.
I am 100% certain that I didn't suggest that mutations cause the differences between twins.
I am also 100% certain that genetic mutations occur every now and then. I didn't link the mutations to the differences, but for some reason you seem to think I did.
I think the problem is somewhere between my struggle with writing in the english language, the formatting of multi quote posts and your comprehension of all of those.
Quote from: Hardy on June 02, 2015, 09:55:25 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 02, 2015, 12:02:33 AM
My bad Hardy - it was raised earlier during the discussions. As were lots of questions and there was some healthy discussion around the subject - I should have started another thread.
I didn't have a problem with your post. It just prompted my observation, which is something that I've been thinking about during the wider debate.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 02, 2015, 05:16:50 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 01, 2015, 11:44:18 PM
For practical purposes or purposes of public policy as regards the rights of gay people, what is the point of the discussion as to whether people are born homosexual or not?
A business is within its rights to put up a sign saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service." Or a bank can refuse to accept anyone coming in wearing a motorcycle helmet. This is not discrimination because it's possible to put on a pair of shoes, put on a shirt, and take off the helmet. When you refuse a service to someone on the grounds of something they cannot change because it's an inherent fact of the way they were born (race, gender, sexual orientation etc.), that's discrimination.
I presume you're not suggesting that it would be OK to discriminate against gay people if they weren't born gay. This was the point of my post. The nature/nurture debate seems to have some kind of spurious status in the gay rights discourse. The "lifestyle choice" argument propounded by ant-gay elements makes hay with this bogus distinction. It seems to me that the concession of equal rights should not be determined by whether a person's sexual orientation is the result of genetics, conditioning or indeed choice.
I don't mean to portray homosexuality as a disability but for want of a better analogy, you wouldn't condone discrimination against disabled people on the basis that their disability was the result of an accident, rather than something they were born with.
I genuinely wasn't going down that path. I have discussed a lot of this at great length at home to try to figure out where we stand on all of it and the points AZ brought up about Lesbians and the "type" they are attracted to has often been a puzzle. With the twins study and some of those findings it raises a lot of interesting points for discussion. It certainly does not mean anyone should be discriminated against - just unpacking things a bit more and trying to understand the nature of it all....
Some interesting conservatives out there: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/irish-can-t-grow-potatoes-says-australian-political-advisor-1.2234430 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/irish-can-t-grow-potatoes-says-australian-political-advisor-1.2234430)
Grahame Morris, former chief of staff for Liberal Party politician John Howard when he was prime minister, said Australia should not follow Ireland's example in having a same-sex marriage referendum during a TV debate.
.......
Mr Morris said the "trigger" for the bill was the Yes vote for same-sex marriage in Ireland.
"Now I love the Irish, the parliament is full of Irish men but these are people who can't grow potatoes, they've got a mutant lawn weed as their national symbol and they can't verbalise the difference between tree and the number three. But, and then all of a sudden, Australia has to follow suit," he said on Sky News.
I just posted that. Am I on your ignore list? :)
And he's a Liberal I think :)
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 02, 2015, 04:26:48 PM
I just posted that. Am I on your ignore list? :)
And he's a Liberal I think :)
Oops, sorry and yes and eh how can he be a Liberal with statements like that? :D
Dunno, maybe that's Australian for Liberal, like Fosters is Australian for Piss.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 02, 2015, 04:29:16 PM
Dunno, maybe that's Australian for Liberal, like Fosters is Australian for Piss.
Yes, maybe Liberal means Conservative in Oz. In fairness, it would be understandable if everything was upside-down there.
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 01, 2015, 10:12:02 PM
So you are saying you are not suggesting that, but then re suggest it?
I'm confused?
Who can be certain of anything? No one can be 100% certain of anything. Have you seen the earth spinning?
Alls I am saying is that the available scientific evidence points to the contrary of your "suggestion".
I have seen more than enough evidence that the earth spins.
I am 100% certain that I didn't suggest that mutations cause the differences between twins.
I am also 100% certain that genetic mutations occur every now and then. I didn't link the mutations to the differences, but for some reason you seem to think I did.
I think the problem is somewhere between my struggle with writing in the english language, the formatting of multi quote posts and your comprehension of all of those.
Look muppet this is what you posted
Quote from: muppet on June 01, 2015, 07:18:08 PM
That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?
Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?
You are pointing out that twins don't end up physicaly the same and ask us how could this happen if they are the same genetically. In the next sentence you start to tell us that twins might not have identical DNA and in the next sentence telling us that mutations occur.
I was just pointing out that what you were saying was not true and that differences in id twins is more to do with environment than anything else
However if your think that your suggestion is rubbish that's fine, it was only a suggestion. but there is no mistake in what I read.
I often wondered about that definition in Australia but then it actually makes sense. I mean what does conservative mean? It means traditional, safe, sensible, logical.
Liberal on the other hand means out there, alternative, trying anything, no rules, free to do and say what you want. As you can see this guy along with alot of "conservatives" is far from sensible! I prefer to use left wing and right wing
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 02, 2015, 05:13:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 01, 2015, 10:12:02 PM
So you are saying you are not suggesting that, but then re suggest it?
I'm confused?
Who can be certain of anything? No one can be 100% certain of anything. Have you seen the earth spinning?
Alls I am saying is that the available scientific evidence points to the contrary of your "suggestion".
I have seen more than enough evidence that the earth spins.
I am 100% certain that I didn't suggest that mutations cause the differences between twins.
I am also 100% certain that genetic mutations occur every now and then. I didn't link the mutations to the differences, but for some reason you seem to think I did.
I think the problem is somewhere between my struggle with writing in the english language, the formatting of multi quote posts and your comprehension of all of those.
Look muppet this is what you posted
Quote from: muppet on June 01, 2015, 07:18:08 PM
That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?
Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?
You are pointing out that twins don't end up physicaly the same and ask us how could this happen if they are the same genetically. In the next sentence you start to tell us that twins might not have identical DNA and in the next sentence telling us that mutations occur.
I was just pointing out that what you were saying was not true and that differences in id twins is more to do with environment than anything else
However if your think that your suggestion is rubbish that's fine, it was only a suggestion. but there is no mistake in what I read.
I knew you misread it it.
I was responding to this which was highlighted in bold in my original post:
QuoteFrom that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay
In response to that the first thing I wrote was: "That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me."
I was obviously disagreeing with the notion hat identical DNA means identical characteristics.
I went on to show that tour DNA is almost identical to all of mankind, the point being that we still have all the diversity we have, despite the very similar DNA.
As an aside I then pointed out that there could possibly be mutations, even in identical twins, but I never linked that to anything other than the fact that research is limited on genetics.
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 05:50:34 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 02, 2015, 05:13:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 01, 2015, 10:12:02 PM
So you are saying you are not suggesting that, but then re suggest it?
I'm confused?
Who can be certain of anything? No one can be 100% certain of anything. Have you seen the earth spinning?
Alls I am saying is that the available scientific evidence points to the contrary of your "suggestion".
I have seen more than enough evidence that the earth spins.
I am 100% certain that I didn't suggest that mutations cause the differences between twins.
I am also 100% certain that genetic mutations occur every now and then. I didn't link the mutations to the differences, but for some reason you seem to think I did.
I think the problem is somewhere between my struggle with writing in the english language, the formatting of multi quote posts and your comprehension of all of those.
Look muppet this is what you posted
Quote from: muppet on June 01, 2015, 07:18:08 PM
That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?
Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?
You are pointing out that twins don't end up physicaly the same and ask us how could this happen if they are the same genetically. In the next sentence you start to tell us that twins might not have identical DNA and in the next sentence telling us that mutations occur.
I was just pointing out that what you were saying was not true and that differences in id twins is more to do with environment than anything else
However if your think that your suggestion is rubbish that's fine, it was only a suggestion. but there is no mistake in what I read.
I knew you misread it it.
I was responding to this which was highlighted in bold in my original post:
QuoteFrom that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay
In response to that the first thing I wrote was: "That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me."
I was obviously disagreeing with the notion hat identical DNA means identical characteristics.
I went on to show that tour DNA is almost identical to all of mankind, the point being that we still have all the diversity we have, despite the very similar DNA.
As an aside I then pointed out that there could possibly be mutations, even in identical twins, but I never linked that to anything other than the fact that research is limited on genetics.
Muppet, what spawned your statement is fairly irrelevant. If you are saying one point in your post is unrelated to the next that's fine it doesn't read like that and is contrary to the style of most posts on this board
But even with that said I am having difficultly accepting what you are trying to say then with what you are trying to say now without assuming you are making a complete about turn how do you quantify these two statements for example?
"I was obviously disagreeing with the notion hat identical DNA means identical characteristics."
and
"If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?"
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 02, 2015, 06:15:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 05:50:34 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 02, 2015, 05:13:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 01, 2015, 10:12:02 PM
So you are saying you are not suggesting that, but then re suggest it?
I'm confused?
Who can be certain of anything? No one can be 100% certain of anything. Have you seen the earth spinning?
Alls I am saying is that the available scientific evidence points to the contrary of your "suggestion".
I have seen more than enough evidence that the earth spins.
I am 100% certain that I didn't suggest that mutations cause the differences between twins.
I am also 100% certain that genetic mutations occur every now and then. I didn't link the mutations to the differences, but for some reason you seem to think I did.
I think the problem is somewhere between my struggle with writing in the english language, the formatting of multi quote posts and your comprehension of all of those.
Look muppet this is what you posted
Quote from: muppet on June 01, 2015, 07:18:08 PM
That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?
Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?
You are pointing out that twins don't end up physicaly the same and ask us how could this happen if they are the same genetically. In the next sentence you start to tell us that twins might not have identical DNA and in the next sentence telling us that mutations occur.
I was just pointing out that what you were saying was not true and that differences in id twins is more to do with environment than anything else
However if your think that your suggestion is rubbish that's fine, it was only a suggestion. but there is no mistake in what I read.
I knew you misread it it.
I was responding to this which was highlighted in bold in my original post:
QuoteFrom that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay
In response to that the first thing I wrote was: "That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me."
I was obviously disagreeing with the notion hat identical DNA means identical characteristics.
I went on to show that tour DNA is almost identical to all of mankind, the point being that we still have all the diversity we have, despite the very similar DNA.
As an aside I then pointed out that there could possibly be mutations, even in identical twins, but I never linked that to anything other than the fact that research is limited on genetics.
Muppet, what spawned your statement is fairly irrelevant. If you are saying one point in your post is unrelated to the next that's fine it doesn't read like that and is contrary to the style of most posts on this board
But even with that said I am having difficultly accepting what you are trying to say then with what you are trying to say now without assuming you are making a complete about turn how do you quantify these two statements for example?
"I was obviously disagreeing with the notion hat identical DNA means identical characteristics."
and
"If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?"
Yes.
That is exactly the point. They don't evolve identically.
I made clear at the start what I disagreed with. You missed that bit and now argue that this is somehow 'fairly irrelevant'. It is the premise for the post. The question was supposed to be rhetorical, i.e twins don't evolve identically do they? They have different 100m times, they marry different people, they play different sports, get different grades etc.
The second paragraph was an observation regarding the limited studies done in the field.
Here is some more reading on that: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/)
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 06:28:17 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 02, 2015, 06:15:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 05:50:34 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 02, 2015, 05:13:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 01, 2015, 10:12:02 PM
So you are saying you are not suggesting that, but then re suggest it?
I'm confused?
Who can be certain of anything? No one can be 100% certain of anything. Have you seen the earth spinning?
Alls I am saying is that the available scientific evidence points to the contrary of your "suggestion".
I have seen more than enough evidence that the earth spins.
I am 100% certain that I didn't suggest that mutations cause the differences between twins.
I am also 100% certain that genetic mutations occur every now and then. I didn't link the mutations to the differences, but for some reason you seem to think I did.
I think the problem is somewhere between my struggle with writing in the english language, the formatting of multi quote posts and your comprehension of all of those.
Look muppet this is what you posted
Quote from: muppet on June 01, 2015, 07:18:08 PM
That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me. Our DNA is over 99% identical to all of the history of mankind as it is. In fact we share 98.4% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Why do identical twins run the 100m in different times? If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?
Also, I am not certain that they can be absolutely certain that even identical twins have 100% identical DNA. Mutations occur with DNA reproduction and we still don't test every single part of DNA. So how can anyone be certain small mutations don't occur?
You are pointing out that twins don't end up physicaly the same and ask us how could this happen if they are the same genetically. In the next sentence you start to tell us that twins might not have identical DNA and in the next sentence telling us that mutations occur.
I was just pointing out that what you were saying was not true and that differences in id twins is more to do with environment than anything else
However if your think that your suggestion is rubbish that's fine, it was only a suggestion. but there is no mistake in what I read.
I knew you misread it it.
I was responding to this which was highlighted in bold in my original post:
QuoteFrom that if one twin was gay and you were born gay (part of your genetic makeup) then the other twin should be gay
In response to that the first thing I wrote was: "That seems like a very odd assumption to make to me."
I was obviously disagreeing with the notion hat identical DNA means identical characteristics.
I went on to show that tour DNA is almost identical to all of mankind, the point being that we still have all the diversity we have, despite the very similar DNA.
As an aside I then pointed out that there could possibly be mutations, even in identical twins, but I never linked that to anything other than the fact that research is limited on genetics.
Muppet, what spawned your statement is fairly irrelevant. If you are saying one point in your post is unrelated to the next that's fine it doesn't read like that and is contrary to the style of most posts on this board
But even with that said I am having difficultly accepting what you are trying to say then with what you are trying to say now without assuming you are making a complete about turn how do you quantify these two statements for example?
"I was obviously disagreeing with the notion hat identical DNA means identical characteristics."
and
"If they are genetically identical then surely they should evolve identically?"
Yes.
That is exactly the point. They don't evolve identically.
I made clear at the start what I disagreed with. You missed that bit and now argue that this is somehow 'fairly irrelevant'. It is the premise for the post. The question was supposed to be rhetorical, i.e twins don't evolve identically do they? They have different 100m times, they marry different people, they play different sports, get different grades etc.
The second paragraph was an observation regarding the limited studies done in the field.
Here is some more reading on that: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/)
Eh? Rhetorical? Right ;) Come on now muppet thats a stretch ???
I am well aware of twins having different genetics but they have the same DNA, if you read my posts I already pointed that out to Iceman.
However the main differences in twins is environmental...
QuoteEh? Rhetorical? Right ;) Come on now muppet thats a stretch ???
Let me get this right.
You post here knowing what is going on in the mind of another more than they do?
By the way, for clarification, that was rhetorical.
And.......
QuoteI am well aware of twins having different genetics but they have the same DNA
Genes are a part of DNA, a subset if you like. Thus if the genes are different, then the DNA is also different.
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 06:55:32 PM
QuoteEh? Rhetorical? Right ;) Come on now muppet thats a stretch ???
Let me get this right.
You post here knowing what is going on in the mind of another more than they do?
By the way, for clarification, that was rhetorical.
And.......
QuoteI am well aware of twins having different genetics but they have the same DNA
Genes are a part of DNA, a subset if you like. Thus if the genes are different, then the DNA is also different.
So for clarification Muppet can we establish that your last statement about DNA should be taken as written and was not rhetorical?
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 02, 2015, 07:08:25 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 06:55:32 PM
QuoteEh? Rhetorical? Right ;) Come on now muppet thats a stretch ???
Let me get this right.
You post here knowing what is going on in the mind of another more than they do?
By the way, for clarification, that was rhetorical.
And.......
QuoteI am well aware of twins having different genetics but they have the same DNA
Genes are a part of DNA, a subset if you like. Thus if the genes are different, then the DNA is also different.
So for clarification Muppet can we establish that your last statement about DNA should be taken as written and was not rhetorical?
Yes, genes are sequences of DNA. If your genes are in any way different to someone else's, then logically your DNA is different.
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 07:52:45 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 02, 2015, 07:08:25 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 06:55:32 PM
QuoteEh? Rhetorical? Right ;) Come on now muppet thats a stretch ???
Let me get this right.
You post here knowing what is going on in the mind of another more than they do?
By the way, for clarification, that was rhetorical.
And.......
QuoteI am well aware of twins having different genetics but they have the same DNA
Genes are a part of DNA, a subset if you like. Thus if the genes are different, then the DNA is also different.
So for clarification Muppet can we establish that your last statement about DNA should be taken as written and was not rhetorical?
Yes, genes are sequences of DNA. If your genes are in any way different to someone else's, then logically your DNA is different.
I'm confused are they sequences of DNA or are they subsets/part of DNA? One statement would appear to be the opposite of the other. I am sure you can clarify?
Or is one rhetorical and one fact?
What is going on muppet please tell us straight out?
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 02, 2015, 08:30:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 07:52:45 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 02, 2015, 07:08:25 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 06:55:32 PM
QuoteEh? Rhetorical? Right ;) Come on now muppet thats a stretch ???
Let me get this right.
You post here knowing what is going on in the mind of another more than they do?
By the way, for clarification, that was rhetorical.
And.......
QuoteI am well aware of twins having different genetics but they have the same DNA
Genes are a part of DNA, a subset if you like. Thus if the genes are different, then the DNA is also different.
So for clarification Muppet can we establish that your last statement about DNA should be taken as written and was not rhetorical?
Yes, genes are sequences of DNA. If your genes are in any way different to someone else's, then logically your DNA is different.
I'm confused are they sequences of DNA or are they subsets/part of DNA? One statement would appear to be the opposite of the other. I am sure you can clarify?
Or is one rhetorical and one fact?
What is going on muppet please tell us straight out?
I was waiting for an enlightened comeback. Pity.
Your genes are a subset of your total DNA. [Subset def: division, portion]
Your genes are also made up of individual sequences of DNA. [gene def: ...a specific sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that is located usually on a chromosome.....]
That isn't too difficulty. But of course anyone can see what you are doing is diverting attention away from this statement of yours:
'I am well aware of twins having different genetics but they have the same DNA'Any chance you can explain how they can have identical DNA, but different genes?
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 08:46:28 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 02, 2015, 08:30:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 07:52:45 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 02, 2015, 07:08:25 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 02, 2015, 06:55:32 PM
QuoteEh? Rhetorical? Right ;) Come on now muppet thats a stretch ???
Let me get this right.
You post here knowing what is going on in the mind of another more than they do?
By the way, for clarification, that was rhetorical.
And.......
QuoteI am well aware of twins having different genetics but they have the same DNA
Genes are a part of DNA, a subset if you like. Thus if the genes are different, then the DNA is also different.
So for clarification Muppet can we establish that your last statement about DNA should be taken as written and was not rhetorical?
Yes, genes are sequences of DNA. If your genes are in any way different to someone else's, then logically your DNA is different.
I'm confused are they sequences of DNA or are they subsets/part of DNA? One statement would appear to be the opposite of the other. I am sure you can clarify?
Or is one rhetorical and one fact?
What is going on muppet please tell us straight out?
I was waiting for an enlightened comeback. Pity.
Your genes are a subset of your total DNA. [Subset def: division, portion]
Your genes are also made up of individual sequences of DNA. [gene def: ...a specific sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that is located usually on a chromosome.....]
That isn't too difficulty. But of course any can see what you are doing is diverting attention away from this statement of yours:
'I am well aware of twins having different genetics but they have the same DNA'
Any chance you can explain how they can have identical DNA, but different genes?
My statement is correct, id twins have the same DNA but different genetic code. Genes are the arrangement of the DNA, so the DNA can be arranged differently, but the DNA remains the same.
I am not trying to deflect my statement, I am trying to get to the bottom of what you are trying to tell us because its contradictory at the moment, but I am sure you'll come around to making sense at the end of it?
Care to humour with what "total DNA" is? Would that be a chromosome, pair, nucleus, cell, body or what?
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 02, 2015, 09:13:58 PM
My statement is correct, id twins have the same DNA but different genetic code. Genes are the arrangement of the DNA, so the DNA can be arranged differently, but the DNA remains the same.
I am not trying to deflect my statement, I am trying to get to the bottom of what you are trying to tell us because its contradictory at the moment, but I am sure you'll come around to making sense at the end of it?
Care to humour with what "total DNA" is? Would that be a chromosome, pair, nucleus, cell, body or what?
Total DNA would be all of your DNA. :D :D
A Chromosome would be a subset of your total DNA and a gene would be a subset of both. I.E. Gene < Chromosome < All of your DNA
QuoteGenes are the arrangement of the DNA, so the DNA can be arranged differently, but the DNA remains the same.
Oh wow.
Either the DNA sequences are the same, in which case they ARE THE SAME, or the sequences are different, in which case they ARE DIFFERENT. You claim the latter is the same as the former. I look forward to your Nobel Prize acceptance speech. ;D
Listen muppet you can put up all the simley faces you want, twins have the same DNA but a different genetic code. I am sure you have googled it by now in any case and found out I am right and your trying to save face by trying to twist words much like you have been doing since we started this conversation.
But if you want to continue tell I am happy enough......
So we have established that "total DNA" is not a chromosome so is it a pair?, a nucleus, a cell, an organ, or your body?
I don't claim to be any expert I only know the basics of the basics and I also know that id twins have the same DNA, they cannot be told apart from DNA testing.
The genetic code can be different but the DNA is the same, if you can't grasp this basic concept then you have a total misunderstanding of what DNA is. Which i suspect is the case when you are talking about "total DNA"
I also know enough to know when someone knows sweet FA about something and try to make it up as they go along, but I hope it has been enjoyable learning in this unorthodox way.
BTW I called both you and Iceman out on it because you were both distorting the facts to support your argument when it was clear that neither of you had a bleedin clue what you were on about.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 03, 2015, 12:25:09 AM
Listen muppet you can put up all the simley faces you want, twins have the same DNA but a different genetic code. I am sure you have googled it by now in any case and found out I am right and your trying to save face by trying to twist words much like you have been doing since we started this conversation.
But if you want to continue tell I am happy enough......
So we have established that "total DNA" is not a chromosome so is it a pair?, a nucleus, a cell, an organ, or your body?
I don't claim to be any expert I only know the basics of the basics and I also know that id twins have the same DNA, they cannot be told apart from DNA testing.
The genetic code can be different but the DNA is the same, if you can't grasp this basic concept then you have a total misunderstanding of what DNA is. Which i suspect is the case when you are talking about "total DNA"
I also know enough to know when someone knows sweet FA about something and try to make it up as they go along, but I hope it has been enjoyable learning in this unorthodox way.
BTW I called both you and Iceman out on it because you were both distorting the facts to support your argument when it was clear that neither of you had a bleedin clue what you were on about.
This is the post of the year!
I can see you almost having a straight face posting it.
Iceman will be in hysterics at you calling us both out, seeing as Iceman & I have completely disagreed for probably double your entire post count.
And as for your DNA lecture. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
"
The genetic code can be different but the DNA is the same"
You might want to read this: http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-dna-and-genes/ (http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-dna-and-genes/)
Especially the following:
DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. This is the chain of 'links' that determines how the different cells in your body will function. Each of these links is called a nucleotide. DNA basically contains two copies of 23 chromosomes each, one from the mother and one from the father of the person. Only some of these complex cells carry the 'genetic information for your genes. These are the parts that decide what you basically inherit from your parents. This makes genes only a subset of the DNA.
For instance, if you thought about the human body as a book that contained only DNA, the genes would be the chapter containing instructions on how to make proteins and assist in cell production. The other chapters may contain other details like where the cells should start producing new proteins etc.
The DNA is like an instruction booklet that determines the traits you are likely to get. The entire DNA in a human body is packaged in the form of chromosomes. Each of these genechromosomes has definite characters that will determine a particular trait. This includes such details like your hair color and the color of your eyes. Each of these chapters that contain the codes for a particular trait is known as a gene. So, if you are confused, just think about the gene as a small piece of the total DNA that holds information about a particular trait you have.
But please, keep going. Don't read or try to understand any of the above and keep it coming.
I agree I don't know what I'm talking about. I read a report on some studies and through it out there as part of a discussion. Nature vrs nurture. Where does it fit in. You boys don't need to have a pissing contest about the semantics of it all.? And you didn't call me out on anything OmaghJoe (yes muppet I got a good laugh at that one) I claimed ignorance from the start.... Is ignorance part of our nature? Born or made ignorant... Eamonn there has to be an ignorant gene floating about Lurgan? ;) What about fearmanagh???
In America "liberal" means anyone to the left of Mussolini. In Australia the word is closer to the British meaning which is about individual freedom, less regulation, more free trade and so on, so you can be "liberal" in that you're defending the liberty of people who want to do business.
It's a shame what happened to the Australian Liberal Party. They seem to have suffered the same fate as the American Republican Party in being overrun by enough ignoramouses that they can elect the intellectual zero and "resident nutter" as their leader.
As for your man acting as an adviser to Alexander Downer, that's hardly a ringing endorsement. Downer was a disaster for the Liberals and Paul Keating ran rings around him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Ivp-A413A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Ivp-A413A)
Quote from: Hardy on June 02, 2015, 09:55:25 AM
I presume you're not suggesting that it would be OK to discriminate against gay people if they weren't born gay. This was the point of my post. The nature/nurture debate seems to have some kind of spurious status in the gay rights discourse. The "lifestyle choice" argument propounded by ant-gay elements makes hay with this bogus distinction. It seems to me that the concession of equal rights should not be determined by whether a person's sexual orientation is the result of genetics, conditioning or indeed choice.
I don't mean to portray homosexuality as a disability but for want of a better analogy, you wouldn't condone discrimination against disabled people on the basis that their disability was the result of an accident, rather than something they were born with.
Well. It can take a while for sexuality to emerge, can take until puberty. But I think you get my point. It's about treating people equally no matter what intrinsic and unalterable traits they have.
Ahhhhh....that is infuriating simplistic I mean when they talking about the "total DNA" it actually seems like they are talking about the nucleus but it would appear they are talking about chromosome. There is also Genomes which is maybe what they are really talking about. Anyway I will out right disagree with them saying that genes are part of DNA, they are aren't, genes are an instruction taken from the code of the DNA. The problem with giving analogies to understand DNA is that it is extremely complex and difficult to understand.
Anyway twins have the same DNA here one source there are numerous others which I am sure you have found yourself
http://multiples.about.com/od/funfacts/a/Identical-Twins-And-Dna.htm
They are formed from the same cell so must have identical DNA
Ok Muppet!! Happy now? So we have both had our little laugh at each other and both proved ourselves right with our various source, I went a bit over the top fair enuff but your smiley faces got me and I replied faster than I should have. (In Joe Brolly code that's an apology)
My understanding that DNA is the molecules that forms structure that creates a code. So to use the book analogy of your article the DNA is the letters, which form words and these form sentences and paragraphs. The paragraph creates a meaning, this meaning would be the genes and other types of code that are used to create cells. Each chapter would be a chromosome and the cell or nucleus a book. However the story would be the code or instructions that is gathered from all those words and chapters to make the cell. Another way might be think of it as us reading our posts differently (rhetorical and all that), or computer programs reading the same code differently.
So in twins I imagine the letters, book and paragraph are all the same but they can be read differently or read from different points thereby making the decoded genetic meaning different even tho their DNA is the same. I am no expert and the analogy is again rather simplistic for an extremely complex subject.
So to conclude (in a civil manner) I'll stand by what I said "twins have the same DNA and are genetically different" and that your statement about "Genes are a part of DNA, a subset if you like. Thus if the genes are different, then the DNA is also different" is incorrect. However I can see why you would have thought that as it is a complicated area and much of the info supplied on the internet uses analogies that are only attempting to give us a basic understanding.
I agree with the majority of the above, including the book analogy.
However if you have the same DNA, i.e. the same letters in the same order everywhere, then you have the same genetic coding, your genes are identical along with everything else on your chromosomes. If your 'book' is the same as your identical twin, it can't have paragraphs or chapters that are different.
The reality is that the book has differences, even in identical twins. Your statement regarding the genes being the same, but the DNA different is still wrong.
I posted this earlier: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/)
Geneticist Carl Bruder of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and his colleagues closely compared the genomes of 19 sets of adult identical twins. In some cases, one twin's DNA differed from the other's at various points on their genomes. At these sites of genetic divergence, one bore a different number of copies of the same gene, a genetic state called copy number variants.........
"Maybe we shouldn't call them identical twins," Harvard's Bieber says. "We should call them 'one-egg twins.'"I am a well intentioned amateur and a million, million miles from being an expert (the experts disagree on almost everything - just google the number of genes for example), but I have been dipping away at this for a while now.
Quote from: muppet on June 13, 2013, 06:54:50 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on June 13, 2013, 06:27:06 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 13, 2013, 03:13:12 PM
Results finally starting to come in.
I don't understand the science so I have a lot of homework to do. There are matches with names that don't make sense to me but when I understand the science better it might be easier to understand.
One interesting thing is that my Paternal ancestors have been here a long time, before the Celts and subsequent arrivals. It seems we were here before 99% of the Irish arrived.
Can they be that specific ? What sort of era are they able to get back to ?
(NB: Take this with a serious health warning as I have only been reading this for the last few days and don't really understand how they came up with this info.)
Using genetic mutations as markers they can tell which descendant lines/branches, from our common ancestors in Africa, we are likely to have come from. One of mine appears to have happened when the North Sea was inhabited land (Doggerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland)) and thus it is likely that my ancestors lived there, probably around 13,000 years ago. When the water rose and cut Britain and Ireland off from Europe it appears that some of these people were cut off from Europe and lived on the Islands. Some appear to have been 'pushed' west and appear in Connacht from an early stage (Neolithic apparently) which predates the Celts etc.
If anyone can shed some clear light on how exactly they determine the various Haplogroups and Sub-Clades I would appreciate it.
I didn't know it when I posted that, but I had already answered my question at the end, with the earlier statement on genetic mutations.
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm112/Wafflez33/boring-level-critical-shutdown-imminent.jpg)
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 03, 2015, 10:11:40 AM
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm112/Wafflez33/boring-level-critical-shutdown-imminent.jpg)
Don't get me started on the DNA sequences you are missing! :D
The DNA which is the physical structure is the same, apart from divergences over time. However the way genes reads it is different. The book analogy is not perfect prehaps I know so maybe think of the Genes as punctuation marks which can change the message (however that implies that the DNA structure and code is changing which its not), its not a perfect analogy. Genes being different does not change the DNA, it may change the message the DNA is trying to get across but it doesn't change the DNA structure.
The article is not incorrect but it uses terms rather loosely, DNA is the structure not the message, the total message is the genome. So it states that DNA differed at various points on its genome. The DNA is the same, but the genome, (ie the message) differed. If you email Carl Bruder I think he will agree with this.
Another analogy might be sheet music, being played through different instruments compare a banjo to a fiddle. The fiddle is smooth and holds notes where as the banjo is sharp and can't hold notes, so they produce a different sound but the music remains the same.
I don't want to be pedantic and our arguments aside if you want to have a basic understanding of DNA its quite an important concept.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 03, 2015, 04:36:46 PM
The DNA which is the physical structure is the same, apart from divergences over time. However the way genes reads it is different. The book analogy is not perfect prehaps I know so maybe think of the Genes as punctuation marks which can change the message (however that implies that the DNA structure and code is changing which its not), its not a perfect analogy. Genes being different does not change the DNA, it may change the message the DNA is trying to get across but it doesn't change the DNA structure.
The article is not incorrect but it uses terms rather loosely, DNA is the structure not the message, the total message is the genome. So it states that DNA differed at various points on its genome. The DNA is the same, but the genome, (ie the message) differed. If you email Carl Bruder I think he will agree with this.
Another analogy might be sheet music, being played through different instruments compare a banjo to a fiddle. The fiddle is smooth and holds notes where as the banjo is sharp and can't hold notes, so they produce a different sound but the music remains the same.
I don't want to be pedantic and our arguments aside if you want to have a basic understanding of DNA its quite an important concept.
Bruner said this "In some cases,
one twin's DNA differed from the other's at various points on their genomes. At these sites of genetic divergence,'.
He states the DNA is different and he called this genetic divergence.
I'll tell you what, you email him and tell him his article is poorly written and you correct him.
The stupid thing is we both agree that identical twins can have a gay twin and a straight twin. Iceman was assuming this wasn't possible and was basing a claim that one 'chooses' to be gay, upon this assumption.
I'll hardly bother Muppet!
Well I don't even care about the thread subject much, you guys just stumbled into a subject area I am interested in so I decided to go with it. I guess me and you are finished now tho :(
Although TBF to Iceman I don't think he was saying that, he was suggesting that it could be environment, and it very well could be environment TBF. Or it could be in their genes (but not their DNA ;))
Tho his assumption was based on that same DNA = same person which they aren't. However he has self confessed ignorance in this area. So he could be right about his suggestion it was how he arrived at it was incorrect
But he did make a good point that no conclusion has truly come from the scientific community on it. Even tho they are only too willing to explain a whole host of other things of our ethnic/racial, as your post about your origin in doggerland demonstrates, and the media are only to willing to latch on to it and relate it tribalist nonsense like nationality, which is ludicrous considering the concept of nations is a human invention only a few centuries old.
But then no one wants to touch the "gay gene" with a barge pole. I believe there may be a stigma attached to trying to explain it and this should not intrude into science.
In any case I think that it is irrelevant to our perception of what's acceptable whether it be choice, environment or in your genetic makeup, our perception is fairly basic:
"If someone isn't doin you any harm let them tear away!"
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:27:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 10:25:36 PMYour brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.
I like this.
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 04:23:19 PM
Em, what's the word "so", doing in that sentence?
As a continuation and conclusion from having no soul.
Its just not possible to attach credibility to the existence of the soul. Surely its just the made up name of the made up bit of you that goes to the made up after-life place?
You poor sad soulless robot. :-\
Quote from: LCohen on June 03, 2015, 10:42:26 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:27:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 10:25:36 PMYour brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.
I like this.
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 04:23:19 PM
Em, what's the word "so", doing in that sentence?
As a continuation and conclusion from having no soul.
Its just not possible to attach credibility to the existence of the soul. Surely its just the made up name of the made up bit of you that goes to the made up after-life place?
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
That's one way to stop a thread in its tracks...
Near time, it is like listening to Eton educated politicians trying to do right for the working class, whom they know absolutely f**k all about.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 03, 2015, 11:08:26 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 03, 2015, 10:42:26 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:27:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 10:25:36 PMYour brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.
I like this.
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 04:23:19 PM
Em, what's the word "so", doing in that sentence?
As a continuation and conclusion from having no soul.
Its just not possible to attach credibility to the existence of the soul. Surely its just the made up name of the made up bit of you that goes to the made up after-life place?
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
you hardly need me to confirm to you that you are made of physical matter
Quote from: LCohen on June 06, 2015, 05:16:39 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 03, 2015, 11:08:26 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 03, 2015, 10:42:26 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:27:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 10:25:36 PMYour brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.
I like this.
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 04:23:19 PM
Em, what's the word "so", doing in that sentence?
As a continuation and conclusion from having no soul.
Its just not possible to attach credibility to the existence of the soul. Surely its just the made up name of the made up bit of you that goes to the made up after-life place?
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
you hardly need me to confirm to you that you are made of physical matter
So are we
just floating atoms and molecules?
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 06, 2015, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 06, 2015, 05:16:39 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 03, 2015, 11:08:26 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 03, 2015, 10:42:26 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:27:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 10:25:36 PMYour brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.
I like this.
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 04:23:19 PM
Em, what's the word "so", doing in that sentence?
As a continuation and conclusion from having no soul.
Its just not possible to attach credibility to the existence of the soul. Surely its just the made up name of the made up bit of you that goes to the made up after-life place?
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
you hardly need me to confirm to you that you are made of physical matter
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
What else is physical matter made of?
Jaysus lads, go read some university-provided Genetics 101 courses!
Quote from: LCohen on June 06, 2015, 10:22:24 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 06, 2015, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 06, 2015, 05:16:39 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 03, 2015, 11:08:26 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 03, 2015, 10:42:26 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:27:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 10:25:36 PMYour brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.
I like this.
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 04:23:19 PM
Em, what's the word "so", doing in that sentence?
As a continuation and conclusion from having no soul.
Its just not possible to attach credibility to the existence of the soul. Surely its just the made up name of the made up bit of you that goes to the made up after-life place?
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
you hardly need me to confirm to you that you are made of physical matter
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
What else is physical matter made of?
So are we only the physical matter of atoms and molecules?
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 07, 2015, 04:53:40 AM
Quote from: LCohen on June 06, 2015, 10:22:24 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 06, 2015, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 06, 2015, 05:16:39 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 03, 2015, 11:08:26 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 03, 2015, 10:42:26 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:27:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 10:25:36 PMYour brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.
I like this.
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 04:23:19 PM
Em, what's the word "so", doing in that sentence?
As a continuation and conclusion from having no soul.
Its just not possible to attach credibility to the existence of the soul. Surely its just the made up name of the made up bit of you that goes to the made up after-life place?
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
you hardly need me to confirm to you that you are made of physical matter
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
What else is physical matter made of?
So are we only the physical matter of atoms and molecules?
Yes - you (and all them things you can see around you) are physical matter and physical matter is made up of atoms and molecules. What bit are you struggling with?
Quote from: LCohen on June 07, 2015, 06:52:11 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 07, 2015, 04:53:40 AM
Quote from: LCohen on June 06, 2015, 10:22:24 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 06, 2015, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 06, 2015, 05:16:39 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 03, 2015, 11:08:26 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 03, 2015, 10:42:26 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:27:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 10:25:36 PMYour brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.
I like this.
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 04:23:19 PM
Em, what's the word "so", doing in that sentence?
As a continuation and conclusion from having no soul.
Its just not possible to attach credibility to the existence of the soul. Surely its just the made up name of the made up bit of you that goes to the made up after-life place?
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
you hardly need me to confirm to you that you are made of physical matter
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
What else is physical matter made of?
So are we only the physical matter of atoms and molecules?
Yes - you (and all them things you can see around you) are physical matter and physical matter is made up of atoms and molecules. What bit are you struggling with?
So where would that leave all those things that are "nonphysical" such as relationships, thoughts, emotions, morals, society,.... souls?
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 07, 2015, 07:25:49 AM
Quote from: LCohen on June 07, 2015, 06:52:11 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 07, 2015, 04:53:40 AM
Quote from: LCohen on June 06, 2015, 10:22:24 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 06, 2015, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 06, 2015, 05:16:39 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 03, 2015, 11:08:26 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 03, 2015, 10:42:26 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:27:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 10:25:36 PMYour brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.
I like this.
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 04:23:19 PM
Em, what's the word "so", doing in that sentence?
As a continuation and conclusion from having no soul.
Its just not possible to attach credibility to the existence of the soul. Surely its just the made up name of the made up bit of you that goes to the made up after-life place?
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
you hardly need me to confirm to you that you are made of physical matter
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
What else is physical matter made of?
So are we only the physical matter of atoms and molecules?
Yes - you (and all them things you can see around you) are physical matter and physical matter is made up of atoms and molecules. What bit are you struggling with?
So where would that leave all those things that are "nonphysical" such as relationships, thoughts, emotions, morals, society,.... souls?
I was working on the presumption that it was accepted that the human brain was made of physical matter. And that the brain had the capacity for processing thoughts and emotions etc. Just like the brains of other evolved species
Quote from: LCohen on June 07, 2015, 08:25:57 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 07, 2015, 07:25:49 AM
Quote from: LCohen on June 07, 2015, 06:52:11 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 07, 2015, 04:53:40 AM
Quote from: LCohen on June 06, 2015, 10:22:24 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 06, 2015, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 06, 2015, 05:16:39 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 03, 2015, 11:08:26 PM
Quote from: LCohen on June 03, 2015, 10:42:26 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:27:18 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 29, 2015, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: LCohen on May 28, 2015, 10:25:36 PMYour brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.
I like this.
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
Quote from: Hardy on May 29, 2015, 04:23:19 PM
Em, what's the word "so", doing in that sentence?
As a continuation and conclusion from having no soul.
Its just not possible to attach credibility to the existence of the soul. Surely its just the made up name of the made up bit of you that goes to the made up after-life place?
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
you hardly need me to confirm to you that you are made of physical matter
So are we just floating atoms and molecules?
What else is physical matter made of?
So are we only the physical matter of atoms and molecules?
Yes - you (and all them things you can see around you) are physical matter and physical matter is made up of atoms and molecules. What bit are you struggling with?
So where would that leave all those things that are "nonphysical" such as relationships, thoughts, emotions, morals, society,.... souls?
I was working on the presumption that it was accepted that the human brain was made of physical matter. And that the brain had the capacity for processing thoughts and emotions etc. Just like the brains of other evolved species
So the nonphysical things such as those mentioned above are just concepts created by the brain? They aren't actual real things because they aren't physical?
Plenty of great things are non-physical. But the non-physical things created by or experienced through the brain do not out-live the brain.
Maybe to go beyond the questions are you arguing that there is such a thing as a soul? If so, have you any evidence for its existence?
First up I do believe we have a soul so I'm probably biased, but I have a very open mind and I was trying to get to the bottom of what your reasoning that we do not. I don't believe that the soul is physical so it is not physically possible to prove or disprove its existence, (that's convenient you might say ;)). However some would argue that the soul is a combination of all these nonphysical concepts in a person, so that would be your evidence. I'm not arguing its existence per se I just trying to reason it out.
In highlighting the nonphysical I was trying to make you aware that there are things in this world that are non physical and they have a huge influence in the physical world that we live, in fact you could maybe even argue these non-physical concepts are our perception and influence of the physical. But then thats the other the thing isnt it.. if you break the physical world down to its basic level of floating atoms ( which have never been actually physically proved to exist ie observed, tho the evidence of their existence would appear to be hugely their favour, so only an eejit would deny atomic theory) then did anything in human history actually physically happen at all or was it was just a jumble of atoms?
Also these non physical things do outlive the brain, the most obvious thing being society itself. But also we have expressions, ideas and movements that are passed down through generations.
Karl Pilkington comes to gaaboard.
Quote from: Hardy on June 08, 2015, 09:27:24 AM
Karl Pilkington comes to gaaboard.
The pilkingtons were all good hurlers tbf
8)Love the smell of coffee and metaphysics in the morning.Is this the new wave of ultonian neo pantheism commin at us Toland style?,or do I sense a Berkeley and monadism rebirth.`Molyneauxs problem` Omaghjoe will be be your defining life changing moment if you can solve it,from memory I think it was to try to marry the physical and non physical (using the sensory,conceptual and tactual as means.It will sort out your last post and I will send you a crisp tenner,and more important people than me will send you a nobel prize for science and philosophy.Its about 300years old now and still not answered even in/by todays tech world.Typical of a jack to ask a question he didn't answer and a Derryman to refuse sayin that's not the question atall; all those years ago. ;D
Quote from: cuconnacht on June 08, 2015, 11:29:11 AM
8)Love the smell of coffee and metaphysics in the morning.Is this the new wave of ultonian neo pantheism commin at us Toland style?,or do I sense a Berkeley and monadism rebirth.`Molyneauxs problem` Omaghjoe will be be your defining life changing moment if you can solve it,from memory I think it was to try to marry the physical and non physical (using the sensory,conceptual and tactual as means.It will sort out your last post and I will send you a crisp tenner,and more important people than me will send you a nobel prize for science and philosophy.Its about 300years old now and still not answered even in/by todays tech world.Typical of a jack to ask a question he didn't answer and a Derryman to refuse sayin that's not the question atall; all those years ago. ;D
I am cetain Joe would vote for such a marriage but then argue vehemently against it. ;D
Quote from: muppet on June 08, 2015, 02:24:47 PM
Quote from: cuconnacht on June 08, 2015, 11:29:11 AM
8)Love the smell of coffee and metaphysics in the morning.Is this the new wave of ultonian neo pantheism commin at us Toland style?,or do I sense a Berkeley and monadism rebirth.`Molyneauxs problem` Omaghjoe will be be your defining life changing moment if you can solve it,from memory I think it was to try to marry the physical and non physical (using the sensory,conceptual and tactual as means.It will sort out your last post and I will send you a crisp tenner,and more important people than me will send you a nobel prize for science and philosophy.Its about 300years old now and still not answered even in/by todays tech world.Typical of a jack to ask a question he didn't answer and a Derryman to refuse sayin that's not the question atall; all those years ago. ;D
I am cetain Joe would vote for such a marriage but then argue vehemently against it. ;D
Ha muppet. Weirdly enuff that was sort of my stance on the thread subject. I didn't have a vote but I was discussing the pointlessness of the referendum with her as the only thing it could effect was semantics and other immeasurable things like perception. Then she basically told me I would get a warm lug if i didn't vote the way she wanted so that swung me. You could say im a contrarian but I just like to think things thru remain and open minded to all points of view.
Quote from: cuconnacht on June 08, 2015, 11:29:11 AM
8)Love the smell of coffee and metaphysics in the morning.Is this the new wave of ultonian neo pantheism commin at us Toland style?,or do I sense a Berkeley and monadism rebirth.`Molyneauxs problem` Omaghjoe will be be your defining life changing moment if you can solve it,from memory I think it was to try to marry the physical and non physical (using the sensory,conceptual and tactual as means.It will sort out your last post and I will send you a crisp tenner,and more important people than me will send you a nobel prize for science and philosophy.Its about 300years old now and still not answered even in/by todays tech world.Typical of a jack to ask a question he didn't answer and a Derryman to refuse sayin that's not the question atall; all those years ago. ;D
Hi cuconnacht,
Yeah I sort of stumbled into these ideas myself from two directions. My brother inlaw is a language teacher and I am tying to learn a language. So I was quizzing him on fluency and "thinking in another language" and so on and he said yes he can think in two languages but either language is only a media for expressing the actual conceptual thought that he is having.
Also I design things and to communicate my idea to others I do it through the media of computer, one of colleagues said to me once we arent actually making anything we are just shifting magnetic pulses which got me thinking about where my design concept comes from. And I was thinkin well its a picture in my mind, but where does that picture come from?
Note I use mind and brain separately as the brain is the first line for converting the concepts of our mind into the physical through an electrical(/chemical?) pulse/movement.
Which got me thinking and lead me to the conclusion that our entire world as we know it, is all only really a perception in our minds and nothing to do with the actual physical reality of atomic theory. Anyway you are right if I want to explore these ideas more, metaphysics is the route I should head down, is metaphysics considered a science or philosophy? I was never really interested in it b4 I always sort of considered it irrelevant BS TBH. :-\
I never heard of Molyneaux's problem but it is exactly the sort of thing I was on about and according to wikipedia it seems it was solved with an emphatic no! Which sort of backs up my earlier conclusion.
I never heard of the Toland style either it seems I have spent too much of my life and education exploring our perceived reality rather than the actual reality.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 08, 2015, 03:48:03 AM
First up I do believe we have a soul so I'm probably biased, but I have a very open mind and I was trying to get to the bottom of what your reasoning that we do not. I don't believe that the soul is physical so it is not physically possible to prove or disprove its existence, (that's convenient you might say ;)). However some would argue that the soul is a combination of all these nonphysical concepts in a person, so that would be your evidence. I'm not arguing its existence per se I just trying to reason it out.
In highlighting the nonphysical I was trying to make you aware that there are things in this world that are non physical and they have a huge influence in the physical world that we live, in fact you could maybe even argue these non-physical concepts are our perception and influence of the physical. But then thats the other the thing isnt it.. if you break the physical world down to its basic level of floating atoms ( which have never been actually physically proved to exist ie observed, tho the evidence of their existence would appear to be hugely their favour, so only an eejit would deny atomic theory) then did anything in human history actually physically happen at all or was it was just a jumble of atoms?
Also these non physical things do outlive the brain, the most obvious thing being society itself. But also we have expressions, ideas and movements that are passed down through generations.
I not sure if the flow of logic is shockingly awful or entirely absent.
In your "reasoning it our" can you share with us one piece of evidence you used in reaching your belief in the existence of the soul?
The very idea that because the physical world is made of atoms that human history may not have actually happened is absurd in the extreme.
Society lives on when one person dies and their brain rots in the ground. It lives on in the brains of the living not in either a) the decaying brains of the deceased or b) in the soul of the deceased. To confuse the existence of non -physical concepts experienced by the human brain with the existence of soul is a presumably a deliberate debating bluff rather than genuine stupidity of the first rank??
I did some more reading on all of this as I genuinely tried to show/have compassion for this cause, to see things from the other side and understand they why, the motivation as AZ asked a few times what would be gained. Here are some findings:
Frank Kameny was a well known gay rights leader who died in 2011. Recognized for his efforts to the "cause" by President Obama in 2009 at a reception hosting 250 gay leaders.
Frank famously wrote in 2008 the following:
"let us have more and better enjoyment of more and better sexual perversions, by whatever definition, by more and more consenting adults...... if beastiality with consenting animals provides happiness to some people, let them pursue their happiness...."
Jeffrey Levi, former executive director for the National Gay and Lesbian Taks Force said:
" we are no longer seeking just a right to privacy or to protection from wrong. We have a right, as heterosexuals have already, to see government and society affirm our lives."
Homosexual acts have been and still are called sodomy. The cause has been for decades to rationalize sodomy.Rationalization becomes an engine for revolutionary change - change that affects all of us. For homosexuals, who center their public life on the private act of sodomy their goal is to transform sodomy into a highly moral act. If sodomy remains a moral disorder it can never be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level. If it is a highly moral act then it should or even must serve as the basis for marriage, adoption (family) and community. As a moral act sodomy should now be seen as normative. If it is normative, it should be taught in schools as standard. If it is standard then it should be enforced?In fact homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals should be married in Churches, ordained as priests and bishops - sodomy should be sacramentalized sure;y? All of this is slowly happening.
I find all of this interesting. The rationalization of the act. And where that leads us all as a society. Again, not trying to victimize anyone here - just continuing the conversation and trying to figure out where I stand on it all and why,,,,
Quote from: LCohen on June 08, 2015, 09:09:59 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 08, 2015, 03:48:03 AM
First up I do believe we have a soul so I'm probably biased, but I have a very open mind and I was trying to get to the bottom of what your reasoning that we do not. I don't believe that the soul is physical so it is not physically possible to prove or disprove its existence, (that's convenient you might say ;)). However some would argue that the soul is a combination of all these nonphysical concepts in a person, so that would be your evidence. I'm not arguing its existence per se I just trying to reason it out.
In highlighting the nonphysical I was trying to make you aware that there are things in this world that are non physical and they have a huge influence in the physical world that we live, in fact you could maybe even argue these non-physical concepts are our perception and influence of the physical. But then thats the other the thing isnt it.. if you break the physical world down to its basic level of floating atoms ( which have never been actually physically proved to exist ie observed, tho the evidence of their existence would appear to be hugely their favour, so only an eejit would deny atomic theory) then did anything in human history actually physically happen at all or was it was just a jumble of atoms?
Also these non physical things do outlive the brain, the most obvious thing being society itself. But also we have expressions, ideas and movements that are passed down through generations.
I not sure if the flow of logic is shockingly awful or entirely absent.
In your "reasoning it our" can you share with us one piece of evidence you used in reaching your belief in the existence of the soul?
The very idea that because the physical world is made of atoms that human history may not have actually happened is absurd in the extreme.
Society lives on when one person dies and their brain rots in the ground. It lives on in the brains of the living not in either a) the decaying brains of the deceased or b) in the soul of the deceased. To confuse the existence of non -physical concepts experienced by the human brain with the existence of soul is a presumably a deliberate debating bluff rather than genuine stupidity of the first rank??
As I said there is no physical evidence of the soul, the evidence is in the non-physical in such things as emotions, feelings and ideas. Did you discount those as evidence without saying or did you miss that?
Of course it isnt evidence that souls exist just evidence that they may exist in the non-physical realm kind of like the evidence for atoms (although admittedly not as strong).
I probably phrased that badly about human history but within the context of the paragraph it should have made sense. Human history only happened as a concept in our minds, from how individuals perceived it through their senses and related it to others through the media of language. Each individual that it is related to has to create their own perception of it in their own mind. But in the actual real physical realm it was only a jumble of atoms. Have a look at The Molleanux problem and its answer on wikipedia its interesting it may open your eyes to perception and conception. And if you follow that through to the full physical reality of atomic theory it really gets you thinking as to what reality is and isn't. It also might get you thinking as that we are limited in our perception of the physical by our senses so if we had more or different senses what would our perception of the physical actually be?
Thats fine our brains do rot in the gorund or at least we percieve them to, the atoms of course actally still hang around. As I said before our brains are only the first step for relating a concept into the physical realm, but its our minds produce the concepts in the first place before being made physical by the brain with an electrical/chemical ping. I was trying to demonstrate that nonphysical concepts can survive tho and aren't limited to the person.
I am not trying to prove or disprove anything I just trying to relate a few ideas of the physical and nonphysical and that within the realm of the non physical its at least possible for souls to exist. What are we talking about here anyway, the Western immortal one, the Eastern reincarnation one, or the artist expression type one? I presume its the 3rd as you mentioned fiction writers which is actually the most vague, but you get my point theres not even an agreed definition of what a soul is and what it does, only what it produces (ie the nonphysical).
Also I may have been a bit waffely fair enuff but I am trying to understand your point of view, not have a full on debate, which in this instance would be futile on this subject areas anyway as its non-physical, so please don't confuse with what I am saying as stupidity or illogical. If you arrived at the conclusion that souls dont exist because there is no physical evidence of them and we die and rot in the ground then that is not enough for me as it only deals with the physical.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 08, 2015, 10:48:34 PM
I did some more reading on all of this as I genuinely tried to show/have compassion for this cause, to see things from the other side and understand they why, the motivation as AZ asked a few times what would be gained. Here are some findings:
Frank Kameny was a well known gay rights leader who died in 2011. Recognized for his efforts to the "cause" by President Obama in 2009 at a reception hosting 250 gay leaders.
Frank famously wrote in 2008 the following:
"let us have more and better enjoyment of more and better sexual perversions, by whatever definition, by more and more consenting adults...... if beastiality with consenting animals provides happiness to some people, let them pursue their happiness...."
Jeffrey Levi, former executive director for the National Gay and Lesbian Taks Force said:
" we are no longer seeking just a right to privacy or to protection from wrong. We have a right, as heterosexuals have already, to see government and society affirm our lives."
Homosexual acts have been and still are called sodomy. The cause has been for decades to rationalize sodomy.Rationalization becomes an engine for revolutionary change - change that affects all of us. For homosexuals, who center their public life on the private act of sodomy their goal is to transform sodomy into a highly moral act. If sodomy remains a moral disorder it can never be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level. If it is a highly moral act then it should or even must serve as the basis for marriage, adoption (family) and community. As a moral act sodomy should now be seen as normative. If it is normative, it should be taught in schools as standard. If it is standard then it should be enforced?In fact homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals should be married in Churches, ordained as priests and bishops - sodomy should be sacramentalized sure;y? All of this is slowly happening.
I find all of this interesting. The rationalization of the act. And where that leads us all as a society. Again, not trying to victimize anyone here - just continuing the conversation and trying to figure out where I stand on it all and why,,,,
Why stop there?
If all of the above is rational, then bend over because here comes Tony Fearon!
Or not.
Quote
The cause has been for decades to rationalize sodomy.Rationalization becomes an engine for revolutionary change.
There is no need to rationalize it any more than I need to rationalize why you found your wife attractive and where not attracted to some other random person.
Quote
For homosexuals, who center their public life on the private act of sodomy their goal is to transform sodomy into a highly moral act.
I am sure they have many goals and don't center there lives on the 'private act of sodomy'.
Quote
If sodomy remains a moral disorder it can never be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level. If it is a highly moral act then it should or even must serve as the basis for marriage, adoption (family) and community. As a moral act sodomy should now be seen as normative.
It's not a moral act, it's a neutral act between willing participants.
Quote
If it is normative, it should be taught in schools as standard.
Yes it should be taught that some people are attracted to people of the same sex and that it is not something to be ashamed of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth)
Quote
If it is standard then it should be enforced? In fact homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals should be married in Churches, ordained as priests and bishops - sodomy should be sacramentalized sure;y? All of this is slowly happening.
Now you are being silly.
Quote from: dferg on June 09, 2015, 01:22:46 PM
Quote
The cause has been for decades to rationalize sodomy.Rationalization becomes an engine for revolutionary change.
There is no need to rationalize it any more than I need to rationalize why you found your wife attractive and where not attracted to some other random person.
Quote
For homosexuals, who center their public life on the private act of sodomy their goal is to transform sodomy into a highly moral act.
I am sure they have many goals and don't center there lives on the 'private act of sodomy'.
Quote
If sodomy remains a moral disorder it can never be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level. If it is a highly moral act then it should or even must serve as the basis for marriage, adoption (family) and community. As a moral act sodomy should now be seen as normative.
It's not a moral act, it's a neutral act between willing participants.
Quote
If it is normative, it should be taught in schools as standard.
Yes it should be taught that some people are attracted to people of the same sex and that it is not something to be ashamed of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth)
Quote
If it is standard then it should be enforced? In fact homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals should be married in Churches, ordained as priests and bishops - sodomy should be sacramentalized sure;y? All of this is slowly happening.
Now you are being silly.
Why if sodomy is completely normal do homosexuals "come out"? Why even do so? Why be identified as gay? Why be defined by gay? The gay footballer, the gay tv presenter...haven't we asked these questions before? By doing so homosexuals wish to not only be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behaviour, but to have that behaviour publicly vindicated and rationalized as normal.
Once it is standard and normalized, on equal footing with the marital act then yes it can be
enforced. And i don't mean anyone will be forced to bend over. But we will be forced to recognize sodomy as normal.
Catholic adoption agencies have already been closed down or fined for not allowing gay couples to adopt. It's against their religious teaching - but if you don't agree that sodomy is normal then we're closing you down.
Don't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women? That it could somehow be enforced? What defense does a church have that the Catholic adoption agency didnt? So I don't think I'm being silly, not at all. I'm drawing logical conclusions based on the direction of the times and the stated and outward mission of the gay community.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:08:46 PM
Why if sodomy is completely normal do homosexuals "come out"? Why even do so? Why be identified as gay? Why be defined by gay? The gay footballer, the gay tv presenter...haven't we asked these questions before? By doing so homosexuals wish to not only be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behaviour, but to have that behaviour publicly vindicated and rationalized as normal.
Once it is standard and normalized, on equal footing with the marital act then yes it can be enforced. And i don't mean anyone will be forced to bend over. But we will be forced to recognize sodomy as normal.
Catholic adoption agencies have already been closed down or fined for not allowing gay couples to adopt. It's against their religious teaching - but if you don't agree that sodomy is normal then we're closing you down.
Don't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women? That it could somehow be enforced? What defense does a church have that the Catholic adoption agency didnt? So I don't think I'm being silly, not at all. I'm drawing logical conclusions based on the direction of the times and the stated and outward mission of the gay community.
What you describe as being normalised, they would describe as ending centuries of persecution. The various churches were central to much of that persecution.
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 04:14:12 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:08:46 PM
Why if sodomy is completely normal do homosexuals "come out"? Why even do so? Why be identified as gay? Why be defined by gay? The gay footballer, the gay tv presenter...haven't we asked these questions before? By doing so homosexuals wish to not only be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behaviour, but to have that behaviour publicly vindicated and rationalized as normal.
Once it is standard and normalized, on equal footing with the marital act then yes it can be enforced. And i don't mean anyone will be forced to bend over. But we will be forced to recognize sodomy as normal.
Catholic adoption agencies have already been closed down or fined for not allowing gay couples to adopt. It's against their religious teaching - but if you don't agree that sodomy is normal then we're closing you down.
Don't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women? That it could somehow be enforced? What defense does a church have that the Catholic adoption agency didnt? So I don't think I'm being silly, not at all. I'm drawing logical conclusions based on the direction of the times and the stated and outward mission of the gay community.
What you describe as being normalised, they would describe as ending centuries of persecution. The various churches were central to much of that persecution.
You have been sucked into it muppet. It's sodomy. It was always wrong. It's still wrong. The churches did and will continue to say so. Society did so too, until they were played.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:18:11 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 04:14:12 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:08:46 PM
Why if sodomy is completely normal do homosexuals "come out"? Why even do so? Why be identified as gay? Why be defined by gay? The gay footballer, the gay tv presenter...haven't we asked these questions before? By doing so homosexuals wish to not only be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behaviour, but to have that behaviour publicly vindicated and rationalized as normal.
Once it is standard and normalized, on equal footing with the marital act then yes it can be enforced. And i don't mean anyone will be forced to bend over. But we will be forced to recognize sodomy as normal.
Catholic adoption agencies have already been closed down or fined for not allowing gay couples to adopt. It's against their religious teaching - but if you don't agree that sodomy is normal then we're closing you down.
Don't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women? That it could somehow be enforced? What defense does a church have that the Catholic adoption agency didnt? So I don't think I'm being silly, not at all. I'm drawing logical conclusions based on the direction of the times and the stated and outward mission of the gay community.
What you describe as being normalised, they would describe as ending centuries of persecution. The various churches were central to much of that persecution.
You have been sucked into it muppet. It's sodomy. It was always wrong. It's still wrong. The churches did and will continue to say so. Society did so too, until they were played.
What's wrong with it?
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:18:11 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 04:14:12 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:08:46 PM
Why if sodomy is completely normal do homosexuals "come out"? Why even do so? Why be identified as gay? Why be defined by gay? The gay footballer, the gay tv presenter...haven't we asked these questions before? By doing so homosexuals wish to not only be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behaviour, but to have that behaviour publicly vindicated and rationalized as normal.
Once it is standard and normalized, on equal footing with the marital act then yes it can be enforced. And i don't mean anyone will be forced to bend over. But we will be forced to recognize sodomy as normal.
Catholic adoption agencies have already been closed down or fined for not allowing gay couples to adopt. It's against their religious teaching - but if you don't agree that sodomy is normal then we're closing you down.
Don't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women? That it could somehow be enforced? What defense does a church have that the Catholic adoption agency didnt? So I don't think I'm being silly, not at all. I'm drawing logical conclusions based on the direction of the times and the stated and outward mission of the gay community.
What you describe as being normalised, they would describe as ending centuries of persecution. The various churches were central to much of that persecution.
You have been sucked into it muppet. It's sodomy. It was always wrong. It's still wrong. The churches did and will continue to say so. Society did so too, until they were played.
Ah right, a big conspiracy. That auld fecker Satan again is it? Or is it Santa?
You continue to inflict your views on others, in doing so persecuting them, on the basis of what?
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 04:24:24 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:18:11 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 04:14:12 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:08:46 PM
Why if sodomy is completely normal do homosexuals "come out"? Why even do so? Why be identified as gay? Why be defined by gay? The gay footballer, the gay tv presenter...haven't we asked these questions before? By doing so homosexuals wish to not only be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behaviour, but to have that behaviour publicly vindicated and rationalized as normal.
Once it is standard and normalized, on equal footing with the marital act then yes it can be enforced. And i don't mean anyone will be forced to bend over. But we will be forced to recognize sodomy as normal.
Catholic adoption agencies have already been closed down or fined for not allowing gay couples to adopt. It's against their religious teaching - but if you don't agree that sodomy is normal then we're closing you down.
Don't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women? That it could somehow be enforced? What defense does a church have that the Catholic adoption agency didnt? So I don't think I'm being silly, not at all. I'm drawing logical conclusions based on the direction of the times and the stated and outward mission of the gay community.
What you describe as being normalised, they would describe as ending centuries of persecution. The various churches were central to much of that persecution.
You have been sucked into it muppet. It's sodomy. It was always wrong. It's still wrong. The churches did and will continue to say so. Society did so too, until they were played.
What's wrong with it?
Why can't anyone address my points or answer my questions? I'm held at gunpoint sometimes on here for not answering questions. I give my opinion, i back it up and pose questions as follow up.... and just get more questions......stinks of mob mentality...
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:27:09 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 04:24:24 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:18:11 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 04:14:12 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:08:46 PM
Why if sodomy is completely normal do homosexuals "come out"? Why even do so? Why be identified as gay? Why be defined by gay? The gay footballer, the gay tv presenter...haven't we asked these questions before? By doing so homosexuals wish to not only be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behaviour, but to have that behaviour publicly vindicated and rationalized as normal.
Once it is standard and normalized, on equal footing with the marital act then yes it can be enforced. And i don't mean anyone will be forced to bend over. But we will be forced to recognize sodomy as normal.
Catholic adoption agencies have already been closed down or fined for not allowing gay couples to adopt. It's against their religious teaching - but if you don't agree that sodomy is normal then we're closing you down.
Don't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women? That it could somehow be enforced? What defense does a church have that the Catholic adoption agency didnt? So I don't think I'm being silly, not at all. I'm drawing logical conclusions based on the direction of the times and the stated and outward mission of the gay community.
What you describe as being normalised, they would describe as ending centuries of persecution. The various churches were central to much of that persecution.
You have been sucked into it muppet. It's sodomy. It was always wrong. It's still wrong. The churches did and will continue to say so. Society did so too, until they were played.
What's wrong with it?
Why can't anyone address my points or answer my questions? I'm held at gunpoint sometimes on here for not answering questions. I give my opinion, i back it up and pose questions as follow up.... and just get more questions......stinks of mob mentality...
Let me get this right.
YOU are claiming persecution!
;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:27:09 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 04:24:24 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:18:11 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 04:14:12 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:08:46 PM
Why if sodomy is completely normal do homosexuals "come out"? Why even do so? Why be identified as gay? Why be defined by gay? The gay footballer, the gay tv presenter...haven't we asked these questions before? By doing so homosexuals wish to not only be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behaviour, but to have that behaviour publicly vindicated and rationalized as normal.
Once it is standard and normalized, on equal footing with the marital act then yes it can be enforced. And i don't mean anyone will be forced to bend over. But we will be forced to recognize sodomy as normal.
Catholic adoption agencies have already been closed down or fined for not allowing gay couples to adopt. It's against their religious teaching - but if you don't agree that sodomy is normal then we're closing you down.
Don't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women? That it could somehow be enforced? What defense does a church have that the Catholic adoption agency didnt? So I don't think I'm being silly, not at all. I'm drawing logical conclusions based on the direction of the times and the stated and outward mission of the gay community.
What you describe as being normalised, they would describe as ending centuries of persecution. The various churches were central to much of that persecution.
You have been sucked into it muppet. It's sodomy. It was always wrong. It's still wrong. The churches did and will continue to say so. Society did so too, until they were played.
What's wrong with it?
Why can't anyone address my points or answer my questions? I'm held at gunpoint sometimes on here for not answering questions. I give my opinion, i back it up and pose questions as follow up.... and just get more questions......stinks of mob mentality...
If you have a question for me, ask it.
In the meantime, I await your answer to mine.
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 04:28:34 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:27:09 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 04:24:24 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:18:11 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 04:14:12 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:08:46 PM
Why if sodomy is completely normal do homosexuals "come out"? Why even do so? Why be identified as gay? Why be defined by gay? The gay footballer, the gay tv presenter...haven't we asked these questions before? By doing so homosexuals wish to not only be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behaviour, but to have that behaviour publicly vindicated and rationalized as normal.
Once it is standard and normalized, on equal footing with the marital act then yes it can be enforced. And i don't mean anyone will be forced to bend over. But we will be forced to recognize sodomy as normal.
Catholic adoption agencies have already been closed down or fined for not allowing gay couples to adopt. It's against their religious teaching - but if you don't agree that sodomy is normal then we're closing you down.
Don't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women? That it could somehow be enforced? What defense does a church have that the Catholic adoption agency didnt? So I don't think I'm being silly, not at all. I'm drawing logical conclusions based on the direction of the times and the stated and outward mission of the gay community.
What you describe as being normalised, they would describe as ending centuries of persecution. The various churches were central to much of that persecution.
You have been sucked into it muppet. It's sodomy. It was always wrong. It's still wrong. The churches did and will continue to say so. Society did so too, until they were played.
What's wrong with it?
Why can't anyone address my points or answer my questions? I'm held at gunpoint sometimes on here for not answering questions. I give my opinion, i back it up and pose questions as follow up.... and just get more questions......stinks of mob mentality...
Let me get this right.
YOU are claiming persecution!
;D ;D ;D ;D
I didn't know I had to address every poster by name. I thought this was a discussion. Surely if you are part of it you would attempt to answer questions, not just pose them J70??
No muppet I'm not, I'm asking you to address my points and questions instead of ducking and weaving and throwing your own....
What questions?
Was this one of them:
QuoteDon't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women?
It is a fairly loaded question isn't it? And it misses the point.
But to answer it, I would think the answer is no. The Law usually doesn't force clubs, societies or religions to break their own rules as long as they follow them in a fair and transparent way. In fact religions have extraordinary legal protections in most countries.
What other questions did you ask?
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 04:52:24 PM
What questions?
Was this one of them: QuoteDon't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women?
It is a fairly loaded question isn't it? And it misses the point.
But to answer it, I would think the answer is no. The Law usually doesn't force clubs, societies or religions to break their own rules as long as they follow them in a fair and transparent way. In fact religions have extraordinary legal protections in most countries.
What other questions did you ask?
So why is it different for Catholic adoption agencies? That question was already in there...
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:53:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 04:52:24 PM
What questions?
Was this one of them: QuoteDon't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women?
It is a fairly loaded question isn't it? And it misses the point.
But to answer it, I would think the answer is no. The Law usually doesn't force clubs, societies or religions to break their own rules as long as they follow them in a fair and transparent way. In fact religions have extraordinary legal protections in most countries.
What other questions did you ask?
So why is it different for Catholic adoption agencies? That question was already in there...
I have no idea what you are on about. Could you post a link please?
I am aware of Catholic Adoption agencies taking children from single mothers in Ireland and selling them in the States. I am guessing that is not what bothers you, but more likely it is some ideological objection to a prejudice that means you would rather leave kids in an orphanage. But post up a link anyway.
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 04:24:24 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:18:11 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 04:14:12 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:08:46 PM
Why if sodomy is completely normal do homosexuals "come out"? Why even do so? Why be identified as gay? Why be defined by gay? The gay footballer, the gay tv presenter...haven't we asked these questions before? By doing so homosexuals wish to not only be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behaviour, but to have that behaviour publicly vindicated and rationalized as normal.
Once it is standard and normalized, on equal footing with the marital act then yes it can be enforced. And i don't mean anyone will be forced to bend over. But we will be forced to recognize sodomy as normal.
Catholic adoption agencies have already been closed down or fined for not allowing gay couples to adopt. It's against their religious teaching - but if you don't agree that sodomy is normal then we're closing you down.
Don't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women? That it could somehow be enforced? What defense does a church have that the Catholic adoption agency didnt? So I don't think I'm being silly, not at all. I'm drawing logical conclusions based on the direction of the times and the stated and outward mission of the gay community.
What you describe as being normalised, they would describe as ending centuries of persecution. The various churches were central to much of that persecution.
You have been sucked into it muppet. It's sodomy. It was always wrong. It's still wrong. The churches did and will continue to say so. Society did so too, until they were played.
What's wrong with it?
I'll bite J70 seeing as we have many mutual acquaintances :)
Biologically it is wrong. And I'll ask you to present the opposite case if you disagree. The arse is an exit. For disposable of fecal matter. Human generative organs are perfectly matched. The matching only takes place in heterosexual coupling. When the arse is used to replace the vagina it is clearly being used for something it was not intended. This causes physical harm. There are substances in seminal fluid called immuno-regulatory macromolecules that send out signals that are understood by the female body. When deposited elsewhere these signals are misunderstood and cause a 4000% increase in the risk of anal cancer.(Journal of the American Medical Association 1988-90)
anal sex increases the risk of rectal prolapse, perforation that can go septic, the chlap, genital herpes, genital warts, gonorrhea, viral hepatiitis......
Gay men are 445 more likely to contract Aids/HIV. Gay men account for 79% of all new HIV cases, 72% of primary and secondary syphilis cases and a significant % of other STDs.
Today more money is spent on the cure for Aids than for Lung Cancer. Yet we rationalize sodomy much like the tobacco industry rationalize smoking...
So from a purely biological argument - whats right about sodomy?
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 05:12:45 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:53:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 04:52:24 PM
What questions?
Was this one of them: QuoteDon't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women?
It is a fairly loaded question isn't it? And it misses the point.
But to answer it, I would think the answer is no. The Law usually doesn't force clubs, societies or religions to break their own rules as long as they follow them in a fair and transparent way. In fact religions have extraordinary legal protections in most countries.
What other questions did you ask?
So why is it different for Catholic adoption agencies? That question was already in there...
I have no idea what you are on about. Could you post a link please?
I am aware of Catholic Adoption agencies taking children from single mothers in Ireland and selling them in the States. I am guessing that is not what bothers you, but more likely it is some ideological objection to a prejudice that means you would rather leave kids in an orphanage. But post up a link anyway.
Because you are not aware does not mean it doesnt happen: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601456.htm (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601456.htm)
this happened back in 2006, it has happened since then in other states.
more bobbing and weaving muppet - we're talking about religious charities being forced in to closure because they will legally be bound to allow children in their care to be adopted by gay couples.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 05:22:50 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 05:12:45 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:53:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 04:52:24 PM
What questions?
Was this one of them: QuoteDon't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women?
It is a fairly loaded question isn't it? And it misses the point.
But to answer it, I would think the answer is no. The Law usually doesn't force clubs, societies or religions to break their own rules as long as they follow them in a fair and transparent way. In fact religions have extraordinary legal protections in most countries.
What other questions did you ask?
So why is it different for Catholic adoption agencies? That question was already in there...
I have no idea what you are on about. Could you post a link please?
I am aware of Catholic Adoption agencies taking children from single mothers in Ireland and selling them in the States. I am guessing that is not what bothers you, but more likely it is some ideological objection to a prejudice that means you would rather leave kids in an orphanage. But post up a link anyway.
Because you are not aware does not mean it doesnt happen: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601456.htm (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601456.htm)
this happened back in 2006, it has happened since then in other states.
more bobbing and weaving muppet - we're talking about religious charities being forced in to closure because they will legally be bound to allow children in their care to be adopted by gay couples.
Catholic Charities of the Boston Archdiocese announced March 10 that it will stop providing adoption services rather than continue to comply with a state law requiring no discrimination against gay and lesbian couples who seek to adopt.That is what you are defending?
'Forced into closure' is not correct. They chose to close because they are bigots. They prioritised their prejudice above the children. That tells you all you need to know about these people. But then the Catholic Church has plenty of previous with children.
A 2003 Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith document says it would be "gravely immoral" to let same-sex couples adopt children.
"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full development," said the document.
That is positively poisonous.
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 05:31:15 PM
A 2003 Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith document says it would be "gravely immoral" to let same-sex couples adopt children.
"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full development," said the document.
That is positively poisonous.
It has happened in multiple states were the charities had to close or face legal enforcement of state laws which allowed gay couples to adopt. In NY the Church fought the laws and received an exception.
Again, you are not addressing the point and in fact ignoring them. Religious institutions are being forced to normalize and accept sodomy or close. It has happened. It will keep happening.
It will happen in Churches. And people like you muppet who are all for rights and equality will be the ones leading the charge - justifying it all with the many axes you have to grind against the church. Screw the Church they did X,Y and Z so they deserve everything they get....
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 05:35:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 05:31:15 PM
A 2003 Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith document says it would be "gravely immoral" to let same-sex couples adopt children.
"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full development," said the document.
That is positively poisonous.
It has happened in multiple states were the charities had to close or face legal enforcement of state laws which allowed gay couples to adopt. In NY the Church fought the laws and received an exception.
Again, you are not addressing the point and in fact ignoring them. Religious institutions are being forced to normalize and accept sodomy or close. It has happened. It will keep happening.
It will happen in Churches. And people like you muppet who are all for rights and equality will be the ones leading the charge - justifying it all with the many axes you have to grind against the church. Screw the Church they did X,Y and Z so they deserve everything they get....
They chose to close. That is their own doing because they insist on the right to discriminate.
You posted the link above but you ignore the astonishingly evil vile comment contained in it.
It was from the Vatican and is official Church teaching.
So then do you believe the following:
"
Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children".
There is a case, is there not, that adoption agencies should discriminate in favour of children and avoid environments that are not conducive to their full development. In particular, they should not make children mere pawns in politically correct gaming by adults.
Quote from: armaghniac on June 09, 2015, 05:47:31 PM
There is a case, is there not, that adoption agencies should discriminate in favour of children and avoid environments that are not conducive to their full development. In particular, they should not make children mere pawns in politically correct gaming by adults.
If you mean they should prioritise the wellbeing of the children instead of their own bigotry, I couldn't agree more.
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 05:50:05 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 09, 2015, 05:47:31 PM
There is a case, is there not, that adoption agencies should discriminate in favour of children and avoid environments that are not conducive to their full development. In particular, they should not make children mere pawns in politically correct gaming by adults.
If you mean they should prioritise the wellbeing of the children instead of their own bigotry, I couldn't agree more.
Your very stance on the matter holds just as much prejudice towards Christians and their beliefs. Homosexuals make up 2% of the population. Those who choose to be married make up less of that number. Countries like Canada and Sweden would point to that were a small % of a small % of homosexuals actually marry. Why should Christian institutions be forced to against their beliefs? They shouldn't! Unless you rationalize sodomy - make it standard, make it normal - then enforce it...... my point from the start.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 05:57:47 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 05:50:05 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 09, 2015, 05:47:31 PM
There is a case, is there not, that adoption agencies should discriminate in favour of children and avoid environments that are not conducive to their full development. In particular, they should not make children mere pawns in politically correct gaming by adults.
If you mean they should prioritise the wellbeing of the children instead of their own bigotry, I couldn't agree more.
Your very stance on the matter holds just as much prejudice towards Christians and their beliefs. Homosexuals make up 2% of the population. Those who choose to be married make up less of that number. Countries like Canada and Sweden would point to that were a small % of a small % of homosexuals actually marry. Why should Christian institutions be forced to against their beliefs? They shouldn't! Unless you rationalize sodomy - make it standard, make it normal - then enforce it...... my point from the start.
Because it is the law.
Ignorance and intolerance should never be held up as 'values'. Your argument that because gays are a minority that makes it ok to discriminate adjacent them is extremely sad.
And your point isn't a point. I don't know what it is, but what you have written doesn't appear to have any meaning. You use words like 'normalise' and 'enforce', but you don't explain what it is you mean. Do you, for example, think people are trying to make you gay?
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:03:05 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 05:57:47 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 05:50:05 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 09, 2015, 05:47:31 PM
There is a case, is there not, that adoption agencies should discriminate in favour of children and avoid environments that are not conducive to their full development. In particular, they should not make children mere pawns in politically correct gaming by adults.
If you mean they should prioritise the wellbeing of the children instead of their own bigotry, I couldn't agree more.
Your very stance on the matter holds just as much prejudice towards Christians and their beliefs. Homosexuals make up 2% of the population. Those who choose to be married make up less of that number. Countries like Canada and Sweden would point to that were a small % of a small % of homosexuals actually marry. Why should Christian institutions be forced to against their beliefs? They shouldn't! Unless you rationalize sodomy - make it standard, make it normal - then enforce it...... my point from the start.
Because it is the law.
Ignorance and intolerance should never be held up as 'values'. Your argument that because gays are a minority that makes it ok to discriminate adjacent them is extremely sad.
And your point isn't a point. I don't know what it is, but what you have written doesn't appear to have any meaning. You use words like 'normalise' and 'enforce', but you don't explain what it is you mean. Do you, for example, think people are trying to make you gay?
I explained it quite clearly. Enforced as in I will be forced to recognize it as normal. Which I will not. Sodomy is not normal. Catholic adoption agencies were forced to close. Catholic Churches and believers will be forced to recognize that sodomy is normal. I don't think I was vague in my earlier explanations.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:03:05 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 05:57:47 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 05:50:05 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 09, 2015, 05:47:31 PM
There is a case, is there not, that adoption agencies should discriminate in favour of children and avoid environments that are not conducive to their full development. In particular, they should not make children mere pawns in politically correct gaming by adults.
If you mean they should prioritise the wellbeing of the children instead of their own bigotry, I couldn't agree more.
Your very stance on the matter holds just as much prejudice towards Christians and their beliefs. Homosexuals make up 2% of the population. Those who choose to be married make up less of that number. Countries like Canada and Sweden would point to that were a small % of a small % of homosexuals actually marry. Why should Christian institutions be forced to against their beliefs? They shouldn't! Unless you rationalize sodomy - make it standard, make it normal - then enforce it...... my point from the start.
Because it is the law.
Ignorance and intolerance should never be held up as 'values'. Your argument that because gays are a minority that makes it ok to discriminate adjacent them is extremely sad.
And your point isn't a point. I don't know what it is, but what you have written doesn't appear to have any meaning. You use words like 'normalise' and 'enforce', but you don't explain what it is you mean. Do you, for example, think people are trying to make you gay?
I explained it quite clearly. Enforced as in I will be forced to recognize it as normal. Which I will not. Sodomy is not normal. Catholic adoption agencies were forced to close. Catholic Churches and believers will be forced to recognize that sodomy is normal. I don't think I was vague in my earlier explanations.
I see. So the problem is what goes on in your head, and you want other people to change their behaviour to suit you?
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:10:30 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:03:05 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 05:57:47 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 05:50:05 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 09, 2015, 05:47:31 PM
There is a case, is there not, that adoption agencies should discriminate in favour of children and avoid environments that are not conducive to their full development. In particular, they should not make children mere pawns in politically correct gaming by adults.
If you mean they should prioritise the wellbeing of the children instead of their own bigotry, I couldn't agree more.
Your very stance on the matter holds just as much prejudice towards Christians and their beliefs. Homosexuals make up 2% of the population. Those who choose to be married make up less of that number. Countries like Canada and Sweden would point to that were a small % of a small % of homosexuals actually marry. Why should Christian institutions be forced to against their beliefs? They shouldn't! Unless you rationalize sodomy - make it standard, make it normal - then enforce it...... my point from the start.
Because it is the law.
Ignorance and intolerance should never be held up as 'values'. Your argument that because gays are a minority that makes it ok to discriminate adjacent them is extremely sad.
And your point isn't a point. I don't know what it is, but what you have written doesn't appear to have any meaning. You use words like 'normalise' and 'enforce', but you don't explain what it is you mean. Do you, for example, think people are trying to make you gay?
I explained it quite clearly. Enforced as in I will be forced to recognize it as normal. Which I will not. Sodomy is not normal. Catholic adoption agencies were forced to close. Catholic Churches and believers will be forced to recognize that sodomy is normal. I don't think I was vague in my earlier explanations.
I see. So the problem is what goes on in your head, and you want other people to change their behaviour to suit you?
Quite the opposite actually. I don't want to change my behaviour because sodomy is being rationalized.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:46:22 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 04:28:34 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:27:09 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 04:24:24 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:18:11 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 04:14:12 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 04:08:46 PM
Why if sodomy is completely normal do homosexuals "come out"? Why even do so? Why be identified as gay? Why be defined by gay? The gay footballer, the gay tv presenter...haven't we asked these questions before? By doing so homosexuals wish to not only be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behaviour, but to have that behaviour publicly vindicated and rationalized as normal.
Once it is standard and normalized, on equal footing with the marital act then yes it can be enforced. And i don't mean anyone will be forced to bend over. But we will be forced to recognize sodomy as normal.
Catholic adoption agencies have already been closed down or fined for not allowing gay couples to adopt. It's against their religious teaching - but if you don't agree that sodomy is normal then we're closing you down.
Don't you think if sodomy is rationalized and normal then churches will have to marry gay men and women? That it could somehow be enforced? What defense does a church have that the Catholic adoption agency didnt? So I don't think I'm being silly, not at all. I'm drawing logical conclusions based on the direction of the times and the stated and outward mission of the gay community.
What you describe as being normalised, they would describe as ending centuries of persecution. The various churches were central to much of that persecution.
You have been sucked into it muppet. It's sodomy. It was always wrong. It's still wrong. The churches did and will continue to say so. Society did so too, until they were played.
What's wrong with it?
Why can't anyone address my points or answer my questions? I'm held at gunpoint sometimes on here for not answering questions. I give my opinion, i back it up and pose questions as follow up.... and just get more questions......stinks of mob mentality...
Let me get this right.
YOU are claiming persecution!
;D ;D ;D ;D
I didn't know I had to address every poster by name. I thought this was a discussion. Surely if you are part of it you would attempt to answer questions, not just pose them J70??
No muppet I'm not, I'm asking you to address my points and questions instead of ducking and weaving and throwing your own....
I haven't been part of the discussion.
I saw a point you raised and questioned you (very simply) about it.
If you don't want to answer it, suit yourself.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:15:51 PM
Quite the opposite actually. I don't want to change my behaviour because sodomy is being rationalized.
No, you are demonising people for behaviour that is God-given and normal for them. It is the opposite to everything Jesus stood for.
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:18:30 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:15:51 PM
Quite the opposite actually. I don't want to change my behaviour because sodomy is being rationalized.
No, you are demonising people for behaviour that is God-given and normal for them. It is the opposite to everything Jesus stood for.
You make me laugh. The behaviour is not God given or normal. Science (as already discussed) has not proven that gay people are born that way. In fact as mentioned they stay away from it with a barge pole....
More ducking and diving
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:24:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:18:30 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:15:51 PM
Quite the opposite actually. I don't want to change my behaviour because sodomy is being rationalized.
No, you are demonising people for behaviour that is God-given and normal for them. It is the opposite to everything Jesus stood for.
You make me laugh. The behaviour is not God given or normal. Science (as already discussed) has not proven that gay people are born that way. In fact as mentioned they stay away from it with a barge pole....
More ducking and diving
But if God didn't make gay people, who did? Where did this all come from?
Didn't God made everything and everyone.
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:24:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:18:30 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:15:51 PM
Quite the opposite actually. I don't want to change my behaviour because sodomy is being rationalized.
No, you are demonising people for behaviour that is God-given and normal for them. It is the opposite to everything Jesus stood for.
You make me laugh. The behaviour is not God given or normal. Science (as already discussed) has not proven that gay people are born that way. In fact as mentioned they stay away from it with a barge pole....
More ducking and diving
But if God didn't make gay people, who did? Where did this all come from?
Didn't God made everything and everyone.
Hang on Iceman what was previously discussed??? What was previously disccused is that nothing has been proved either way, and also born or conceived? One of the biggest effects of environment on human outcome is the environment within the womb itself even with id twins. I'd advise both of you to stay away from this area completely as nothing (strangely) has been agreed by science.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:24:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:18:30 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:15:51 PM
Quite the opposite actually. I don't want to change my behaviour because sodomy is being rationalized.
No, you are demonising people for behaviour that is God-given and normal for them. It is the opposite to everything Jesus stood for.
You make me laugh. The behaviour is not God given or normal. Science (as already discussed) has not proven that gay people are born that way. In fact as mentioned they stay away from it with a barge pole....
More ducking and diving
But if God didn't make gay people, who did? Where did this all come from?
Didn't God made everything and everyone.
Hang on Iceman what was previously discussed??? What was previously disccused is that nothing has been proved either way, and also born or conceived? One of the biggest effects of environment on human outcome is the environment within the womb itself even with id twins. I'd advise both of you to stay away from this area completely as nothing (strangely) has been agreed by science.
We believe that Leviticus was written around 2,700 years ago. It mentions homosexual acts. Thus homosexuals have been around for a very long time. We don't know who wrote Leviticus, but for some strange reason a portion of modern society insist on using it as a sex guide.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:24:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:18:30 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:15:51 PM
Quite the opposite actually. I don't want to change my behaviour because sodomy is being rationalized.
No, you are demonising people for behaviour that is God-given and normal for them. It is the opposite to everything Jesus stood for.
You make me laugh. The behaviour is not God given or normal. Science (as already discussed) has not proven that gay people are born that way. In fact as mentioned they stay away from it with a barge pole....
More ducking and diving
But if God didn't make gay people, who did? Where did this all come from?
Didn't God made everything and everyone.
Hang on Iceman what was previously discussed??? What was previously disccused is that nothing has been proved either way, and also born or conceived? One of the biggest effects of environment on human outcome is the environment within the womb itself even with id twins. I'd advise both of you to stay away from this area completely as nothing (strangely) has been agreed by science.
I was staying away from it. Muppet called it God given. Do you agree that muppet cannot correctly make that statement? That Gay people are not definitively born or conceived gay? whether they are or not is moot anyway in my overall point - I'm not victimizing homosexuals - I'm disagreeing with the rationalization and normalization of sodomy.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:53:55 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:24:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:18:30 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:15:51 PM
Quite the opposite actually. I don't want to change my behaviour because sodomy is being rationalized.
No, you are demonising people for behaviour that is God-given and normal for them. It is the opposite to everything Jesus stood for.
You make me laugh. The behaviour is not God given or normal. Science (as already discussed) has not proven that gay people are born that way. In fact as mentioned they stay away from it with a barge pole....
More ducking and diving
But if God didn't make gay people, who did? Where did this all come from?
Didn't God made everything and everyone.
Hang on Iceman what was previously discussed??? What was previously disccused is that nothing has been proved either way, and also born or conceived? One of the biggest effects of environment on human outcome is the environment within the womb itself even with id twins. I'd advise both of you to stay away from this area completely as nothing (strangely) has been agreed by science.
I was staying away from it. Muppet called it God given. Do you agree that muppet cannot correctly make that statement? That Gay people are not definitively born or conceived gay? whether they are or not is moot anyway in my overall point - I'm not victimizing homosexuals - I'm disagreeing with the rationalization and normalization of sodomy.
This is a euphemism for being against gays, isn't that it in a nutshell?
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:52:29 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:24:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:18:30 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:15:51 PM
Quite the opposite actually. I don't want to change my behaviour because sodomy is being rationalized.
No, you are demonising people for behaviour that is God-given and normal for them. It is the opposite to everything Jesus stood for.
You make me laugh. The behaviour is not God given or normal. Science (as already discussed) has not proven that gay people are born that way. In fact as mentioned they stay away from it with a barge pole....
More ducking and diving
But if God didn't make gay people, who did? Where did this all come from?
Didn't God made everything and everyone.
Hang on Iceman what was previously discussed??? What was previously disccused is that nothing has been proved either way, and also born or conceived? One of the biggest effects of environment on human outcome is the environment within the womb itself even with id twins. I'd advise both of you to stay away from this area completely as nothing (strangely) has been agreed by science.
We believe that Leviticus was written around 2,700 years ago. It mentions homosexual acts. Thus homosexuals have been around for a very long time. We don't know who wrote Leviticus, but for some strange reason a portion of modern society insist on using it as a sex guide.
You are completely and utterly wrong -typical antichurch argument, We use the new testament, and Jesus the new covenant as a guide. But I have chosen to remove any biblical arguments against sodomy from my arguments. Point to where I have used them please - you continue to pull the church in while I have mentioned them as being forced in to agreement that sodomy is as normative as the marital act.
So far my only argument against sodomy has been scientific.
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:55:12 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:53:55 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:24:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:18:30 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:15:51 PM
Quite the opposite actually. I don't want to change my behaviour because sodomy is being rationalized.
No, you are demonising people for behaviour that is God-given and normal for them. It is the opposite to everything Jesus stood for.
You make me laugh. The behaviour is not God given or normal. Science (as already discussed) has not proven that gay people are born that way. In fact as mentioned they stay away from it with a barge pole....
More ducking and diving
But if God didn't make gay people, who did? Where did this all come from?
Didn't God made everything and everyone.
Hang on Iceman what was previously discussed??? What was previously disccused is that nothing has been proved either way, and also born or conceived? One of the biggest effects of environment on human outcome is the environment within the womb itself even with id twins. I'd advise both of you to stay away from this area completely as nothing (strangely) has been agreed by science.
I was staying away from it. Muppet called it God given. Do you agree that muppet cannot correctly make that statement? That Gay people are not definitively born or conceived gay? whether they are or not is moot anyway in my overall point - I'm not victimizing homosexuals - I'm disagreeing with the rationalization and normalization of sodomy.
This is a euphemism for being against gays, isn't that it in a nutshell?
No, not at all. I'm against domestic violence but I am not anti-marriage. I'm against adultery but I don't victimize those caught in the act. I'm against sodomy and I don't victimize gay people.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:57:22 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:52:29 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:24:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:18:30 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:15:51 PM
Quite the opposite actually. I don't want to change my behaviour because sodomy is being rationalized.
No, you are demonising people for behaviour that is God-given and normal for them. It is the opposite to everything Jesus stood for.
You make me laugh. The behaviour is not God given or normal. Science (as already discussed) has not proven that gay people are born that way. In fact as mentioned they stay away from it with a barge pole....
More ducking and diving
But if God didn't make gay people, who did? Where did this all come from?
Didn't God made everything and everyone.
Hang on Iceman what was previously discussed??? What was previously disccused is that nothing has been proved either way, and also born or conceived? One of the biggest effects of environment on human outcome is the environment within the womb itself even with id twins. I'd advise both of you to stay away from this area completely as nothing (strangely) has been agreed by science.
We believe that Leviticus was written around 2,700 years ago. It mentions homosexual acts. Thus homosexuals have been around for a very long time. We don't know who wrote Leviticus, but for some strange reason a portion of modern society insist on using it as a sex guide.
You are completely and utterly wrong -typical antichurch argument, We use the new testament, and Jesus the new covenant as a guide. But I have chosen to remove any biblical arguments against sodomy from my arguments. Point to where I have used them please - you continue to pull the church in while I have mentioned them as being forced in to agreement that sodomy is as normative as the marital act.
So far my only argument against sodomy has been scientific.
You use Jesus as a guide?
What was He referring to when He cited Scripture then?
And you brought the Church into this latest discussion, portraying them as the victims naturally.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:59:52 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:55:12 PM
This is a euphemism for being against gays, isn't that it in a nutshell?
No, not at all. I'm against domestic violence but I am not anti-marriage. I'm against adultery but I don't victimize those caught in the act. I'm against sodomy and I don't victimize gay people.
Wow, so gay sex is to being gay,
as domestic violence is to marriage,
and adultery is to something else.
But of course you are not against gays. ;D ;D ;D Who do you think you are kidding?
I'm not trying to kid anyone - I mean what I say. I have detest nor hatred for any person. I detest and hate sin. Adultery, domestic violence, sodomy.... and lots more.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 07:12:16 PM
I'm not trying to kid anyone - I mean what I say. I have detest nor hatred for any person. I detest and hate sin. Adultery, domestic violence, sodomy.... and lots more.
I would argue that your intolerance is a bigger sin, but there you go.
Also, apparently the word 'sodomy' didn't appear in any original Jewish or Christian texts. Your deliberate and persistent use of the word, in place of gay sex, allows other meanings to be derived from the word. For example sodomy also has been used to describe sex with an animal and the Sodomites in the Bible were also believed to have been pedophiles.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:53:55 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:24:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:18:30 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:15:51 PM
Quite the opposite actually. I don't want to change my behaviour because sodomy is being rationalized.
No, you are demonising people for behaviour that is God-given and normal for them. It is the opposite to everything Jesus stood for.
You make me laugh. The behaviour is not God given or normal. Science (as already discussed) has not proven that gay people are born that way. In fact as mentioned they stay away from it with a barge pole....
More ducking and diving
But if God didn't make gay people, who did? Where did this all come from?
Didn't God made everything and everyone.
Hang on Iceman what was previously discussed??? What was previously disccused is that nothing has been proved either way, and also born or conceived? One of the biggest effects of environment on human outcome is the environment within the womb itself even with id twins. I'd advise both of you to stay away from this area completely as nothing (strangely) has been agreed by science.
I was staying away from it. Muppet called it God given. Do you agree that muppet cannot correctly make that statement? That Gay people are not definitively born or conceived gay? whether they are or not is moot anyway in my overall point - I'm not victimizing homosexuals - I'm disagreeing with the rationalization and normalization of sodomy.
Yeah he probably should be pulled on it but since especially as I presumed he was said it to goad you with your beliefs. (Only my perception Muppet)
Although his statement about gay people being god made is sort of my stance on the subject so I was probably biased even tho I don't believe its his actual stance.
But as far as "what God made" is a fairly abstract concept and its hard to nail down what it means...science on the other hand deals with the physical world so we can usually be pretty precise about what is correct or incorrect
Also you should be commended for keeping religion away from this while asking hard questions all in face of pretty incessant mudslinging that you are prejustice even tho I don't actually believe you are. There's nothing wrong with an open healthy discussion and Im enjoying it, but I dont feel strongly enuff on it to make a useful contribution.
Where does oral sex fit into all this?
And sex toys?
And motor boating?!
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 07:27:36 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:53:55 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:24:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:18:30 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:15:51 PM
Quite the opposite actually. I don't want to change my behaviour because sodomy is being rationalized.
No, you are demonising people for behaviour that is God-given and normal for them. It is the opposite to everything Jesus stood for.
You make me laugh. The behaviour is not God given or normal. Science (as already discussed) has not proven that gay people are born that way. In fact as mentioned they stay away from it with a barge pole....
More ducking and diving
But if God didn't make gay people, who did? Where did this all come from?
Didn't God made everything and everyone.
Hang on Iceman what was previously discussed??? What was previously disccused is that nothing has been proved either way, and also born or conceived? One of the biggest effects of environment on human outcome is the environment within the womb itself even with id twins. I'd advise both of you to stay away from this area completely as nothing (strangely) has been agreed by science.
I was staying away from it. Muppet called it God given. Do you agree that muppet cannot correctly make that statement? That Gay people are not definitively born or conceived gay? whether they are or not is moot anyway in my overall point - I'm not victimizing homosexuals - I'm disagreeing with the rationalization and normalization of sodomy.
Yeah he probably should be pulled on it but since especially as I presumed he was said it to goad you with your beliefs. (Only my perception Muppet)
Although his statement about gay people being god made is sort of my stance on the subject so I was probably biased even tho I don't believe its his actual stance.
But as far as "what God made" is a fairly abstract concept and its hard to nail down what it means...science on the other hand deals with the physical world so we can usually be pretty precise about what is correct or incorrect
Also you should be commended for keeping religion away from this while asking hard questions all in face of pretty incessant mudslinging that you are prejustice even tho I don't actually believe you are. There's nothing wrong with an open healthy discussion and Im enjoying it, but I dont feel strongly enuff on it to make a useful contribution.
Anyone who insists on their beliefs being imposed on others can hardly hide from any blowback on those same beliefs. That would be hypocrisy.
And you are commending him for keeping religion out of it, even though he brought religion into to it twice, once with the Catholic Adoption Agencies and again by claiming that he is against gay sex because it is a sin!
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 07:34:40 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 07:27:36 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:53:55 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 06:41:41 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:24:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 06:18:30 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 06:15:51 PM
Quite the opposite actually. I don't want to change my behaviour because sodomy is being rationalized.
No, you are demonising people for behaviour that is God-given and normal for them. It is the opposite to everything Jesus stood for.
You make me laugh. The behaviour is not God given or normal. Science (as already discussed) has not proven that gay people are born that way. In fact as mentioned they stay away from it with a barge pole....
More ducking and diving
But if God didn't make gay people, who did? Where did this all come from?
Didn't God made everything and everyone.
Hang on Iceman what was previously discussed??? What was previously disccused is that nothing has been proved either way, and also born or conceived? One of the biggest effects of environment on human outcome is the environment within the womb itself even with id twins. I'd advise both of you to stay away from this area completely as nothing (strangely) has been agreed by science.
I was staying away from it. Muppet called it God given. Do you agree that muppet cannot correctly make that statement? That Gay people are not definitively born or conceived gay? whether they are or not is moot anyway in my overall point - I'm not victimizing homosexuals - I'm disagreeing with the rationalization and normalization of sodomy.
Yeah he probably should be pulled on it but since especially as I presumed he was said it to goad you with your beliefs. (Only my perception Muppet)
Although his statement about gay people being god made is sort of my stance on the subject so I was probably biased even tho I don't believe its his actual stance.
But as far as "what God made" is a fairly abstract concept and its hard to nail down what it means...science on the other hand deals with the physical world so we can usually be pretty precise about what is correct or incorrect
Also you should be commended for keeping religion away from this while asking hard questions all in face of pretty incessant mudslinging that you are prejustice even tho I don't actually believe you are. There's nothing wrong with an open healthy discussion and Im enjoying it, but I dont feel strongly enuff on it to make a useful contribution.
Anyone who insists on their beliefs being imposed on others can hardly hide from any blowback on those same beliefs. That would be hypocrisy.
And you are commending him for keeping religion out of it, even though he brought religion into to it twice, once with the Catholic Adoption Agencies and again by claiming that he is against gay sex because it is a sin!
First point yes but he wasn't fully engaging them in them on this point. The Catholic adoption agencies was just used as an example TBF, but yes you are right about the sin. Although he's off the same faith as myself and in it practically everything you do is a sin...but its all forgivable :D.... but lets say he has done a fairly good job of keeping religion out it.
Weirdly I think that religious values and principles are one of the main reasons we are more accepting of homosexuality these days,even tho many people using the values may not even be religious.
On another point he didn't answer J70s point about what harm it can do if its done in private and all the rest?
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
It is all ok anyway, because in Leviticus killing a goat gets you forgiveness. This is probably better than Genesis as you would probably have to kill your firstborn as a sacrifice.
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
I darent google it so you'll have to explain J70?
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
I darent google it so you'll have to explain J70?
You never wondered by the Tea Party movement in the US are known as " teabaggers" among the likes of Bill Maher and so on? :p
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
I darent google it so you'll have to explain J70?
You never wondered by the Tea Party movement in the US are known as " teabaggers" among the likes of Bill Maher and so on? :p
Ah don't follow the politics much here now...I know about the tea party but that's about it.. dunno who Bill Maher is at all.
What is it?
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:53:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
I darent google it so you'll have to explain J70?
You never wondered by the Tea Party movement in the US are known as " teabaggers" among the likes of Bill Maher and so on? :p
Ah don't follow the politics much here now...I know about the tea party but that's about it.. dunno who Bill Maher is at all.
What is it?
You can look it up if you're really interested! Detailing or even outlining the mechanics of a sexual act is not really something I'm interested in doing.
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:53:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
I darent google it so you'll have to explain J70?
You never wondered by the Tea Party movement in the US are known as " teabaggers" among the likes of Bill Maher and so on? :p
Ah don't follow the politics much here now...I know about the tea party but that's about it.. dunno who Bill Maher is at all.
What is it?
You can look it up if you're really interested! Detailing or even outlining the mechanics of a sexual act is not really something I'm interested in doing.
Feck....it must be complicated!
Give it a go sure and see how you get on
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:53:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
I darent google it so you'll have to explain J70?
You never wondered by the Tea Party movement in the US are known as " teabaggers" among the likes of Bill Maher and so on? :p
Ah don't follow the politics much here now...I know about the tea party but that's about it.. dunno who Bill Maher is at all.
What is it?
You can look it up if you're really interested! Detailing or even outlining the mechanics of a sexual act is not really something I'm interested in doing.
Feck....it must be complicated!
Give it a go sure and see how you get on
That would be a sin.
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:27:20 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:53:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
I darent google it so you'll have to explain J70?
You never wondered by the Tea Party movement in the US are known as " teabaggers" among the likes of Bill Maher and so on? :p
Ah don't follow the politics much here now...I know about the tea party but that's about it.. dunno who Bill Maher is at all.
What is it?
You can look it up if you're really interested! Detailing or even outlining the mechanics of a sexual act is not really something I'm interested in doing.
Feck....it must be complicated!
Give it a go sure and see how you get on
That would be a sin.
All forgivable tho.
Do you know what it is Muppet?
I feel like I'm 11 again...come on lads tell me!
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:30:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:27:20 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:53:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
I darent google it so you'll have to explain J70?
You never wondered by the Tea Party movement in the US are known as " teabaggers" among the likes of Bill Maher and so on? :p
Ah don't follow the politics much here now...I know about the tea party but that's about it.. dunno who Bill Maher is at all.
What is it?
You can look it up if you're really interested! Detailing or even outlining the mechanics of a sexual act is not really something I'm interested in doing.
Feck....it must be complicated!
Give it a go sure and see how you get on
That would be a sin.
All forgivable tho.
Do you know what it is Muppet?
I feel like I'm 11 again...come on lads tell me!
Have a guess.
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:35:10 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:30:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:27:20 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:53:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
I darent google it so you'll have to explain J70?
You never wondered by the Tea Party movement in the US are known as " teabaggers" among the likes of Bill Maher and so on? :p
Ah don't follow the politics much here now...I know about the tea party but that's about it.. dunno who Bill Maher is at all.
What is it?
You can look it up if you're really interested! Detailing or even outlining the mechanics of a sexual act is not really something I'm interested in doing.
Feck....it must be complicated!
Give it a go sure and see how you get on
That would be a sin.
All forgivable tho.
Do you know what it is Muppet?
I feel like I'm 11 again...come on lads tell me!
Have a guess.
Ha... you dont even know what it is Muppet
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:38:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:35:10 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:30:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:27:20 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:53:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
I darent google it so you'll have to explain J70?
You never wondered by the Tea Party movement in the US are known as " teabaggers" among the likes of Bill Maher and so on? :p
Ah don't follow the politics much here now...I know about the tea party but that's about it.. dunno who Bill Maher is at all.
What is it?
You can look it up if you're really interested! Detailing or even outlining the mechanics of a sexual act is not really something I'm interested in doing.
Feck....it must be complicated!
Give it a go sure and see how you get on
That would be a sin.
All forgivable tho.
Do you know what it is Muppet?
I feel like I'm 11 again...come on lads tell me!
Have a guess.
Ha... you dont even know what it is Muppet
Even if I didn't, we are both on the internet. I'd find out in a second.
Why are you pretending you won't use Google?
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:39:59 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:38:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:35:10 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:30:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:27:20 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:53:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
I darent google it so you'll have to explain J70?
You never wondered by the Tea Party movement in the US are known as " teabaggers" among the likes of Bill Maher and so on? :p
Ah don't follow the politics much here now...I know about the tea party but that's about it.. dunno who Bill Maher is at all.
What is it?
You can look it up if you're really interested! Detailing or even outlining the mechanics of a sexual act is not really something I'm interested in doing.
Feck....it must be complicated!
Give it a go sure and see how you get on
That would be a sin.
All forgivable tho.
Do you know what it is Muppet?
I feel like I'm 11 again...come on lads tell me!
Have a guess.
Ha... you dont even know what it is Muppet
Even if I didn't, we are both on the internet. I'd find out in a second.
Why are you pretending you won't use Google?
Why do think? Where could I possibly be that I dont want to look up something like that on google? ???
Spit it on now come on
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:46:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:39:59 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:38:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:35:10 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:30:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:27:20 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:53:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
I darent google it so you'll have to explain J70?
You never wondered by the Tea Party movement in the US are known as " teabaggers" among the likes of Bill Maher and so on? :p
Ah don't follow the politics much here now...I know about the tea party but that's about it.. dunno who Bill Maher is at all.
What is it?
You can look it up if you're really interested! Detailing or even outlining the mechanics of a sexual act is not really something I'm interested in doing.
Feck....it must be complicated!
Give it a go sure and see how you get on
That would be a sin.
All forgivable tho.
Do you know what it is Muppet?
I feel like I'm 11 again...come on lads tell me!
Have a guess.
Ha... you dont even know what it is Muppet
Even if I didn't, we are both on the internet. I'd find out in a second.
Why are you pretending you won't use Google?
Why do think? Where could I possibly be that I dont want to look up something like that on google? ???
Spit it on now come on
Mass?
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:50:27 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:46:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:39:59 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:38:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:35:10 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:30:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:27:20 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:53:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
I darent google it so you'll have to explain J70?
You never wondered by the Tea Party movement in the US are known as " teabaggers" among the likes of Bill Maher and so on? :p
Ah don't follow the politics much here now...I know about the tea party but that's about it.. dunno who Bill Maher is at all.
What is it?
You can look it up if you're really interested! Detailing or even outlining the mechanics of a sexual act is not really something I'm interested in doing.
Feck....it must be complicated!
Give it a go sure and see how you get on
That would be a sin.
All forgivable tho.
Do you know what it is Muppet?
I feel like I'm 11 again...come on lads tell me!
Have a guess.
Ha... you dont even know what it is Muppet
Even if I didn't, we are both on the internet. I'd find out in a second.
Why are you pretending you won't use Google?
Why do think? Where could I possibly be that I dont want to look up something like that on google? ???
Spit it on now come on
Mass?
Ha very good Muppet :D
Now stop pissing around and tell me
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:55:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:50:27 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:46:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:39:59 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:38:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:35:10 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:30:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:27:20 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:53:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
I darent google it so you'll have to explain J70?
You never wondered by the Tea Party movement in the US are known as " teabaggers" among the likes of Bill Maher and so on? :p
Ah don't follow the politics much here now...I know about the tea party but that's about it.. dunno who Bill Maher is at all.
What is it?
You can look it up if you're really interested! Detailing or even outlining the mechanics of a sexual act is not really something I'm interested in doing.
Feck....it must be complicated!
Give it a go sure and see how you get on
That would be a sin.
All forgivable tho.
Do you know what it is Muppet?
I feel like I'm 11 again...come on lads tell me!
Have a guess.
Ha... you dont even know what it is Muppet
Even if I didn't, we are both on the internet. I'd find out in a second.
Why are you pretending you won't use Google?
Why do think? Where could I possibly be that I dont want to look up something like that on google? ???
Spit it on now come on
Mass?
Ha very good Muppet :D
Now stop pissing around and tell me
If you are in a nsfw situation then whether I tell you, or wikipedia tells you, or Google tells you it doesn't really matter, does it? :D
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 10:19:19 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:55:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:50:27 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:46:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:39:59 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:38:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:35:10 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:30:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:27:20 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:53:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 08:37:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 09, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
Exactly. Why is anal sex wrong?
Because it is not sex in the manner that can lead to reproduction?
If that's the case, then any non-vaginal intercourse or sexual act must be "wrong", which makes blowjobs, handjobs, vibrators, teabagging etc. etc. wrong.
Or is it just the homosexual part of it?
Is anal sex with the missus ok?
I darent google it so you'll have to explain J70?
You never wondered by the Tea Party movement in the US are known as " teabaggers" among the likes of Bill Maher and so on? :p
Ah don't follow the politics much here now...I know about the tea party but that's about it.. dunno who Bill Maher is at all.
What is it?
You can look it up if you're really interested! Detailing or even outlining the mechanics of a sexual act is not really something I'm interested in doing.
Feck....it must be complicated!
Give it a go sure and see how you get on
That would be a sin.
All forgivable tho.
Do you know what it is Muppet?
I feel like I'm 11 again...come on lads tell me!
Have a guess.
Ha... you dont even know what it is Muppet
Even if I didn't, we are both on the internet. I'd find out in a second.
Why are you pretending you won't use Google?
Why do think? Where could I possibly be that I dont want to look up something like that on google? ???
Spit it on now come on
Mass?
Ha very good Muppet :D
Now stop pissing around and tell me
If you are in a nsfw situation then whether I tell you, or wikipedia tells you, or Google tells you it doesn't really matter, does it? :D
Yeah but Id have to type it into google tho I don't know what thats gonna throw up
Listen forget about it, I'll look it up when I go home, I didnt realise yous where such prudes.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 10:27:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 10:19:19 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:55:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:50:27 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:46:24 PM
Why do think? Where could I possibly be that I dont want to look up something like that on google? ???
Spit it on now come on
Mass?
Ha very good Muppet :D
Now stop pissing around and tell me
If you are in a nsfw situation then whether I tell you, or wikipedia tells you, or Google tells you it doesn't really matter, does it? :D
Yeah but Id have to type it into google tho I don't know what thats gonna throw up
Listen forget about it, I'll look it up when I go home, I didnt realise yous where such prudes.
Feck I missed that. You are in the right BALL park. :D
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 10:32:17 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 10:27:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 10:19:19 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:55:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 09:50:27 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 09, 2015, 09:46:24 PM
Why do think? Where could I possibly be that I dont want to look up something like that on google? ???
Spit it on now come on
Mass?
Ha very good Muppet :D
Now stop pissing around and tell me
If you are in a nsfw situation then whether I tell you, or wikipedia tells you, or Google tells you it doesn't really matter, does it? :D
Yeah but Id have to type it into google tho I don't know what thats gonna throw up
Listen forget about it, I'll look it up when I go home, I didnt realise yous where such prudes.
Feck I missed that. You are in the right BALL park. :D
Keep er lit Muppet..
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 07:25:13 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 07:12:16 PM
I'm not trying to kid anyone - I mean what I say. I have detest nor hatred for any person. I detest and hate sin. Adultery, domestic violence, sodomy.... and lots more.
I would argue that your intolerance is a bigger sin, but there you go.
Also, apparently the word 'sodomy' didn't appear in any original Jewish or Christian texts. Your deliberate and persistent use of the word, in place of gay sex, allows other meanings to be derived from the word. For example sodomy also has been used to describe sex with an animal and the Sodomites in the Bible were also believed to have been pedophiles.
Sorry Iceman
You do know Sodomy refers to Oral sex too? Where does sodomy fit in between married hetro couples??
Even under ur definition of sodomy, which I'm presuming is anal sex, what do u say about a heterosexual couple who have anal sex?
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on June 22, 2015, 12:18:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 07:25:13 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 07:12:16 PM
I'm not trying to kid anyone - I mean what I say. I have detest nor hatred for any person. I detest and hate sin. Adultery, domestic violence, sodomy.... and lots more.
I would argue that your intolerance is a bigger sin, but there you go.
Also, apparently the word 'sodomy' didn't appear in any original Jewish or Christian texts. Your deliberate and persistent use of the word, in place of gay sex, allows other meanings to be derived from the word. For example sodomy also has been used to describe sex with an animal and the Sodomites in the Bible were also believed to have been pedophiles.
Sorry Iceman
You do know Sodomy refers to Oral sex too? Where does sodomy fit in between married hetro couples??
Even under ur definition of sodomy, which I'm presuming is anal sex, what do u say about a heterosexual couple who have anal sex?
Wrong from what standpoint Mayo4Sam? I've been told that religion shouldn't be part of the conversation. So I presented the scientific/biological dangers of sodomy. I challenged the other side of the discussion to address it but they have not. It has been discussed that Science cannot prove either way whether someone is conceived/born gay or murture has a bigger part to play. Yet most people are adamant gay people are born that way. Homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder until the end of the last century but you'll find no scientific evidence as to why it was removed. Tell me when has the scientific community ever "bent over" to a lobby?
From a religious/catholic teaching perspective if you are genuinely interested the teaching is the same as it's always been. Sex is for procreation - It must be open to life. It must be faithful - between a husband and wife. It must be consensual - it cannot be forced upon one party or the other.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 05:26:33 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on June 22, 2015, 12:18:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 07:25:13 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 07:12:16 PM
I'm not trying to kid anyone - I mean what I say. I have detest nor hatred for any person. I detest and hate sin. Adultery, domestic violence, sodomy.... and lots more.
I would argue that your intolerance is a bigger sin, but there you go.
Also, apparently the word 'sodomy' didn't appear in any original Jewish or Christian texts. Your deliberate and persistent use of the word, in place of gay sex, allows other meanings to be derived from the word. For example sodomy also has been used to describe sex with an animal and the Sodomites in the Bible were also believed to have been pedophiles.
Sorry Iceman
You do know Sodomy refers to Oral sex too? Where does sodomy fit in between married hetro couples??
Even under ur definition of sodomy, which I'm presuming is anal sex, what do u say about a heterosexual couple who have anal sex?
Wrong from what standpoint Mayo4Sam? I've been told that religion shouldn't be part of the conversation. So I presented the scientific/biological dangers of sodomy. I challenged the other side of the discussion to address it but they have not. It has been discussed that Science cannot prove either way whether someone is conceived/born gay or murture has a bigger part to play. Yet most people are adamant gay people are born that way. Homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder until the end of the last century but you'll find no scientific evidence as to why it was removed. Tell me when has the scientific community ever "bent over" to a lobby?
From a religious/catholic teaching perspective if you are genuinely interested the teaching is the same as it's always been. Sex is for procreation - It must be open to life. It must be faithful - between a husband and wife. It must be consensual - it cannot be forced upon one party or the other.
So where do oral sex and hand jobs and all the rest fall in the catholic good sex/bad sex divide?
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 05:26:33 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on June 22, 2015, 12:18:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 07:25:13 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 07:12:16 PM
I'm not trying to kid anyone - I mean what I say. I have detest nor hatred for any person. I detest and hate sin. Adultery, domestic violence, sodomy.... and lots more.
I would argue that your intolerance is a bigger sin, but there you go.
Also, apparently the word 'sodomy' didn't appear in any original Jewish or Christian texts. Your deliberate and persistent use of the word, in place of gay sex, allows other meanings to be derived from the word. For example sodomy also has been used to describe sex with an animal and the Sodomites in the Bible were also believed to have been pedophiles.
Sorry Iceman
You do know Sodomy refers to Oral sex too? Where does sodomy fit in between married hetro couples??
Even under ur definition of sodomy, which I'm presuming is anal sex, what do u say about a heterosexual couple who have anal sex?
Wrong from what standpoint Mayo4Sam? I've been told that religion shouldn't be part of the conversation. So I presented the scientific/biological dangers of sodomy. I challenged the other side of the discussion to address it but they have not. It has been discussed that Science cannot prove either way whether someone is conceived/born gay or murture has a bigger part to play. Yet most people are adamant gay people are born that way. Homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder until the end of the last century but you'll find no scientific evidence as to why it was removed. Tell me when has the scientific community ever "bent over" to a lobby?
From a religious/catholic teaching perspective if you are genuinely interested the teaching is the same as it's always been. Sex is for procreation - It must be open to life. It must be faithful - between a husband and wife. It must be consensual - it cannot be forced upon one party or the other.
You have said that this is the reason you are against it. Yet you are a big fan of UFC which has far greater, immediate and obvious scientific/biological dangers.
As for your not too subtle suggestions that gay people aren't born that way, or that be gay might be a psychological disorder, Iceman what is that all about? If you don't like gays, fine. But there is no need to be offensive strongly suggesting that it is a psychological disorder, which disappeared merely due to a lobby.
And for all of your references to scientific evidence, your are constantly preaching a religious dogma that has no scientific evidence whatsoever.
Quote from: J70 on June 22, 2015, 05:49:35 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 05:26:33 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on June 22, 2015, 12:18:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 07:25:13 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 07:12:16 PM
I'm not trying to kid anyone - I mean what I say. I have detest nor hatred for any person. I detest and hate sin. Adultery, domestic violence, sodomy.... and lots more.
I would argue that your intolerance is a bigger sin, but there you go.
Also, apparently the word 'sodomy' didn't appear in any original Jewish or Christian texts. Your deliberate and persistent use of the word, in place of gay sex, allows other meanings to be derived from the word. For example sodomy also has been used to describe sex with an animal and the Sodomites in the Bible were also believed to have been pedophiles.
Sorry Iceman
You do know Sodomy refers to Oral sex too? Where does sodomy fit in between married hetro couples??
Even under ur definition of sodomy, which I'm presuming is anal sex, what do u say about a heterosexual couple who have anal sex?
Wrong from what standpoint Mayo4Sam? I've been told that religion shouldn't be part of the conversation. So I presented the scientific/biological dangers of sodomy. I challenged the other side of the discussion to address it but they have not. It has been discussed that Science cannot prove either way whether someone is conceived/born gay or murture has a bigger part to play. Yet most people are adamant gay people are born that way. Homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder until the end of the last century but you'll find no scientific evidence as to why it was removed. Tell me when has the scientific community ever "bent over" to a lobby?
From a religious/catholic teaching perspective if you are genuinely interested the teaching is the same as it's always been. Sex is for procreation - It must be open to life. It must be faithful - between a husband and wife. It must be consensual - it cannot be forced upon one party or the other.
So where do oral sex and hand jobs and all the rest fall in the catholic good sex/bad sex divide?
what does it matter J70 if you aren't Catholic?
Quote from: muppet on June 22, 2015, 06:16:14 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 05:26:33 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on June 22, 2015, 12:18:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 07:25:13 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 07:12:16 PM
I'm not trying to kid anyone - I mean what I say. I have detest nor hatred for any person. I detest and hate sin. Adultery, domestic violence, sodomy.... and lots more.
I would argue that your intolerance is a bigger sin, but there you go.
Also, apparently the word 'sodomy' didn't appear in any original Jewish or Christian texts. Your deliberate and persistent use of the word, in place of gay sex, allows other meanings to be derived from the word. For example sodomy also has been used to describe sex with an animal and the Sodomites in the Bible were also believed to have been pedophiles.
Sorry Iceman
You do know Sodomy refers to Oral sex too? Where does sodomy fit in between married hetro couples??
Even under ur definition of sodomy, which I'm presuming is anal sex, what do u say about a heterosexual couple who have anal sex?
Wrong from what standpoint Mayo4Sam? I've been told that religion shouldn't be part of the conversation. So I presented the scientific/biological dangers of sodomy. I challenged the other side of the discussion to address it but they have not. It has been discussed that Science cannot prove either way whether someone is conceived/born gay or murture has a bigger part to play. Yet most people are adamant gay people are born that way. Homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder until the end of the last century but you'll find no scientific evidence as to why it was removed. Tell me when has the scientific community ever "bent over" to a lobby?
From a religious/catholic teaching perspective if you are genuinely interested the teaching is the same as it's always been. Sex is for procreation - It must be open to life. It must be faithful - between a husband and wife. It must be consensual - it cannot be forced upon one party or the other.
You have said that this is the reason you are against it. Yet you are a big fan of UFC which has far greater, immediate and obvious scientific/biological dangers.
As for your not too subtle suggestions that gay people aren't born that way, or that be gay might be a psychological disorder, Iceman what is that all about? If you don't like gays, fine. But there is no need to be offensive strongly suggesting that it is a psychological disorder, which disappeared merely due to a lobby.
And for all of your references to scientific evidence, your are constantly preaching a religious dogma that has no scientific evidence whatsoever.
Muppet you asked me to remove religion. I did. I presented other arguments which are not religious which you failed to address.
Homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder. That has been removed in recent times but for no scientific reason. It was removed based on a lobby. I don't know why stating that would be offensive? Science has not proven either way - bringing that to the Born versus Made part of the discussion should not be offensive either.
The UFC and combat sports has nothing to do with the discussion. More deflections...
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 06:20:17 PM
Muppet you asked me to remove religion. I did. I presented other arguments which are not religious which you failed to address.
Homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder. That has been removed in recent times but for no scientific reason. It was removed based on a lobby. I don't know why stating that would be offensive? Science has not proven either way - bringing that to the Born versus Made part of the discussion should not be offensive either.
The UFC and combat sports has nothing to do with the discussion. More deflections...
Defections?
You are arguing on the basis of old psychology.
According to
this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology) it was dropped as a Psychological Disorder as there was no empirical evidence that it was a disorder. Here is what it says:
Consequently, while a minority today believes homosexuality is a mental disorder, the body of current research and clinical literature supports a consensus that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are healthy variations of human sexuality, and is reflected in the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.You then argue that you are against homosexuality on the basis that it could do damage to the body, but mentioning your love of UFC is a deflection? It is hypocrisy not deflection.
Quote from: muppet on June 22, 2015, 06:32:30 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 06:20:17 PM
Muppet you asked me to remove religion. I did. I presented other arguments which are not religious which you failed to address.
Homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder. That has been removed in recent times but for no scientific reason. It was removed based on a lobby. I don't know why stating that would be offensive? Science has not proven either way - bringing that to the Born versus Made part of the discussion should not be offensive either.
The UFC and combat sports has nothing to do with the discussion. More deflections...
Defections?
You are arguing on the basis of old psychology.
According to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology) it was dropped as a Psychological Disorder as there was no empirical evidence that it was a disorder. Here is what it says: Consequently, while a minority today believes homosexuality is a mental disorder, the body of current research and clinical literature supports a consensus that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are healthy variations of human sexuality, and is reflected in the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.
You then argue that you are against homosexuality on the basis that it could do damage to the body, but mentioning your love of UFC is a deflection? It is hypocrisy not deflection.
Muppet your UFC argument carries zero weight.
There are 50,000 new cases of AIDS in America alone. 50,000!
An overwhelming 70% of those are amoung gay and bisexual men who have sex with other men.
That doesn't factor in the other STDs that are transmitted.
Its like arguing that lung cancer is bad and not blaming cigarettes. You sound like the tobacco lobby of the 80s.
Gay sex is spreading diseases at a rapid rate throughout the world.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 06:37:52 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 22, 2015, 06:32:30 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 06:20:17 PM
Muppet you asked me to remove religion. I did. I presented other arguments which are not religious which you failed to address.
Homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder. That has been removed in recent times but for no scientific reason. It was removed based on a lobby. I don't know why stating that would be offensive? Science has not proven either way - bringing that to the Born versus Made part of the discussion should not be offensive either.
The UFC and combat sports has nothing to do with the discussion. More deflections...
Defections?
You are arguing on the basis of old psychology.
According to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology) it was dropped as a Psychological Disorder as there was no empirical evidence that it was a disorder. Here is what it says: Consequently, while a minority today believes homosexuality is a mental disorder, the body of current research and clinical literature supports a consensus that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are healthy variations of human sexuality, and is reflected in the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.
You then argue that you are against homosexuality on the basis that it could do damage to the body, but mentioning your love of UFC is a deflection? It is hypocrisy not deflection.
Muppet your UFC argument carries zero weight.
There are 50,000 new cases of AIDS in America alone. 50,000!
An overwhelming 70% of those are amoung gay and bisexual men who have sex with other men.
That doesn't factor in the other STDs that are transmitted.
Its like arguing that lung cancer is bad and not blaming cigarettes. You sound like the tobacco lobby of the 80s.
Gay sex is spreading diseases at a rapid rate throughout the world.
Wow! You take a single statistic for AIDS and turn it into that statement. Tell me, is 15% of South Africa gay? AIDS doesn't discriminate, unlike you.
Lung cancer is bad and cigarettes are to blame. That is the disease and the cause in the same sentence.
AIDS is bad and gays are not to blame, because gays do not cause AIDS. You must harbour some very serious prejudices to make that connection.
More accurately unsafe sex is the main means of transmitting AIDS, but it doesn't cause AIDS. Condoms prevent AIDS transmission, but guess which organisation bans them? By your logic The Catholic Church is as much to blame as gays are (and far more to blame in my eyes), except gays and everyone else, are merely doing what comes naturally to them. The Church has no such excuse.
Back to the UFC, you listed various risk of 'sodomy', not merely AIDS. Some of them weren't a patch on the dangers of UFC.
QuoteBack to the UFC, you listed various risk of 'sodomy', not merely AIDS. Some of them weren't a patch on the dangers of UFC.
This UFC that is worse than sodomy, I take it that is that Ultimate fight crap and not the Ulster Football Championship>
Quote from: armaghniac on June 22, 2015, 07:20:55 PM
QuoteBack to the UFC, you listed various risk of 'sodomy', not merely AIDS. Some of them weren't a patch on the dangers of UFC.
This UFC that is worse than sodomy, I take it that is that Ultimate fight crap and not the Ulster Football Championship>
I can see the connection. ;D
Quote from: muppet on June 22, 2015, 07:09:59 PM
Wow! You take a single statistic for AIDS and turn it into that statement. Tell me, is 15% of South Africa gay? AIDS doesn't discriminate, unlike you.
Lung cancer is bad and cigarettes are to blame. That is the disease and the cause in the same sentence.
AIDS is bad and gays are not to blame, because gays do not cause AIDS. You must harbour some very serious prejudices to make that connection.
More accurately unsafe sex is the main means of transmitting AIDS, but it doesn't cause AIDS. Condoms prevent AIDS transmission, but guess which organisation bans them? By your logic The Catholic Church is as much to blame as gays are (and far more to blame in my eyes), except gays and everyone else, are merely doing what comes naturally to them. The Church has no such excuse.
Back to the UFC, you listed various risk of 'sodomy', not merely AIDS. Some of them weren't a patch on the dangers of UFC.
Cigarettes are not the only cause of Lung cancer. Gay sex is not the only transmitter of Aids - both are to blame heavily for the occurrences of the disease. My own feelings have nothing to do with the discussion - please play the ball, not the man.
The Catholic Church bans the use of condoms in traditional marriage. Amoung exclusive marriages of men and women who are having sex for pro-creation. The Catholic Church is not banning the use of condoms for sodomy amoung gay men. Nice switch there but we're not falling for it....
Comparing the UFC to sodomy then you should compare it to all other sports where the risk of injury is equally real. But thats a sport not a disorder. UFC fighters are tested for any ailments or diseases and are not allowed to compete if any exist. They don't go out amd mix their bodily fluids with 7000 other fighters in their life time...
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 07:30:05 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 22, 2015, 07:09:59 PM
Wow! You take a single statistic for AIDS and turn it into that statement. Tell me, is 15% of South Africa gay? AIDS doesn't discriminate, unlike you.
Lung cancer is bad and cigarettes are to blame. That is the disease and the cause in the same sentence.
AIDS is bad and gays are not to blame, because gays do not cause AIDS. You must harbour some very serious prejudices to make that connection.
More accurately unsafe sex is the main means of transmitting AIDS, but it doesn't cause AIDS. Condoms prevent AIDS transmission, but guess which organisation bans them? By your logic The Catholic Church is as much to blame as gays are (and far more to blame in my eyes), except gays and everyone else, are merely doing what comes naturally to them. The Church has no such excuse.
Back to the UFC, you listed various risk of 'sodomy', not merely AIDS. Some of them weren't a patch on the dangers of UFC.
Cigarettes are not the only cause of Lung cancer. Gay sex is not the only transmitter of Aids - both are to blame heavily for the occurrences of the disease. My own feelings have nothing to do with the discussion - please play the ball, not the man.
The Catholic Church bans the use of condoms in traditional marriage. Amoung exclusive marriages of men and women who are having sex for pro-creation. The Catholic Church is not banning the use of condoms for sodomy amoung gay men. Nice switch there but we're not falling for it....
Comparing the UFC to sodomy then you should compare it to all other sports where the risk of injury is equally real. But thats a sport not a disorder. UFC fighters are tested for any ailments or diseases and are not allowed to compete if any exist. They don't go out amd mix their bodily fluids with 7000 other fighters in their life time...
But your feelings completely distort the argument. You are comparing cigarettes, a proven cause of cancer, with unsafe sex. And on that basis you blame gays for AIDS. Incredible.
Then you argue that the Catholic Church, which bans condoms, doesn't ban condoms for gays. But it bans homosexuality. But more importantly the Church banning condoms helps spread AIDS in Africa. That is a fact. But you blame gays for spreading AIDS and as usual turn a blind eye to the Church's sins on this matter.
Finally, yes the risk of injury is real in other sports. But I am not the one protesting against anal sex because of the risk of injury, am I?
Muppet you're being quite childish in your arguments.
I lay out all the scientifically proven dangers of sodomy. Listed out for you to address. The cancers, the STDs, The spread of Aids and HIV.
Your response: Well fighters get hurt in the UFC.....
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 07:45:47 PM
Muppet you're being quite childish in your arguments.
I lay out all the scientifically proven dangers of sodomy. Listed out for you to address. The cancers, the STDs, The spread of Aids and HIV.
Your response: Well fighters get hurt in the UFC.....
This was your post:
QuoteBiologically it is wrong. And I'll ask you to present the opposite case if you disagree. The arse is an exit. For disposable of fecal matter. Human generative organs are perfectly matched. The matching only takes place in heterosexual coupling. When the arse is used to replace the vagina it is clearly being used for something it was not intended. This causes physical harm. There are substances in seminal fluid called immuno-regulatory macromolecules that send out signals that are understood by the female body. When deposited elsewhere these signals are misunderstood and cause a 4000% increase in the risk of anal cancer.(Journal of the American Medical Association 1988-90)
anal sex increases the risk of rectal prolapse, perforation that can go septic, the chlap, genital herpes, genital warts, gonorrhea, viral hepatiitis......
Gay men are 445 more likely to contract Aids/HIV. Gay men account for 79% of all new HIV cases, 72% of primary and secondary syphilis cases and a significant % of other STDs.
Today more money is spent on the cure for Aids than for Lung Cancer. Yet we rationalize sodomy much like the tobacco industry rationalize smoking...
So from a purely biological argument - whats right about sodomy?
You completely ignored the mention of condoms as a) a solution to most of the above and b) a greater cause of AIDS in Africa thanks to the Catholic Church's banning of them.
You still pretend not to see the UFC argument. Bashing in a guys head for sports is ok, but gays expressing love for each other, now that is wrong.
I notice you dropped your argument that homosexuality was a psychological disorder. I hope that is the last we hear of that particular lie.
Quote from: muppet on June 22, 2015, 07:53:23 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 07:45:47 PM
Muppet you're being quite childish in your arguments.
I lay out all the scientifically proven dangers of sodomy. Listed out for you to address. The cancers, the STDs, The spread of Aids and HIV.
Your response: Well fighters get hurt in the UFC.....
This was your post:
QuoteBiologically it is wrong. And I'll ask you to present the opposite case if you disagree. The arse is an exit. For disposable of fecal matter. Human generative organs are perfectly matched. The matching only takes place in heterosexual coupling. When the arse is used to replace the vagina it is clearly being used for something it was not intended. This causes physical harm. There are substances in seminal fluid called immuno-regulatory macromolecules that send out signals that are understood by the female body. When deposited elsewhere these signals are misunderstood and cause a 4000% increase in the risk of anal cancer.(Journal of the American Medical Association 1988-90)
anal sex increases the risk of rectal prolapse, perforation that can go septic, the chlap, genital herpes, genital warts, gonorrhea, viral hepatiitis......
Gay men are 445 more likely to contract Aids/HIV. Gay men account for 79% of all new HIV cases, 72% of primary and secondary syphilis cases and a significant % of other STDs.
Today more money is spent on the cure for Aids than for Lung Cancer. Yet we rationalize sodomy much like the tobacco industry rationalize smoking...
So from a purely biological argument - whats right about sodomy?
You completely ignored the mention of condoms as a) a solution to most of the above and b) a greater cause of AIDS in Africa thanks to the Catholic Church's banning of them.
You still pretend not to see the UFC argument. Bashing in a guys head for sports is ok, but gays expressing love for each other, now that is wrong.
I notice you dropped your argument that homosexuality was a psychological disorder. I hope that is the last we hear of that particular lie.
This is where you twist things Muppet.
Are you declaring that the Catholic Church is responsible for the spread of Aids because they don't allow Catholics to use condoms?
Let me address your ridiculous logic. The Condom/Aids debate is focused on Africa. I gave you statistics from America, where I live, where every year 35,000 men are diagnosed with Aids caused by sodomy. These men are not Catholic. Some may identify themselves culturally as Catholics but they are not in communion with the Catholic Church by the very virtue of their lifestyle.
Combat sports are not all about bashing people's heads in, You show an uninformed, naive opinion. This discussion does not need to be about the UFC or your misunderstanding of it.
And your link about the psychology of sodomy didn't prove anything. Opinion changed. Why? New scientific facts? Or because of popular opinion? Or a gay lobby?
But please continue with your spinning atoms...
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 07:30:05 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 22, 2015, 07:09:59 PM
Wow! You take a single statistic for AIDS and turn it into that statement. Tell me, is 15% of South Africa gay? AIDS doesn't discriminate, unlike you.
Lung cancer is bad and cigarettes are to blame. That is the disease and the cause in the same sentence.
AIDS is bad and gays are not to blame, because gays do not cause AIDS. You must harbour some very serious prejudices to make that connection.
More accurately unsafe sex is the main means of transmitting AIDS, but it doesn't cause AIDS. Condoms prevent AIDS transmission, but guess which organisation bans them? By your logic The Catholic Church is as much to blame as gays are (and far more to blame in my eyes), except gays and everyone else, are merely doing what comes naturally to them. The Church has no such excuse.
Back to the UFC, you listed various risk of 'sodomy', not merely AIDS. Some of them weren't a patch on the dangers of UFC.
Cigarettes are not the only cause of Lung cancer. Gay sex is not the only transmitter of Aids - both are to blame heavily for the occurrences of the disease. My own feelings have nothing to do with the discussion - please play the ball, not the man.
The Catholic Church bans the use of condoms in traditional marriage. Amoung exclusive marriages of men and women who are having sex for pro-creation. The Catholic Church is not banning the use of condoms for sodomy amoung gay men. Nice switch there but we're not falling for it....
Comparing the UFC to sodomy then you should compare it to all other sports where the risk of injury is equally real. But thats a sport not a disorder. UFC fighters are tested for any ailments or diseases and are not allowed to compete if any exist. They don't go out amd mix their bodily fluids with 7000 other fighters in their life time...
Do you ever have sex just to get the ride or are you looking to impregnate her every time?
Quote from: laoislad on June 22, 2015, 10:17:32 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 07:30:05 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 22, 2015, 07:09:59 PM
Wow! You take a single statistic for AIDS and turn it into that statement. Tell me, is 15% of South Africa gay? AIDS doesn't discriminate, unlike you.
Lung cancer is bad and cigarettes are to blame. That is the disease and the cause in the same sentence.
AIDS is bad and gays are not to blame, because gays do not cause AIDS. You must harbour some very serious prejudices to make that connection.
More accurately unsafe sex is the main means of transmitting AIDS, but it doesn't cause AIDS. Condoms prevent AIDS transmission, but guess which organisation bans them? By your logic The Catholic Church is as much to blame as gays are (and far more to blame in my eyes), except gays and everyone else, are merely doing what comes naturally to them. The Church has no such excuse.
Back to the UFC, you listed various risk of 'sodomy', not merely AIDS. Some of them weren't a patch on the dangers of UFC.
Cigarettes are not the only cause of Lung cancer. Gay sex is not the only transmitter of Aids - both are to blame heavily for the occurrences of the disease. My own feelings have nothing to do with the discussion - please play the ball, not the man.
The Catholic Church bans the use of condoms in traditional marriage. Amoung exclusive marriages of men and women who are having sex for pro-creation. The Catholic Church is not banning the use of condoms for sodomy amoung gay men. Nice switch there but we're not falling for it....
Comparing the UFC to sodomy then you should compare it to all other sports where the risk of injury is equally real. But thats a sport not a disorder. UFC fighters are tested for any ailments or diseases and are not allowed to compete if any exist. They don't go out amd mix their bodily fluids with 7000 other fighters in their life time...
Do you ever have sex just to get the ride or are you looking to impregnate her every time?
I probably have more sex than most husbands in their late 30s. But we don't use protection and we are open to life if it happens or not. 4 kids in 8 years and we'll take more if we're given them.
Iceman, it is obvious you start with the dogma and try to make the facts fit.
You still misrepresent the consensus on homosexuality being a psychological disorder. There is no evidence that it is a disorder and there never was. In the absence of any evidence the claims that it is a disorder is simply evidence of prejudice, probably based on religious dogma. But you don't buy this because there are 'no new facts' as you put it. You ignore the fact that there were no facts to support it as a disorder in the first place.
Your scientific/biological list of reasons for your being against sodomy, consists mainly risks that are taken by those who engage in heterosexual sex. Are you against heterosexual sex for those same health risks?
Regarding UFC, it is pretty brutal, but I personally have no problem with it as the participants consent to it and are fully aware of the risks. Much the same as homosexuality.
As for AIDS, the stats in Africa don't suit your argument you will ignore them? And of course you will ignore the fact that more religious dogma is a huge part of the problem there, again because it doesn't suit your argument. AIDS is an STD, it doesn't discriminate how it gets transmitted. And btw more people die in car accidents and more again die of gunshots than are diagnosed with AIDS/HIV in the US due to 'sodomy'. Are you against automobiles and guns as well?
As for your proclamation the these men are not Catholics, you are entering Fearon territory here. Will you do as he does and claim to be full of empathy and humility, while demanding the excommunication of others YOU don't deem worthy?
Quote from: muppet on June 22, 2015, 10:27:55 PM
Iceman, it is obvious you start with the dogma and try to make the facts fit.
You still misrepresent the consensus on homosexuality being a psychological disorder. There is no evidence that it is a disorder and there never was. In the absence of any evidence the claims that it is a disorder is simply evidence of prejudice, probably based on religious dogma. But you don't buy this because there are 'no new facts' as you put it. You ignore the fact that there were no facts to support it as a disorder in the first place.
Your scientific/biological list of reasons for your being against sodomy, consists mainly risks that are taken by those who engage in heterosexual sex. Are you against heterosexual sex for those same health risks?
Regarding UFC, it is pretty brutal, but I personally have no problem with it as the participants consent to it and are fully aware of the risks. Much the same as homosexuality.
As for AIDS, the stats in Africa don't suit your argument you will ignore them? And of course you will ignore the fact that more religious dogma is a huge part of the problem there, again because it doesn't suit your argument. AIDS is an STD, it doesn't discriminate how it gets transmitted. And btw more people die in car accidents and more again die of gunshots than are diagnosed with AIDS/HIV in the US due to 'sodomy'. Are you against automobiles and guns as well?
As for your proclamation the these men are not Catholics, you are entering Fearon territory here. Will you do as he does and claim to be full of empathy and humility, while demanding the excommunication of others YOU don't deem worthy?
Muppet I've engaged with you from a religious perspective and you refused to give it any merit. My opinion counts for nothing if I back it up with religion is the position you more or less gave to me.
So I gave you some physical effects of sodomy and they don't match up with the marital act as the female body is made to receive male fluid, the male rectum is not. It's for taking a shit out of. Putting something foreign in there causes mutations and cancers. But the scientific answers are not good enough for you either.
the UFC is one promotion that showcases MMA. fighters who partake in the sport are not defined by their passion for combat. I think its a foolish comparison to draw with sodomy, or cars or anything else you'd like to deflect the subject with.
I'm not venturing into Fearon land or Iceman land or any land other than Catholic land. I am not passing judgement on anyone - I'm giving you the truth of the Church. If someone sins, any sin, they are not in communion with the Catholic church until they receive forgiveness for that sin and make penance. Sin you regret and try to never do again, even though you may fall time and time again is different to choosing sodomy, with no regrets and making it the definition of who you are. These are not my rules - these are the rules of the Church. If you went to Catholic school at all you were taught this just as much as I was. If you say I am Catholic and there's a "but" then you're not Catholic. You are just culturally catholic, of catholic heritage, much like the Jews who never go to temple but once or twice a year...
every message is made up of content and delivery. Tony falls down in his delivery a do I but the content of the message remains the same....
Sodomy is wrong. I wont be forced to agree with it, accept it as good and normal or standard,
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 06:17:09 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 22, 2015, 05:49:35 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 05:26:33 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on June 22, 2015, 12:18:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 07:25:13 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 07:12:16 PM
I'm not trying to kid anyone - I mean what I say. I have detest nor hatred for any person. I detest and hate sin. Adultery, domestic violence, sodomy.... and lots more.
I would argue that your intolerance is a bigger sin, but there you go.
Also, apparently the word 'sodomy' didn't appear in any original Jewish or Christian texts. Your deliberate and persistent use of the word, in place of gay sex, allows other meanings to be derived from the word. For example sodomy also has been used to describe sex with an animal and the Sodomites in the Bible were also believed to have been pedophiles.
Sorry Iceman
You do know Sodomy refers to Oral sex too? Where does sodomy fit in between married hetro couples??
Even under ur definition of sodomy, which I'm presuming is anal sex, what do u say about a heterosexual couple who have anal sex?
Wrong from what standpoint Mayo4Sam? I've been told that religion shouldn't be part of the conversation. So I presented the scientific/biological dangers of sodomy. I challenged the other side of the discussion to address it but they have not. It has been discussed that Science cannot prove either way whether someone is conceived/born gay or murture has a bigger part to play. Yet most people are adamant gay people are born that way. Homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder until the end of the last century but you'll find no scientific evidence as to why it was removed. Tell me when has the scientific community ever "bent over" to a lobby?
From a religious/catholic teaching perspective if you are genuinely interested the teaching is the same as it's always been. Sex is for procreation - It must be open to life. It must be faithful - between a husband and wife. It must be consensual - it cannot be forced upon one party or the other.
So where do oral sex and hand jobs and all the rest fall in the catholic good sex/bad sex divide?
what does it matter J70 if you aren't Catholic?
Well, given that sodomy as a sin and non-procreative sexual activity appears to be one of your personal arguments against homosexuality, I think its germane to the discussion.
Part of debate and discussion is looking at inconsistencies and logical flaws.
So are blowjobs and handjobs ok?
Quote from: J70 on June 23, 2015, 12:41:41 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 06:17:09 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 22, 2015, 05:49:35 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 05:26:33 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on June 22, 2015, 12:18:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 07:25:13 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 07:12:16 PM
I'm not trying to kid anyone - I mean what I say. I have detest nor hatred for any person. I detest and hate sin. Adultery, domestic violence, sodomy.... and lots more.
I would argue that your intolerance is a bigger sin, but there you go.
Also, apparently the word 'sodomy' didn't appear in any original Jewish or Christian texts. Your deliberate and persistent use of the word, in place of gay sex, allows other meanings to be derived from the word. For example sodomy also has been used to describe sex with an animal and the Sodomites in the Bible were also believed to have been pedophiles.
Sorry Iceman
You do know Sodomy refers to Oral sex too? Where does sodomy fit in between married hetro couples??
Even under ur definition of sodomy, which I'm presuming is anal sex, what do u say about a heterosexual couple who have anal sex?
Wrong from what standpoint Mayo4Sam? I've been told that religion shouldn't be part of the conversation. So I presented the scientific/biological dangers of sodomy. I challenged the other side of the discussion to address it but they have not. It has been discussed that Science cannot prove either way whether someone is conceived/born gay or murture has a bigger part to play. Yet most people are adamant gay people are born that way. Homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder until the end of the last century but you'll find no scientific evidence as to why it was removed. Tell me when has the scientific community ever "bent over" to a lobby?
From a religious/catholic teaching perspective if you are genuinely interested the teaching is the same as it's always been. Sex is for procreation - It must be open to life. It must be faithful - between a husband and wife. It must be consensual - it cannot be forced upon one party or the other.
So where do oral sex and hand jobs and all the rest fall in the catholic good sex/bad sex divide?
what does it matter J70 if you aren't Catholic?
Well, given that sodomy as a sin and non-procreative sexual activity appears to be one of your personal arguments against homosexuality, I think its germane to the discussion.
Part of debate and discussion is looking at inconsistencies and logical flaws.
So are blowjobs and handjobs ok?
ask your priest
and I didnt say non-procreative sex was wrong I said the church teaches that sex should be open to life. contraception is not open to life and unless you have some intelligent swimmers up the ass or anywhere else isn't either.
Damm I thought I killed this thread with stupidity :P... no such luck >:(
I'll try boredom instead......
Iceman you usually come across as well thought and fair poster however what you said about gay people spreading AIDs is untrue and discraceful. Also your path at following the doctrines of the Catholic church will no doubt leave you bewildered and confused and it actually comes off as very puritanical and unlike how most Catholics apply them to their lives. Even the current pope commented on their conflicting nature. The word of Christ in the Gospels is the main message in the Catholic church.
Anyway for the craic I looked up the guidance on the contraception and sex etc and I was surprised to find that the withdrawal method ( know as coitus interruptus :D) is considered sinful. Cant get my head around why that's not allowed but the rhythm method is ok? Also J70 you will be pleased to know that you get blow jobs as long as it ends in intercourse, defo shouldn't finish with one, deliberately at least! But your wife will be even more pleased to know that she can get the compliment returned any time b4 or after sex...not sure how long b4 or after tho. Also I should stress that all of this is some theologians interpretation of the papal guidance, you could probably interpret it your own way as well if you wanted.
Also Iceman one of the main things that keeps the Catholic church sane and acceptable to so many different cultures is following and applying the doctrine to a cultures traditions, which can leave it open to interpretation fairly widely. I have noticed that the Catholic church in America seems a wee bit protestant of itself actually! Probably derived from the American puritan tradition which is the base point for ethics and principles in American life. So what I am saying is watch for following the doctrine blindly without applying your own thought and considering your own tradition as well. Quite frankly what I do in my own bedroom I won't be taking specific advise to the extent of the nonsense that I mentioned in the previous paragraph from anyone.
Also where does this carry on of praying for America's rampaging army fit in with Catholic church doctrine? They are very found of praying for them at mass which makes me distinctly uncomfortable and didn't JPII directly oppose the war in Iraq? Where does that leave the soldiers who are Catholic or where does it leave the soldiers in general? One central theme of the church is the sanctity of life and murder is the most grave of all sins so soldiers must be way further down your list of Catholics than gay people.
Not sure how this turned into the church debate again tho, I think J70 and Muppet goaded you into it Iceman and you took the bait despite your best intentions. ;)
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 10:56:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 22, 2015, 10:27:55 PM
Iceman, it is obvious you start with the dogma and try to make the facts fit.
You still misrepresent the consensus on homosexuality being a psychological disorder. There is no evidence that it is a disorder and there never was. In the absence of any evidence the claims that it is a disorder is simply evidence of prejudice, probably based on religious dogma. But you don't buy this because there are 'no new facts' as you put it. You ignore the fact that there were no facts to support it as a disorder in the first place.
Your scientific/biological list of reasons for your being against sodomy, consists mainly risks that are taken by those who engage in heterosexual sex. Are you against heterosexual sex for those same health risks?
Regarding UFC, it is pretty brutal, but I personally have no problem with it as the participants consent to it and are fully aware of the risks. Much the same as homosexuality.
As for AIDS, the stats in Africa don't suit your argument you will ignore them? And of course you will ignore the fact that more religious dogma is a huge part of the problem there, again because it doesn't suit your argument. AIDS is an STD, it doesn't discriminate how it gets transmitted. And btw more people die in car accidents and more again die of gunshots than are diagnosed with AIDS/HIV in the US due to 'sodomy'. Are you against automobiles and guns as well?
As for your proclamation the these men are not Catholics, you are entering Fearon territory here. Will you do as he does and claim to be full of empathy and humility, while demanding the excommunication of others YOU don't deem worthy?
Muppet I've engaged with you from a religious perspective and you refused to give it any merit. My opinion counts for nothing if I back it up with religion is the position you more or less gave to me.
So I gave you some physical effects of sodomy and they don't match up with the marital act as the female body is made to receive male fluid, the male rectum is not. It's for taking a shit out of. Putting something foreign in there causes mutations and cancers. But the scientific answers are not good enough for you either.
the UFC is one promotion that showcases MMA. fighters who partake in the sport are not defined by their passion for combat. I think its a foolish comparison to draw with sodomy, or cars or anything else you'd like to deflect the subject with.
I'm not venturing into Fearon land or Iceman land or any land other than Catholic land. I am not passing judgement on anyone - I'm giving you the truth of the Church. If someone sins, any sin, they are not in communion with the Catholic church until they receive forgiveness for that sin and make penance. Sin you regret and try to never do again, even though you may fall time and time again is different to choosing sodomy, with no regrets and making it the definition of who you are. These are not my rules - these are the rules of the Church. If you went to Catholic school at all you were taught this just as much as I was. If you say I am Catholic and there's a "but" then you're not Catholic. You are just culturally catholic, of catholic heritage, much like the Jews who never go to temple but once or twice a year...
every message is made up of content and delivery. Tony falls down in his delivery a do I but the content of the message remains the same....
Sodomy is wrong. I wont be forced to agree with it, accept it as good and normal or standard,
You are correct, I refuse to give the religious persecution of homosexuals any credence or merit whatsoever.
Saying an arse is for shit is NOT a scientific argument. That is as scientific as saying ears are for hearing, not holding up glasses.
I am not against UFC/MMA. But you need to recognise that it is violence for pleasure. It is no worse than 'sodomy' in that regard.
And finally, yes you are playing God, just like Fearon does. I believe that any God would be horrified at the persecution of a minority of His children. Remember He created them. Who the hell are you to demand they be punished? You now decree that they, and those of us who support them, should be banished from His Church. No doubt you would have felt the same way in Galileo's time.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 23, 2015, 06:37:59 AM
Damm I thought I killed this thread with stupidity :P... no such luck >:(
I'll try boredom instead......
Iceman you usually come across as well thought and fair poster however what you said about gay people spreading AIDs is untrue and discraceful. Also your path at following the doctrines of the Catholic church will no doubt leave you bewildered and confused and it actually comes off as very puritanical and unlike how most Catholics apply them to their lives. Even the current pope commented on their conflicting nature. The word of Christ in the Gospels is the main message in the Catholic church.
The good old irish shit sandwhich.... :) Something good, something shit, something good... :)
I'd ask you OmaghJoe to look at this objective link from the Center for Disease control in America. The country which I brought up in my comments: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html)
It is quite clear that the majority of new cases of aids is amoung gay men who have sex with other men. Tell me how my comments are untrue and better yet disgraceful??
Our Catholic faith is a puzzle. It requires constant work everyday to see Christ in people and reflect Him back. The word of Christ is the main message, but it's interpretation is not up to you or me. We are supposed to live out those words under the guidance of the Church/Holy Spirit. Just because thats not how you do it or most catholics do it doesn't mean the Church carries any less weight on the matter. Maybe it is puritan but I'll point you to a scripture reference that troubles me from Revelations 3:16 where Jesus says:
Because you are neither hot nor cold I will vomit you from my mouth. (Spit is the word used but the translation is more like vomit). The Pope has spoken at length about this verse and the danger of lukewarm catholics.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 23, 2015, 06:37:59 AM
Anyway for the craic I looked up the guidance on the contraception and sex etc and I was surprised to find that the withdrawal method ( know as coitus interruptus :D) is considered sinful. Cant get my head around why that's not allowed but the rhythm method is ok? Also J70 you will be pleased to know that you get blow jobs as long as it ends in intercourse, defo shouldn't finish with one, deliberately at least! But your wife will be even more pleased to know that she can get the compliment returned any time b4 or after sex...not sure how long b4 or after tho. Also I should stress that all of this is some theologians interpretation of the papal guidance, you could probably interpret it your own way as well if you wanted.
If you think about it the pulling out method is not open to life. There is no ejaculation inside your wife. The rhythm method is open to life. We have used it since we got married (Natural Family Planning) and we have 4 kids so far. And yes J70s needs can be met as long as they lead to unprotected intercourse and ejaculation in the marital act.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 23, 2015, 06:37:59 AM
Also Iceman one of the main things that keeps the Catholic church sane and acceptable to so many different cultures is following and applying the doctrine to a cultures traditions, which can leave it open to interpretation fairly widely. I have noticed that the Catholic church in America seems a wee bit protestant of itself actually! Probably derived from the American puritan tradition which is the base point for ethics and principles in American life. So what I am saying is watch for following the doctrine blindly without applying your own thought and considering your own tradition as well. Quite frankly what I do in my own bedroom I won't be taking specific advise to the extent of the nonsense that I mentioned in the previous paragraph from anyone.
I don't follow it blindly. It's an ongoing struggle to come to the truth. I have a good Wife and strong brothers to keep me accountable. Thanks for the concern :)
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 23, 2015, 06:37:59 AM
Also where does this carry on of praying for America's rampaging army fit in with Catholic church doctrine? They are very found of praying for them at mass which makes me distinctly uncomfortable and didn't JPII directly oppose the war in Iraq? Where does that leave the soldiers who are Catholic or where does it leave the soldiers in general? One central theme of the church is the sanctity of life and murder is the most grave of all sins so soldiers must be way further down your list of Catholics than gay people.
All part of the American propaganda machine I'm afraid. I don't agree with it. Or the reverence of the flag or the troops or anything of that hoorah BS
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 23, 2015, 06:37:59 AM
Not sure how this turned into the church debate again tho, I think J70 and Muppet goaded you into it Iceman and you took the bait despite your best intentions. ;)
Oh hook line and sinker :)
Quote from: muppet on June 23, 2015, 11:28:21 AM
And finally, yes you are playing God, just like Fearon does. I believe that any God would be horrified at the persecution of a minority of His children. Remember He created them. Who the hell are you to demand they be punished? You now decree that they, and those of us who support them, should be banished from His Church. No doubt you would have felt the same way in Galileo's time.
you'll find I didn't say any of that. You are demanding that a sin be made acceptable. I have simply relayed the teaching of the church on all sin and all sinners. Myself included. Nobody is banished from anything. It's the beauty of the Catholic Church. There is always an AND. We are all sinners AND there is no end to God's love and mercy. Even for you muppet.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 23, 2015, 03:50:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 23, 2015, 11:28:21 AM
And finally, yes you are playing God, just like Fearon does. I believe that any God would be horrified at the persecution of a minority of His children. Remember He created them. Who the hell are you to demand they be punished? You now decree that they, and those of us who support them, should be banished from His Church. No doubt you would have felt the same way in Galileo's time.
you'll find I didn't say any of that. You are demanding that a sin be made acceptable. I have simply relayed the teaching of the church on all sin and all sinners. Myself included. Nobody is banished from anything. It's the beauty of the Catholic Church. There is always an AND. We are all sinners AND there is no end to God's love and mercy. Even for you muppet.
This is what you said:
QuoteThese men are not Catholic. Some may identify themselves culturally as Catholics but they are not in communion with the Catholic Church by the very virtue of their lifestyle.
Whether or not you meant it, it sounds very Paisley-ite in its delivery.
As for whether or not it is a sin, the Church has tied itself up in knots on issues such as this for centuries (as do most churches). Some unknown dude writing stuff in 300BC isn't enough to persecute people for me. If you want to ban me from your club for that, then it is not a club I want to be part of.
Quote from: muppet on June 23, 2015, 07:04:44 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 23, 2015, 03:50:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 23, 2015, 11:28:21 AM
And finally, yes you are playing God, just like Fearon does. I believe that any God would be horrified at the persecution of a minority of His children. Remember He created them. Who the hell are you to demand they be punished? You now decree that they, and those of us who support them, should be banished from His Church. No doubt you would have felt the same way in Galileo's time.
you'll find I didn't say any of that. You are demanding that a sin be made acceptable. I have simply relayed the teaching of the church on all sin and all sinners. Myself included. Nobody is banished from anything. It's the beauty of the Catholic Church. There is always an AND. We are all sinners AND there is no end to God's love and mercy. Even for you muppet.
This is what you said: QuoteThese men are not Catholic. Some may identify themselves culturally as Catholics but they are not in communion with the Catholic Church by the very virtue of their lifestyle.
Whether or not you meant it, it sounds very Paisley-ite in its delivery.
As for whether or not it is a sin, the Church has tied itself up in knots on issues such as this for centuries (as do most churches). Some unknown dude writing stuff in 300BC isn't enough to persecute people for me. If you want to ban me from your club for that, then it is not a club I want to be part of.
I don't know how they are "persecuted"? It's a word you continue to use but yet I see no evidence of persecution by the Catholic Church.
The teachings on sodomy continued long after Jesus ascended into Heaven. And they are by Saint Paul - not a random dude. The Church is also the pillar and foundation of the truth and guided by the Holy Spirit continues to teach us that Sodomy is wrong.
I don't see following Jesus as a club. You're always welcome muppet regardless of what you've done or who you've bent over for. As long as you're genuinely seeking God,,,,,
Quote from: The Iceman on June 23, 2015, 07:42:11 PM
I don't see following Jesus as a club. You're always welcome muppet regardless of what you've done or who you've bent over for. As long as you're genuinely seeking God,,,,,
;D
Quote from: The Iceman on June 23, 2015, 07:42:11 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 23, 2015, 07:04:44 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 23, 2015, 03:50:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 23, 2015, 11:28:21 AM
And finally, yes you are playing God, just like Fearon does. I believe that any God would be horrified at the persecution of a minority of His children. Remember He created them. Who the hell are you to demand they be punished? You now decree that they, and those of us who support them, should be banished from His Church. No doubt you would have felt the same way in Galileo's time.
you'll find I didn't say any of that. You are demanding that a sin be made acceptable. I have simply relayed the teaching of the church on all sin and all sinners. Myself included. Nobody is banished from anything. It's the beauty of the Catholic Church. There is always an AND. We are all sinners AND there is no end to God's love and mercy. Even for you muppet.
This is what you said: QuoteThese men are not Catholic. Some may identify themselves culturally as Catholics but they are not in communion with the Catholic Church by the very virtue of their lifestyle.
Whether or not you meant it, it sounds very Paisley-ite in its delivery.
As for whether or not it is a sin, the Church has tied itself up in knots on issues such as this for centuries (as do most churches). Some unknown dude writing stuff in 300BC isn't enough to persecute people for me. If you want to ban me from your club for that, then it is not a club I want to be part of.
I don't know how they are "persecuted"? It's a word you continue to use but yet I see no evidence of persecution by the Catholic Church.
The teachings on sodomy continued long after Jesus ascended into Heaven. And they are by Saint Paul - not a random dude. The Church is also the pillar and foundation of the truth and guided by the Holy Spirit continues to teach us that Sodomy is wrong.
I don't see following Jesus as a club. You're always welcome muppet regardless of what you've done or who you've bent over for. As long as you're genuinely seeking God,,,,,
Thanks Ian.
But....
On one hand you deny homosexuals were persecuted by the church. On the other hand you claim the Church has been preaching sodomy is a filthy sin for 2,000 years.
But then on one hand you suggest homosexuality is a psychological disorder, while on the other you insist it is a choice.
Quote from: muppet on June 23, 2015, 09:46:27 PM
Thanks Ian.
But....
On one hand you deny homosexuals were persecuted by the church. On the other hand you claim the Church has been preaching sodomy is a filthy sin for 2,000 years.
But then on one hand you suggest homosexuality is a psychological disorder, while on the other you insist it is a choice.
It's a sin. It's always been a sin. It always will be a sin. You call it persecution, The Church treats it the same as all sin. The man with the mistress, the woman abusing her kids, the muppet spreading lies - the Church hates all sin. The Church loves all sinners and welcomes them back with open arms to seek God.
'
We all have choices. We can act out on our instincts or thoughts or whatever they are. We can cut off our dicks and become "women" or decide vagina's are not built for dicks and try arseholes instead, or 'black up' and be the president of the NCAAP or whatever you want to do. All choices. All completely normal in your world...completely alien in mine. And thats fine with me.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 23, 2015, 09:58:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 23, 2015, 09:46:27 PM
Thanks Ian.
But....
On one hand you deny homosexuals were persecuted by the church. On the other hand you claim the Church has been preaching sodomy is a filthy sin for 2,000 years.
But then on one hand you suggest homosexuality is a psychological disorder, while on the other you insist it is a choice.
It's a sin. It's always been a sin. It always will be a sin. You call it persecution, The Church treats it the same as all sin. The man with the mistress, the woman abusing her kids, the muppet spreading lies - the Church hates all sin. The Church loves all sinners and welcomes them back with open arms to seek God.
'
We all have choices. We can act out on our instincts or thoughts or whatever they are. We can cut off our dicks and become "women" or decide vagina's are not built for dicks and try arseholes instead, or 'black up' and be the president of the NCAAP or whatever you want to do. All choices. All completely normal in your world...completely alien in mine. And thats fine with me.
Who said it is a sin? I will ignore the other irrelevent comments as they are not about this topic.
Preaching that homosexual expressions of love is a 'sin' is persecution, no matter how you look at it. You can't have it both ways (presumably that would be a sin too ;D).
Quote from: muppet on June 25, 2015, 07:51:04 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 23, 2015, 09:58:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 23, 2015, 09:46:27 PM
Thanks Ian.
But....
On one hand you deny homosexuals were persecuted by the church. On the other hand you claim the Church has been preaching sodomy is a filthy sin for 2,000 years.
But then on one hand you suggest homosexuality is a psychological disorder, while on the other you insist it is a choice.
It's a sin. It's always been a sin. It always will be a sin. You call it persecution, The Church treats it the same as all sin. The man with the mistress, the woman abusing her kids, the muppet spreading lies - the Church hates all sin. The Church loves all sinners and welcomes them back with open arms to seek God.
'
We all have choices. We can act out on our instincts or thoughts or whatever they are. We can cut off our dicks and become "women" or decide vagina's are not built for dicks and try arseholes instead, or 'black up' and be the president of the NCAAP or whatever you want to do. All choices. All completely normal in your world...completely alien in mine. And thats fine with me.
Who said it is a sin? I will ignore the other irrelevent comments as they are not about this topic.
Preaching that homosexual expressions of love is a 'sin' is persecution, no matter how you look at it. You can't have it both ways (presumably that would be a sin too ;D).
The Church has every right to preach. The Church has every right to provide instructions, guidance and teaching to it's members.
Your use of words is artful to say the least Muppet. An expression of love.... Frank Kameny who received a standing ovation at the White House for his work for Gay Rights admitted to having over 7000 different sexual partners - all men. Thats a lot of love
Quote from: The Iceman on June 23, 2015, 01:08:57 AM
Quote from: J70 on June 23, 2015, 12:41:41 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 06:17:09 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 22, 2015, 05:49:35 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 22, 2015, 05:26:33 PM
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on June 22, 2015, 12:18:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 07:25:13 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 09, 2015, 07:12:16 PM
I'm not trying to kid anyone - I mean what I say. I have detest nor hatred for any person. I detest and hate sin. Adultery, domestic violence, sodomy.... and lots more.
I would argue that your intolerance is a bigger sin, but there you go.
Also, apparently the word 'sodomy' didn't appear in any original Jewish or Christian texts. Your deliberate and persistent use of the word, in place of gay sex, allows other meanings to be derived from the word. For example sodomy also has been used to describe sex with an animal and the Sodomites in the Bible were also believed to have been pedophiles.
Sorry Iceman
You do know Sodomy refers to Oral sex too? Where does sodomy fit in between married hetro couples??
Even under ur definition of sodomy, which I'm presuming is anal sex, what do u say about a heterosexual couple who have anal sex?
Wrong from what standpoint Mayo4Sam? I've been told that religion shouldn't be part of the conversation. So I presented the scientific/biological dangers of sodomy. I challenged the other side of the discussion to address it but they have not. It has been discussed that Science cannot prove either way whether someone is conceived/born gay or murture has a bigger part to play. Yet most people are adamant gay people are born that way. Homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder until the end of the last century but you'll find no scientific evidence as to why it was removed. Tell me when has the scientific community ever "bent over" to a lobby?
From a religious/catholic teaching perspective if you are genuinely interested the teaching is the same as it's always been. Sex is for procreation - It must be open to life. It must be faithful - between a husband and wife. It must be consensual - it cannot be forced upon one party or the other.
So where do oral sex and hand jobs and all the rest fall in the catholic good sex/bad sex divide?
what does it matter J70 if you aren't Catholic?
Well, given that sodomy as a sin and non-procreative sexual activity appears to be one of your personal arguments against homosexuality, I think its germane to the discussion.
Part of debate and discussion is looking at inconsistencies and logical flaws.
So are blowjobs and handjobs ok?
ask your priest
and I didnt say non-procreative sex was wrong I said the church teaches that sex should be open to life. contraception is not open to life and unless you have some intelligent swimmers up the ass or anywhere else isn't either.
Ok, that's clear. Blowjobs, hand jobs, heterosexual sodomy etc are don't meet church teachings because the sperm don't end up where they are supposed to.
Which means, presumably, that if one were to save or retrieve said sperm and relocate them to the vagina, then it's ok. So anal sex, with a condom, is doubly offensive, but save the sperm from the condom and place them in the vagina, and you've taken the sin off it?
Quote from: The Iceman on June 25, 2015, 08:25:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 25, 2015, 07:51:04 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 23, 2015, 09:58:17 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 23, 2015, 09:46:27 PM
Thanks Ian.
But....
On one hand you deny homosexuals were persecuted by the church. On the other hand you claim the Church has been preaching sodomy is a filthy sin for 2,000 years.
But then on one hand you suggest homosexuality is a psychological disorder, while on the other you insist it is a choice.
It's a sin. It's always been a sin. It always will be a sin. You call it persecution, The Church treats it the same as all sin. The man with the mistress, the woman abusing her kids, the muppet spreading lies - the Church hates all sin. The Church loves all sinners and welcomes them back with open arms to seek God.
'
We all have choices. We can act out on our instincts or thoughts or whatever they are. We can cut off our dicks and become "women" or decide vagina's are not built for dicks and try arseholes instead, or 'black up' and be the president of the NCAAP or whatever you want to do. All choices. All completely normal in your world...completely alien in mine. And thats fine with me.
Who said it is a sin? I will ignore the other irrelevent comments as they are not about this topic.
Preaching that homosexual expressions of love is a 'sin' is persecution, no matter how you look at it. You can't have it both ways (presumably that would be a sin too ;D).
The Church has every right to preach. The Church has every right to provide instructions, guidance and teaching to it's members.
Your use of words is artful to say the least Muppet. An expression of love.... Frank Kameny who received a standing ovation at the White House for his work for Gay Rights admitted to having over 7000 different sexual partners - all men. Thats a lot of love
No one said it didn't. It doesn't, however, have every right to persecute people that it sees as different.
As for Frank Kameny, so what?
The basis of this persecution seems to be is your insistence that a) it is a sin, and b) that sin must be stopped even if it means imposing YOUR will on others.
Here is the real world.
We are a tiny dot, on a minuscule planet, in a really small system, travelling around a sun, which is small compared to the hundreds of millions of other stars in the Milky Way, which of course is just one of hundreds of millions of galaxies, which if course is the limit of our knowledge of the universe, if indeed there is only one universe. But you reckon that the being that created all of this is worried that you might participate in sodomy and is holding out, fingers crossed that you won't?
marriage devaluation coming near you.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-can-marry-in-all-50-states/
Quote from: armaghniac on June 26, 2015, 03:15:19 PM
marriage devaluation coming near you.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-can-marry-in-all-50-states/
How will it devalue your marriage?
Quote from: armaghniac on June 26, 2015, 03:15:19 PM
marriage devaluation coming near you.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-can-marry-in-all-50-states/
Excellent news!
Just thinking. Since the US Supreme Court ruled earlier that corporations are people, does that mean that gay corporations can marry now?
Quote from: Oraisteach on June 26, 2015, 07:45:06 PM
Just thinking. Since the US Supreme Court ruled earlier that corporations are people, does that mean that gay corporations can marry now?
True.
My money is on the NRA marrying the Westboro Baptist Church.
Quote from: Oraisteach on June 26, 2015, 07:45:06 PM
Just thinking. Since the US Supreme Court ruled earlier that corporations are people, does that mean that gay corporations can marry now?
I heard somewhere that the court never actually made such a ruling, it was just some staffer who made a clerical error when recording what was said.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 27, 2015, 07:48:45 AM
Quote from: Oraisteach on June 26, 2015, 07:45:06 PM
Just thinking. Since the US Supreme Court ruled earlier that corporations are people, does that mean that gay corporations can marry now?
I heard somewhere that the court never actually made such a ruling, it was just some staffer who made a clerical error when recording what was said.
The concept of corporations "marrying" makes as much sense as two people of the same sex "marrying".
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/WireAP_9673b3bba0d9471ab228d8fc95beac7b_16x9_992.jpg)
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2015, 11:24:29 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 27, 2015, 07:48:45 AM
Quote from: Oraisteach on June 26, 2015, 07:45:06 PM
Just thinking. Since the US Supreme Court ruled earlier that corporations are people, does that mean that gay corporations can marry now?
I heard somewhere that the court never actually made such a ruling, it was just some staffer who made a clerical error when recording what was said.
The concept of corporations "marrying" makes as much sense as two people of the same sex "marrying".
You are barely keeping a lid on it. We can see it boiling away inside you.
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2015, 12:18:52 PM
Quote from: armaghniac link=topic=25487.msg1483140#msg148314
The concept of corporations "marrying" makes as much sense as two people of the same sex "marrying".
You are barely keeping a lid on it. We can see it boiling away inside you.
Perhaps a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2015, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2015, 12:18:52 PM
Quote from: armaghniac link=topic=25487.msg1483140#msg148314
The concept of corporations "marrying" makes as much sense as two people of the same sex "marrying".
You are barely keeping a lid on it. We can see it boiling away inside you.
Perhaps a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
In my world the pot and the kettle can marry.
Yours? ;D
I was joking, of course, Armaghniac. Just trying to point out the absurdity of treating corporations as people, and, no, the concept of corporations marrying is not an equivalency of people marrying. Though, I suppose, conglomerates are forever merging. Still, delighted at the Supreme Court's advancing civil rights. Pity, in light of the S Carolina shooting, that they can't do something about our lax gun laws.
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2015, 09:44:20 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2015, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2015, 12:18:52 PM
Quote from: armaghniac link=topic=25487.msg1483140#msg148314
The concept of corporations "marrying" makes as much sense as two people of the same sex "marrying".
You are barely keeping a lid on it. We can see it boiling away inside you.
Perhaps a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
In my world the pot and the kettle can marry.
Yours? ;D
I'd be very happy for a pot and kettle to marry. But I wouldn't consider two pots or two kettles as marriage.
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2015, 10:13:16 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2015, 09:44:20 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2015, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2015, 12:18:52 PM
Quote from: armaghniac link=topic=25487.msg1483140#msg148314
The concept of corporations "marrying" makes as much sense as two people of the same sex "marrying".
You are barely keeping a lid on it. We can see it boiling away inside you.
Perhaps a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
In my world the pot and the kettle can marry.
Yours? ;D
I'd be very happy for a pot and kettle to marry. But I wouldn't consider two pots or two kettles as marriage.
Don't tell Whitey, but they are all black!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-33799198
No same-sex here, we're British....Translink score an own goal, again...
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on August 06, 2015, 11:15:12 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-33799198
No same-sex here, we're British....Translink score an own goal, again...
I don't think this reflects badly on Translink at all. They can't control what their drivers say. It was one driver, and it seems like he was challenged by colleagues at the time and action is being taken. Not sure what else Translink could do.
Reiterate to all their employees the obligations Translink have to provide equality in their service to all customers?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34432701 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34432701)
A senior priest at the Vatican has revealed he is gay, on the eve of a major meeting that will define the Catholic Church's teaching on family.
Poland-born Krysztof Charamsa, 43, said he wanted to challenge the Church's "backwards" attitude to homosexuality.
Msgr Charamsa said he was in a relationship and was "happy and proud" of his identity.
The Vatican called his actions "very serious and irresponsible" and stripped him of doctrinal responsibilities.
Msgr Charamsa's statement came as bishops arrived in Rome for a synod that will discuss homosexuality, among other issues.
In an interview with the Corriere Della Sera, Msgr Charamsa, said: "It's time the Church opened its eyes and realised that offering gay believers total abstinence from a life of love is inhuman.
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2015, 07:02:48 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34432701 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34432701)
A senior priest at the Vatican has revealed he is gay, on the eve of a major meeting that will define the Catholic Church's teaching on family.
Poland-born Krysztof Charamsa, 43, said he wanted to challenge the Church's "backwards" attitude to homosexuality.
Msgr Charamsa said he was in a relationship and was "happy and proud" of his identity.
The Vatican called his actions "very serious and irresponsible" and stripped him of doctrinal responsibilities.
Msgr Charamsa's statement came as bishops arrived in Rome for a synod that will discuss homosexuality, among other issues.
In an interview with the Corriere Della Sera, Msgr Charamsa, said: "It's time the Church opened its eyes and realised that offering gay believers total abstinence from a life of love is inhuman.
WTF is he doing being a Catholic priest, he is a hypocrite!
If he is a homosexual he had no business entering the priesthood, it goes completely against Gods teachings, he entered the priesthood like so many others of his ilk, you cannot simply make up your own rules to justify your own wishes.
A gay rights movement within the Clergy. Would never have seen that one coming?
Quote from: stew on October 03, 2015, 08:23:05 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2015, 07:02:48 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34432701 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34432701)
A senior priest at the Vatican has revealed he is gay, on the eve of a major meeting that will define the Catholic Church's teaching on family.
Poland-born Krysztof Charamsa, 43, said he wanted to challenge the Church's "backwards" attitude to homosexuality.
Msgr Charamsa said he was in a relationship and was "happy and proud" of his identity.
The Vatican called his actions "very serious and irresponsible" and stripped him of doctrinal responsibilities.
Msgr Charamsa's statement came as bishops arrived in Rome for a synod that will discuss homosexuality, among other issues.
In an interview with the Corriere Della Sera, Msgr Charamsa, said: "It's time the Church opened its eyes and realised that offering gay believers total abstinence from a life of love is inhuman.
WTF is he doing being a Catholic priest, he is a hypocrite!
If he is a homosexual he had no business entering the priesthood, it goes completely against Gods teachings, he entered the priesthood like so many others of his ilk, you cannot simply make up your own rules to justify your own wishes.
God made him a homosexual, so in that regard I see no problem. However being in a relationship I can see difficulty with.
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2015, 08:43:51 PM
Quote from: stew on October 03, 2015, 08:23:05 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2015, 07:02:48 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34432701 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34432701)
A senior priest at the Vatican has revealed he is gay, on the eve of a major meeting that will define the Catholic Church's teaching on family.
Poland-born Krysztof Charamsa, 43, said he wanted to challenge the Church's "backwards" attitude to homosexuality.
Msgr Charamsa said he was in a relationship and was "happy and proud" of his identity.
The Vatican called his actions "very serious and irresponsible" and stripped him of doctrinal responsibilities.
Msgr Charamsa's statement came as bishops arrived in Rome for a synod that will discuss homosexuality, among other issues.
In an interview with the Corriere Della Sera, Msgr Charamsa, said: "It's time the Church opened its eyes and realised that offering gay believers total abstinence from a life of love is inhuman.
WTF is he doing being a Catholic priest, he is a hypocrite!
If he is a homosexual he had no business entering the priesthood, it goes completely against Gods teachings, he entered the priesthood like so many others of his ilk, you cannot simply make up your own rules to justify your own wishes.
God made him a homosexual, so in that regard I see no problem. However being in a relationship I can see difficulty with.
I have a problem with a man who lies and cheats his way into an important position in the Clergy, based on the Bible he knew he had no place in the Church but went ahead and made a living out of it, deceiving who knows who many Catholics in the process! This is just plain wrong.
Having a boyfriend and justifying having a boyfriend by using the Bible to me is disgraceful, we all fall short but FFS he is a homosexual and he knows full well what God thinks of a man laying down with another man!
Yet God made some men who are programmed to want to " lay down " with men.
Did God get it wrong then?
Quote from: Rossfan on October 03, 2015, 11:54:47 PM
Yet God made some men who are programmed to want to " lay down " with men.
Did God get it wrong then?
No no no God only does all the good things!!
Did Jesus condemn homosexuality?
Quote from: Rossfan on October 04, 2015, 12:05:05 AM
Did Jesus condemn homosexuality?
Yes! Does that answer your question?
Quote from: Rossfan on October 03, 2015, 11:54:47 PM
Yet God made some men who are programmed to want to " lay down " with men.
Did God get it wrong then?
[/quote
He gave us free will................. Not free Willy. :P
Quote from: Rossfan on October 03, 2015, 11:54:47 PM
Yet God made some men who are programmed to want to " lay down " with men.
Did God get it wrong then?
None of us are programmed? wtf you on about?
Quote from: screenexile on October 03, 2015, 11:57:22 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 03, 2015, 11:54:47 PM
Yet God made some men who are programmed to want to " lay down " with men.
Did God get it wrong then?
No no no God only does all the good things!!
Right up until that beatch Eve screwed the pooch and ate the apple!
Quote from: stew on October 03, 2015, 11:05:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2015, 08:43:51 PM
Quote from: stew on October 03, 2015, 08:23:05 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2015, 07:02:48 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34432701 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34432701)
A senior priest at the Vatican has revealed he is gay, on the eve of a major meeting that will define the Catholic Church's teaching on family.
Poland-born Krysztof Charamsa, 43, said he wanted to challenge the Church's "backwards" attitude to homosexuality.
Msgr Charamsa said he was in a relationship and was "happy and proud" of his identity.
The Vatican called his actions "very serious and irresponsible" and stripped him of doctrinal responsibilities.
Msgr Charamsa's statement came as bishops arrived in Rome for a synod that will discuss homosexuality, among other issues.
In an interview with the Corriere Della Sera, Msgr Charamsa, said: "It's time the Church opened its eyes and realised that offering gay believers total abstinence from a life of love is inhuman.
WTF is he doing being a Catholic priest, he is a hypocrite!
If he is a homosexual he had no business entering the priesthood, it goes completely against Gods teachings, he entered the priesthood like so many others of his ilk, you cannot simply make up your own rules to justify your own wishes.
God made him a homosexual, so in that regard I see no problem. However being in a relationship I can see difficulty with.
I have a problem with a man who lies and cheats his way into an important position in the Clergy, based on the Bible he knew he had no place in the Church but went ahead and made a living out of it, deceiving who knows who many Catholics in the process! This is just plain wrong.
Having a boyfriend and justifying having a boyfriend by using the Bible to me is disgraceful, we all fall short but FFS he is a homosexual and he knows full well what God thinks of a man laying down with another man!
Well even assuming God exists, we have no idea what he thinks. We only know what some lads thought of it several thousand years ago, in times when things like slavery were acceptable. Some of these lads also had problems with tattoos, prawns and mixed fabrics.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 04, 2015, 12:34:27 PM
Quote from: stew on October 04, 2015, 01:13:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 04, 2015, 12:05:05 AM
Did Jesus condemn homosexuality?
Yes! Does that answer your question?
Eh, he didn't.
Homosexuals activists are fond of arguing that Jesus never spoke a word against homosexuality. They are wrong.
For starters, Jesus condemned the sin of "sexual immorality," which is the English translation of the Greek word "porneia." (Our word "pornography" is derived from this word.) The Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon tells us that the meaning of this term is not restricted to what we quaintly call "fornication" but instead refers to "sexual sin of a general kind, that includes many different behaviors."
For instance, in Mark 7:21, Jesus says, "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery," etc. The word translated "sexual immorality" (porneiai) here is in the plural in Greek, illustrating what the lexicons tell us, that it porneia is a generic word for sex outside the bounds of natural marriage, whatever form it may take. Paul, for instance, uses porneia to condemn an incestuous relationship in 1 Corinthians 5:1.
In its earliest and original sense, porneia referred specifically to prostitution, of both the female and male kind. Thus from the beginning, even before being expanded in range, it was a term that included illicit sex whether of the heterosexual or homosexual kind. Demosthenes, for example, used porneia to refer to homosexuality centuries before Christ.
Other literary products of Judaism (e.g., the Testament of Benjamin, Testament of Levi, Testament of Naphtali, and Jubilees) during the period between the Testaments (from 400 BC to the time of Christ) also use porneia to refer to the sin of sodomy.
Jude uses the verb form of porneia quite explicitly to refer to homosexuality when he connects the word to the behavior of Sodom and Gomorrah. "...[J]ust as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire..." (Jude 7).
So porneia, while it can be used in a narrower sense to refer to fornication, when used in a general sense it refers to every kind of illicit sexual intercourse, every kind of sexual intercourse outside the marriage relationship between one man and one woman. Homosexuality is included.
So when Jesus condemned "sexual immorality," and "porneia" is the word used in the biblical text, he was condemning every form of sex outside marriage, including that of the homosexual variety.
Further, and just as importantly, Jesus himself also spoke directly against homosexuality through his apostles.
Paul was the most direct, unambiguous and explicit in condemning homosexual behavior, in places such as Romans 1:26-27 ("dishonorable, contrary to nature, shameless"), 1 Corinthians 6:9 (a sin that will keep one out of the kingdom of God, just like cheating in business), and 1 Timothy 1:10 (behavior that is the proper subject of the law, just like murder and the slave trade).
But, folks will argue, these are the words of Paul, not Christ. This, however, begs the question. Where did Paul get this teaching? Where did he get his message? Who taught him the things he preserved in writing in his epistles?
He tells us quite directly in Galatians 1:11-12. "For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."
Paul goes on to make it clear that he could not have learned his gospel from the early apostles such as Peter since he only saw Peter once for about two weeks, three years after his conversion, and then didn't see any of the other apostles at all for another 14 years.
No, Paul's gospel - his message about Christ, God and the spiritual life - is a message he received directly from Jesus himself.
An apostle of Jesus Christ was quite literally "one sent" by Jesus Christ. He was someone selected, authorized, commissioned, and sent on assignment by Christ himself. Thus when Paul speaks as an apostle, Christ is speaking through him. He is speaking with not only the authority of Christ but with the very words of Christ.
Paul as an apostle was serving almost precisely in the role of an ambassador. An ambassador does not represent himself; he represents the one who sent him. And when the one who sent him gives him a message to deliver, he delivers that message faithfully in exact detail.
An ambassador is not a freelancer who thinks and speaks for himself. He is there to faithfully speak on behalf of the one who appointed him, to represent his interests, and to deliver his message.
Bottom line: Jesus rejected homosexuality in words that came from his own lips and with words he spoke through Paul, his chosen ambassador. We may not like what Paul said about homosexuality, but let's drop the nonsense that he wasn't speaking for Christ when he said it.
"You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD. 22'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23'Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion"
Quote from: stew on October 04, 2015, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 04, 2015, 12:34:27 PM
Quote from: stew on October 04, 2015, 01:13:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 04, 2015, 12:05:05 AM
Did Jesus condemn homosexuality?
Yes! Does that answer your question?
Eh, he didn't.
Homosexuals activists are fond of arguing that Jesus never spoke a word against homosexuality. They are wrong.
For starters, Jesus condemned the sin of "sexual immorality," which is the English translation of the Greek word "porneia." (Our word "pornography" is derived from this word.) The Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon tells us that the meaning of this term is not restricted to what we quaintly call "fornication" but instead refers to "sexual sin of a general kind, that includes many different behaviors."
For instance, in Mark 7:21, Jesus says, "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery," etc. The word translated "sexual immorality" (porneiai) here is in the plural in Greek, illustrating what the lexicons tell us, that it porneia is a generic word for sex outside the bounds of natural marriage, whatever form it may take. Paul, for instance, uses porneia to condemn an incestuous relationship in 1 Corinthians 5:1.
In its earliest and original sense, porneia referred specifically to prostitution, of both the female and male kind. Thus from the beginning, even before being expanded in range, it was a term that included illicit sex whether of the heterosexual or homosexual kind. Demosthenes, for example, used porneia to refer to homosexuality centuries before Christ.
Other literary products of Judaism (e.g., the Testament of Benjamin, Testament of Levi, Testament of Naphtali, and Jubilees) during the period between the Testaments (from 400 BC to the time of Christ) also use porneia to refer to the sin of sodomy.
Jude uses the verb form of porneia quite explicitly to refer to homosexuality when he connects the word to the behavior of Sodom and Gomorrah. "...[J]ust as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire..." (Jude 7).
So porneia, while it can be used in a narrower sense to refer to fornication, when used in a general sense it refers to every kind of illicit sexual intercourse, every kind of sexual intercourse outside the marriage relationship between one man and one woman. Homosexuality is included.
So when Jesus condemned "sexual immorality," and "porneia" is the word used in the biblical text, he was condemning every form of sex outside marriage, including that of the homosexual variety.
Further, and just as importantly, Jesus himself also spoke directly against homosexuality through his apostles.
Paul was the most direct, unambiguous and explicit in condemning homosexual behavior, in places such as Romans 1:26-27 ("dishonorable, contrary to nature, shameless"), 1 Corinthians 6:9 (a sin that will keep one out of the kingdom of God, just like cheating in business), and 1 Timothy 1:10 (behavior that is the proper subject of the law, just like murder and the slave trade).
But, folks will argue, these are the words of Paul, not Christ. This, however, begs the question. Where did Paul get this teaching? Where did he get his message? Who taught him the things he preserved in writing in his epistles?
He tells us quite directly in Galatians 1:11-12. "For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."
Paul goes on to make it clear that he could not have learned his gospel from the early apostles such as Peter since he only saw Peter once for about two weeks, three years after his conversion, and then didn't see any of the other apostles at all for another 14 years.
No, Paul's gospel - his message about Christ, God and the spiritual life - is a message he received directly from Jesus himself.
An apostle of Jesus Christ was quite literally "one sent" by Jesus Christ. He was someone selected, authorized, commissioned, and sent on assignment by Christ himself. Thus when Paul speaks as an apostle, Christ is speaking through him. He is speaking with not only the authority of Christ but with the very words of Christ.
Paul as an apostle was serving almost precisely in the role of an ambassador. An ambassador does not represent himself; he represents the one who sent him. And when the one who sent him gives him a message to deliver, he delivers that message faithfully in exact detail.
An ambassador is not a freelancer who thinks and speaks for himself. He is there to faithfully speak on behalf of the one who appointed him, to represent his interests, and to deliver his message.
Bottom line: Jesus rejected homosexuality in words that came from his own lips and with words he spoke through Paul, his chosen ambassador. We may not like what Paul said about homosexuality, but let's drop the nonsense that he wasn't speaking for Christ when he said it.
Could I get a source for the above extract Stew? Or is it your own work?
So porneia, while it can be used in a narrower sense to refer to fornication, when used in a general sense it refers to every kind of illicit sexual intercourse, every kind of sexual intercourse outside the marriage relationship between one man and one woman. Homosexuality is included.
So when Jesus condemned "sexual immorality," and "porneia" is the word used in the biblical text, he was condemning every form of sex outside marriage, including that of the homosexual variety.
I'm particularly interested in the scholarship that came up with this gem - admitting that word had a narrower sense - "fornication" - then asserting, without evidence that he was speaking in a general sense.
The closest you can get to with this is maybe he did and maybe he didn't.
And as for the Paul argument, to accept that you have to accept Paul's word that he was inspired by supernatural revelation - hard enough for atheists and agnostics. Remember the original question was did Jesus condemn homophobia, not whether he inspired Paul to do so.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think it is probably likely that a 30 year old Jewish male at the time could have expressed homophobic sentiments, but he wasn't just any 30 year old Jewish male, was he?
Whatever the answer, it is certainly not "Yes he did condemn homosexuality".
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 04, 2015, 01:31:19 PM
So porneia, while it can be used in a narrower sense to refer to fornication, when used in a general sense it refers to every kind of illicit sexual intercourse, every kind of sexual intercourse outside the marriage relationship between one man and one woman. Homosexuality is included.
So when Jesus condemned "sexual immorality," and "porneia" is the word used in the biblical text, he was condemning every form of sex outside marriage, including that of the homosexual variety.
I'm particularly interested in the scholarship that came up with this gem - admitting that word had a narrower sense - "fornication" - then asserting, without evidence that he was speaking in a general sense.
The closest you can get to with this is maybe he did and maybe he didn't.
And as for the Paul argument, to accept that you have to accept Paul's word that he was inspired by supernatural revelation - hard enough for atheists and agnostics. Remember the original question was did Jesus condemn homophobia, not whether he inspired Paul to do so.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think it is probably likely that a 30 year old Jewish male at the time could have expressed homophobic sentiments, but he wasn't just any 30 year old Jewish male, was he?
Whatever the answer, it is certainly not "Yes he did condemn homosexuality".
Ever hear of the Holy Trinity?
take a gander at Leviticus once and get back to me, if Jesus is God then he most assuredly condemned the homosexual act, since it was stated that it was an abomination in the eyes of God and the son never once deviated from the word of the father now did he?
Oh ok, so once again the argument is from faith. Cool, if that is what you believe. Just as long as you are not saying that the historical figure Jesus (who was a man as well as divine) ever specifically condemned homosexuality, because there is no recorded example of that.
Some great copying and pasting going on here.
Quote from: stew on October 04, 2015, 01:55:27 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 04, 2015, 01:31:19 PM
So porneia, while it can be used in a narrower sense to refer to fornication, when used in a general sense it refers to every kind of illicit sexual intercourse, every kind of sexual intercourse outside the marriage relationship between one man and one woman. Homosexuality is included.
So when Jesus condemned "sexual immorality," and "porneia" is the word used in the biblical text, he was condemning every form of sex outside marriage, including that of the homosexual variety.
I'm particularly interested in the scholarship that came up with this gem - admitting that word had a narrower sense - "fornication" - then asserting, without evidence that he was speaking in a general sense.
The closest you can get to with this is maybe he did and maybe he didn't.
And as for the Paul argument, to accept that you have to accept Paul's word that he was inspired by supernatural revelation - hard enough for atheists and agnostics. Remember the original question was did Jesus condemn homophobia, not whether he inspired Paul to do so.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think it is probably likely that a 30 year old Jewish male at the time could have expressed homophobic sentiments, but he wasn't just any 30 year old Jewish male, was he?
Whatever the answer, it is certainly not "Yes he did condemn homosexuality".
Ever hear of the Holy Trinity?
take a gander at Leviticus once and get back to me, if Jesus is God then he most assuredly condemned the homosexual act, since it was stated that it was an abomination in the eyes of God and the son never once deviated from the word of the father now did he?
Isn't that the same general area of the bible that refers to tattoos, prawns, and mixed fabric clothing? Do you hold the same opinion on these matters? All abominations?
And Leviticus predates JC by a few centuries. So still nothing pointing to JC condemning homosexuality.
Following on from the referendum, senator David Norris recommends gay cousins should be able to marry, no effect on the gene pool. Was it not for the whole Israeli controversy this lad could have been president. >:(
Interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845)
Quote from: nrico2006 on January 29, 2016, 11:07:24 AM
Interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845)
It really is interesting!! I thought they have basically the same rights through "Common Law Marriage".
On the face of it the case above appears fundamentally flawed. I presume Civil Partnership was brought in because Same Sex couples couldn't get married and allowed the couple certain rights under the law that weren't covered. Now that they are allowed to marry then either Civil Partnership should be abolished or they should grant Civil Partnership for heterosexual couples. This one will rumble on to the High Court I should think!
Quote from: screenexile on January 29, 2016, 11:22:04 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on January 29, 2016, 11:07:24 AM
Interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845)
It really is interesting!! I thought they have basically the same rights through "Common Law Marriage".
On the face of it the case above appears fundamentally flawed. I presume Civil Partnership was brought in because Same Sex couples couldn't get married and allowed the couple certain rights under the law that weren't covered. Now that they are allowed to marry then either Civil Partnership should be abolished or they should grant Civil Partnership for heterosexual couples. This one will rumble on to the High Court I should think!
It'll rumble on because they are a pair of self-righteous morons. The government's position is eminently reasonable (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/19/heterosexual-couple-challenges-civil-partnership-restrictions): "In 2013 parliament decided in extending marriage to same-sex couples not, for the time being, to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. A decision has also been taken by the government to wait a period of time to see how extending marriage to same-sex couples impacts upon civil partnerships before reaching a final decision on the future of civil partnerships, and has decided that it is not necessary to undertake the costly and complex exercise of extending civil partnerships in the interim where they may be abolished or phased out in a few years." Complete waste of time.
Quote from: deiseach on January 29, 2016, 11:28:06 AM
Quote from: screenexile on January 29, 2016, 11:22:04 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on January 29, 2016, 11:07:24 AM
Interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845)
It really is interesting!! I thought they have basically the same rights through "Common Law Marriage".
On the face of it the case above appears fundamentally flawed. I presume Civil Partnership was brought in because Same Sex couples couldn't get married and allowed the couple certain rights under the law that weren't covered. Now that they are allowed to marry then either Civil Partnership should be abolished or they should grant Civil Partnership for heterosexual couples. This one will rumble on to the High Court I should think!
It'll rumble on because they are a pair of self-righteous morons. The government's position is eminently reasonable (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/19/heterosexual-couple-challenges-civil-partnership-restrictions): "In 2013 parliament decided in extending marriage to same-sex couples not, for the time being, to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. A decision has also been taken by the government to wait a period of time to see how extending marriage to same-sex couples impacts upon civil partnerships before reaching a final decision on the future of civil partnerships, and has decided that it is not necessary to undertake the costly and complex exercise of extending civil partnerships in the interim where they may be abolished or phased out in a few years." Complete waste of time.
I think this is hilarious partly because it was inevitable that some planks would do it but what really set me off was this
QuoteMs Steinfeld, 34, and Mr Keidan, 39, said they wanted to commit to each other in a civil partnership as it "focuses on equality" and did not carry the patriarchal history and associations of marriage.
Australia vote Yes
Quote7,817,247 people - or 61.6 per cent - voted 'yes'.
4,873,987 people - or 38.4 per cent - voted 'no'.
Good for the Ozzies. Pretty emphatic endorsement too. Wonder what the breakdown by age is?
Don't think those breakdowns are out yet.
Still has to be approved by the government but looks like it will be done for Christmas.
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on November 15, 2017, 05:46:36 PM
Don't think those breakdowns are out yet.
Still has to be approved by the government but looks like it will be done for Christmas.
Camp
as by Christmas?
Broken down by age and sex - supply your own punchline.
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on November 14, 2017, 11:11:24 PM
Australia vote Yes
Quote7,817,247 people - or 61.6 per cent - voted 'yes'.
4,873,987 people - or 38.4 per cent - voted 'no'.
Kind of, it wasn't a vote, or a referendum per se. It was a postal survey of the electorate.
It still needs legislation to pass, and a Prime Minister hanging by his fingertips because of another issue (that you really couldn't make up).
Great scenes of joy throughout the country, hopefully nothing gets in the way of this passing through.
For all our flaws our referendum system is a good way of dealing with societal changes like marriage and abortion. Australia like the US and other places could have passed the laws without consulting the electorate. In that sense it infuriated both sides for differing reasons, whereas we never have that issue.
A lot of people very hot under collars about that amendment we passed back round 1973 or so.
The so called marriage of two men in Dublin,simply to avoid inheritance tax, is the most stark example yet of the abomination that is gay marriage and demeaning of a sacred institution.😡
Yeah because you'd never get an opposite sex couple doing something like that ::)
Plenty of heterosexual people demean marriage too.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 24, 2017, 12:27:31 PM
The so called marriage of two men in Dublin,simply to avoid inheritance tax, is the most stark example yet of the abomination that is gay marriage and demeaning of a sacred institution.😡
Tax is not sacred
Quote from: T Fearon on December 24, 2017, 12:27:31 PM
The so called marriage of two men in Dublin,simply to avoid inheritance tax, is the most stark example yet of the abomination that is gay marriage and demeaning of a sacred institution.😡
Is that one of your jokes or your actual opinion? Hard to know with you Tony
Quote from: T Fearon on December 24, 2017, 12:27:31 PM
The so called marriage of two men in Dublin,simply to avoid inheritance tax, is the most stark example yet of the abomination that is gay marriage and demeaning of a sacred institution.😡
Civil marriage isn't Sacred ;)
A marital union,not based on unconditional love involving a male and female,and not sanctioned by God in a religious service,is an act of blasphemy in my opinion.
No one gives a f**k about your opinion.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 24, 2017, 06:04:56 PM
A marital union,not based on unconditional love involving a male and female,and not sanctioned by God in a religious service,is an act of blasphemy in my opinion.
Bah Humbug......
Quote from: T Fearon on December 24, 2017, 06:04:56 PM
A marital union,not based on unconditional love involving a male and female,and not sanctioned by God in a religious service,is an act of blasphemy in my opinion.
Does it not have to be blessed by one holy roman ketlic service?
Quote from: T Fearon on December 24, 2017, 06:04:56 PM
A marital union,not based on unconditional love involving a male and female,and not sanctioned by God in a religious service,is an act of blasphemy in my opinion.
What if it is based on unconditional love but not sanctioned by god in a religious service?
What if it isn't unconditional love but it is sanctioned by god in a religious service?
So many permutations for you to make up rules for. Maybe draw out a wee matrix to make sure you cover all bases ;D
Quote from: T Fearon on December 24, 2017, 06:04:56 PM
A marital union,not based on unconditional love involving a male and female,and not sanctioned by God in a religious service,is an act of blasphemy in my opinion.
I'm sure all transgressors will be smote by a bolt of lightning.
So are diverse opinions not worthy of respect? Yes I accept without reservation the Catholic Church's ruling on marriage.
Diverse opinions are fine. Your last statement isn't very clear. It is hard to tell if it is the lack of unconditional love or the sanctioned by god bit causes you issues.
Both are essential to a real and genuine marriage as per the sacramental marriage of the Church
So marriage outside a church is blasphemous gay or straight. Got you.
Gay marriage bad
Marriage not in church bad
Conditional love marriage bad
What does that make any marriage outside the catholic church? What are the boundaries on it.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 24, 2017, 06:04:56 PM
A marital union,not based on unconditional love involving a male and female,and not sanctioned by God in a religious service,is an act of blasphemy in my opinion.
I got legally married in Belfast City Hall and there wasn't a word about God (bad or good) in the ceremony, therefore there is no chance it could fit the definition of blasphemy.
Legal according to the laws of the land,but not in the eyes of God,sadly.Before anyone starts,I didn't make God's laws.
Let me get this straight. In your opinion not Catholic married is not married. As it has to be sacred?
Really loving others as your Lord and savior loved you there Tony. Merry Christmas...
We weren't sure if our state marriage was really blasphemous enough. So we walked down the aisle to this, just to make sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiIA188QnIk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiIA188QnIk)
Heganboy,Jesus' love is not unconditional,it does not extend to tolerating sin
I had to get married in City Hall as I was having a Catholic wedding in France, and in that (historically Catholic) country, they have separated the civil and religious elements. You cannot be legally married in a church there. Civilly everyone is on the same footing until you choose to make the religious commitment. And I think that's a better way to have a Catholic (or any religious) wedding.
Yes.No problem with that.There was a religious wedding
There you go - it has Tony's blessing. 8)
Quote from: T Fearon on December 24, 2017, 11:01:30 PM
Heganboy,Jesus' love is not unconditional,it does not extend to tolerating sin
Who was the telling you?
Pretty sure it's limitless according to others...
Why then did he come to save sinners,if anything goes and God's love continues regardless no matter what anyone does (murder,rape etc)? The core principle of Christianity is birth,life,death and judgement.No need for judgement if God's love is unconditional
Don't your Presbyterian mates have some doctrine that people are already saved or damned on advance so it doesn't matter what sort of life you live?
Quote from: T Fearon on December 25, 2017, 08:59:39 AM
Why then did he come to save sinners,if anything goes and God's love continues regardless no matter what anyone does (murder,rape etc)? The core principle of Christianity is birth,life,death and judgement.No need for judgement if God's love is unconditional
How can God do the sports results if she keeps on getting interrupted with judgements ?
Only thing I believe is there is a God and he ain't Tony Fearon. So won't be needing his spiritual guidance on a website. Thanks all the same...
It stands to sense if anything goes and God's love is unconditional there would have been no need for Jesus to assume human form to save sinners,or confession or end of life judgement
Quote from: Rossfan on December 25, 2017, 09:26:44 AM
Don't your Presbyterian mates have some doctrine that people are already saved or damned on advance so it doesn't matter what sort of life you live?
Yes but they can be saved for the next world by spending their time in this world living in Ballymena
Instead of cynicism explain why Jesus came to save sinners and underwent a horrible death if anything goes and God's love is unconditional?
Go & make your Xmas dinner.
I have paid household staff to do that for me.👍
Quote from: Rois on December 24, 2017, 07:40:03 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 24, 2017, 06:04:56 PM
A marital union,not based on unconditional love involving a male and female,and not sanctioned by God in a religious service,is an act of blasphemy in my opinion.
I got legally married in Belfast City Hall and there wasn't a word about God (bad or good) in the ceremony, therefore there is no chance it could fit the definition of blasphemy.
I did the same & it's pretty legal, even in a timewarped hellhole like Northern Ireland. Plus, I just happened to get the seal of approval from Gerry Adams (of all people) on the day, so there was a much higher authority involved. All good then.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 25, 2017, 12:48:37 PM
I have paid household staff to do that for me.👍
We all know that you inhabit some sort of parallel universe, but even the Russians emancipated the serfs as long ago as 1861.
At least he's paying them😊
So he says. Wonder has he heard of the national minimum wage, or is it mere pocket money for the plebs?
I'm sure as a committed Christian he will no doubt pay top rates "Do unto others. ...."
Good man Tony.
Putting the 'fun' into fundamentalist
Quote from: T Fearon on December 25, 2017, 11:41:44 AM
Instead of cynicism explain why Jesus came to save sinners and underwent a horrible death if anything goes and God's love is unconditional?
Because the author of the storybook wrote it as that.
God only uses shampoo. Unconditioner.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 25, 2017, 10:46:17 AM
It stands to sense if anything goes and God's love is unconditional there would have been no need for Jesus to assume human form to save sinners,or confession or end of life judgement
No part of the whole story "stands to sense" other than the "some bloke two thousand years ago had a lot of intelligent things to say how people should treat each other with respect"
Yes but why was he here,if not to save sinners from a very bad eternal destiny?
Even on Christmas Day this lad can't stop himself from trolling..
As Mud sang:
Oh it'll be lonely this Christmas,
Without you to troll.
Or Slade
"does your granny always tell ya
That the old songs are the best
Then she up and rock and trolling with the rest"
Quote from: T Fearon on December 25, 2017, 08:53:15 PM
Yes but why was he here,if not to save sinners from a very bad eternal destiny?
Why was who here? The sense talker from Judea two thousand years ago?
Literally no one ever, human or otherwise, has ever been on this planet "to save sinners from a very bad eternal destiny".
Humans are on this planet because their parents pro created and the child survived.
"Sinners" = made up concept
"Eternal destiny" see above.
Love on another. - inspirational genius. In point of fact if you consider the 4 "approved" biographies of the man, Jesus repeatedly points out that the "great commandment" to love one's neighbor as oneself crosses all ethnic and religious barriers, Samaritan ring any bells?
Maybe you should brush up on your reading.
QuoteIn his ministry, Jesus crossed many social barriers as well, mingling with the tax collector, the adulterer, and the prostitute. He warned critics to remember their own imperfections before condemning others and invited those who were wholly without sin to cast the first stone of condemnation. The great commandment is not to judge one's neighbor, for judgment is God's alone, but to love one's neighbor.
Maybe you should give some of the love you reserve for the 1960s British and your former Portadown neighbours, and bestow it upon those who have found love with someone of the same sex.
Yes love for one's neighbour is one of his commands.But it still does not condone any sins your neighbour might commit.
But the big question is and remains why ultimately was he here,why did he make commands like this,why his death and resurrection....if not to urge people to turn away from sin and repent in preparation for eternity and warn of the dire consequences of failing to do so?
If God was happy clappy and loves everyone no matter what they do,there would have been no need for his Son to come to Earth.
So of all of the quite literally infinite possibilities, you're going with:
The entity that created this and all other universes "God" for your purposes decides that of all the life forms in this and all other universes the one that needs "saving" (not guidance btw) is homo sapiens on Earth 2000 years ago.
Not only that but that this all powerful all knowing one decides not only that these humans need saving but that he is going to create a special one who is actually his son to do the job. This infinite being creates his billionth human and whispers to him in the womb saying you are my son, has him born into poverty, where he stays, trains him as a carpenter, communicates with said human regularly, sends him to the desert, has him killed by an occupying force to save your immortal soul, of and only if you believe this story.
Oh and 3days later says never mind, let's go again, raises the poor corpse from the dead, has him do a few months more public appearances, and low and behold has him in his corporeal state fly straight upwards to do a magic trick to announce he has gone to some unspecified piece of sky. Maybe Voyager one will pass the body at some point, or that of the mother, who also did the fly into the sky trick. Was it a one arm Superman bound, incredible hulk type leap? What specifically are the arm movements for ascending?
Your big thought exercise, if I understand you correctly, has brought you to your big question. In reaction to this stupendous (but uncorroborated scientifically) set of circumstances, is not to ponder our place in the universe but rather your big question is
Quote. Why was he here, why did he make commands like this,why his death and resurrection.
And not only that, your conclusion is that the rather finite and prone to error brains that were given to us 4000 years ago on the 6th day by the aforementioned infinite one were, 2000 years ago, one hundred percent cent correct with their guess. Not only that but how could it possibly be anything other than
Quoteto urge people to turn away from sin and repent in preparation for eternity and warn of the dire consequences of failing to do so?
Are you really saying as per your post, that no other reason could possibly enter your mind, and you are convinced you are correct on this? I would say that the thought exercise involved here is more than a little tenuous, but you do present some supporting evidence, don't you. You do state that the reason for your complete and utter belief is none other than
Quote.
If God was happy clappy and loves everyone no matter what they do,there would have been no need for his Son to come to Earth
I must say with such clarity of vision, and such a logical and emotionally clear set of steps through the process, it is hard for me to figure why their could be any unbelievers out there.
Maybe you could answer a question for me with that same insight and clarity?
How long do you think he (if we're going gender specific on our deities/infinite entities) decides the first lad didn't do a great job of getting the message through, and it might be time to try another approach?
To sum up,I believe the earth was ultimately God's creation.Science increasingly explains how but not why.Some things are simply beyond logic and human understanding.
I like billions of others believe a man died on a cross and then rose from the dead,something no other man or woman has done,and is therefore for me proof of God's existence.
Everyday proof is provided by miracle cures defying all expert medical opinion,ability of priests only to perform exorcisms etc.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2017, 05:32:13 AM
To sum up,I believe the earth was ultimately God's creation.Science increasingly explains how but not why.Some things are simply beyond logic and human understanding.
I like billions of others believe a man died on a cross and then rose from the dead,something no other man or woman has done,and is therefore for me proof of God's existence.
Everyday proof is provided by miracle cures defying all expert medical opinion,ability of priests only to perform exorcisms etc.
when was the last time a priest performed an exorcism
It might not therefore be a huge stretch to believe that the God that you believe in, who sent his son to die so that others may live eternal life with him, that told his followers to love one another, who is often characterized as the God of love. It might not be a stretch to say that God may approve of two of his followers finding some of that love on this Earth he created. And maybe, just maybe that two humans finding love might actually be a sign that they are following your God's teachings very closely. Celebrating that acceptance of love in their hearts and committing to each other that love in the same fashion as other followers in their local area with a religious ceremony may just may be a sign that they are followers of those teachings.
And surely encouraging and supporting fellow believers would also be following the over arching tenets of the belief system ? And that perhaps you, as a very fallible human telling other followers which of the followers practices are unacceptable in the eyes (wait he has eyes?) of God and his son might actually be contrary to those very teachings.
I am more than ever aware that my understanding of the universe and of life itself is sorely limited. I do not understand how those Christians who believe in a God of Love can resolve how they hold so much anger that their fellow human beings would want to get married and at the same time have that sit well with rest of the teachings they follow.
A wedding in Jewish law (not tradition, law) is a very simple thing, gift is given and accepted, words of acquisition and consecration are said. And Voila- married. Ani L'Dodi V'Dodi Li.
I Belong to My Beloved and My Beloved Belongs to Me.
How hard can it be to allow yourself to say that my God might be ok with this, and maybe I should be too?
Quote from: heganboy on December 27, 2017, 02:03:16 PM
It might not therefore be a huge stretch to believe that the God that you believe in, who sent his son to die so that others may live eternal life with him, that told his followers to love one another, who is often characterized as the God of love. It might not be a stretch to say that God may approve of two of his followers finding some of that love on this Earth he created. And maybe, just maybe that two humans finding love might actually be a sign that they are following your God's teachings very closely. Celebrating that acceptance of love in their hearts and committing to each other that love in the same fashion as other followers in their local area with a religious ceremony may just may be a sign that they are followers of those teachings.
And surely encouraging and supporting fellow believers would also be following the over arching tenets of the belief system ? And that perhaps you, as a very fallible human telling other followers which of the followers practices are unacceptable in the eyes (wait he has eyes?) of God and his son might actually be contrary to those very teachings.
I am more than ever aware that my understanding of the universe and of life itself is sorely limited. I do not understand how those Christians who believe in a God of Love can resolve how they hold so much anger that their fellow human beings would want to get married and at the same time have that sit well with rest of the teachings they follow.
A wedding in Jewish law (not tradition, law) is a very simple thing, gift is given and accepted, words of acquisition and consecration are said. And Voila- married. Ani L'Dodi V'Dodi Li.
I Belong to My Beloved and My Beloved Belongs to Me.
How hard can it be to allow yourself to say that my God might be ok with this, and maybe I should be too?
A good post for Christmas, heganboy.
Quote from: tonto1888 on December 27, 2017, 01:33:46 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2017, 05:32:13 AM
To sum up,I believe the earth was ultimately God's creation.Science increasingly explains how but not why.Some things are simply beyond logic and human understanding.
I like billions of others believe a man died on a cross and then rose from the dead,something no other man or woman has done,and is therefore for me proof of God's existence.
Everyday proof is provided by miracle cures defying all expert medical opinion,ability of priests only to perform exorcisms etc.
when was the last time a priest performed an exorcism
I have a friend we call The Exorcist. Every time he comes to the house all the spirits disappear.
It is not hard to understand that sin is punishable and mortal sin unatoned for will lead to eternal damnation.God is not a happy clappy God of unconditional love.Jesus died for sinners not for the righteous.
Talking out yer arse should qualify for eternal damnation.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2017, 05:58:33 PM
It is not hard to understand that sin is punishable and mortal sin unatoned for will lead to eternal damnation.God is not a happy clappy God of unconditional love.Jesus died for sinners not for the righteous.
I beg to differ.
I think that the concept is ridiculously difficult to understand.
Starting with your concepts of sin, mortal sin, atonement, punishment and eternal damnation. Not a simple concept among them, and more so, the absolutism of your unquestioning belief in your naive and uneducated interpretation is stunning.
Adding to this your conviction of your concept not only the nature of God, but your interpretation of the mood of the infinite being, and the your insight into why his son temporarily died is breathtaking in it's arrogance.
That's not faith, that is radical fundamentalism. Your unwillingness to discuss in anything other than absolutes or engage in any dialogue other than saying "it's not hard to understand" or "if not then why" or "it stands to sense" is not a great reflection on your faith or humanity.
And of all the threads in that post, that you chose sin and punishment as the one to respond to is a pretty damning insight.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2017, 05:58:33 PM
It is not hard to understand that sin is punishable and mortal sin unatoned for will lead to eternal damnation.God is not a happy clappy God of unconditional love.Jesus died for sinners not for the righteous.
And who/what defines a sin
Right.Simple question.Do you think Ian Brady,Brendan Smyth,Jimmy Savile etc are in heaven.
I believe in Catholic Church Catechism which is scripture based.This decrees that judgement follows physical death and the destination of hell for those who have committed mortal sin and not repented.This concept of end of life judgement is shared by all protestant churches too.
I see no point in Jesus' mission on earth even from a common sense perspective other than to get people to believe in God and repent.If we are all heaven bound regardless what was the point of Jesus being on earth?
Did Jesus ever say that homosexual sex was a Sin?
Scripture makes it clear it is.God also made Adam for Eve not Adam for Steve
https://www.tms.edu/preachersandpreaching/jesus-never-address-homosexuality/
QuoteScripture makes it clear it is.God also made Adam for Eve not Adam for Steve
You could be confusing religion for reality ... who are you, or I, to dictate what love means to another person, based on a man-written script or book. We've simply no right to do so.
Tony, you are trying to have a primary school level debate by assuming parameters which are in no way agreed to by the other party.
To which scripture do you selectively adhere, and which are you now declaring infallible? On what basis?
Let's be clear that you have no idea what Jesus did on Earth, and even less clue as to his motives or mission. The fact that you continue to push hard the fact that there could be no other reason for something that (may or may not have) happened 2000 odd years ago other than your given explanation is absolutist fundamentalism.
Repent? You are now at the Evangelical model, and not the model of the Catholic Church to which you claim adherence.
Why do you think an infinite being needs people to believe in him? Self validation? Vanity? Stock price?
And your last comment is puerile at best.
There no exclusivity in there.
And by the way your catechism allows for an either or interpretation, which side do you favor?
Quote. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).
Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2017, 11:01:25 PM
Scripture makes it clear it is.God also made Adam for Eve not Adam for Steve
Does it?
Anywhere in the New Testament which for Christians supercedes anything in the Old one.
The Catholic Church teaches very clearly in its catechism that commission of mortal sin and failure to repent and seek forgiveness means that soul is bound for hell.
Apart from anything else common sense tells me judgement will follow death,and that Jesus came to earth solely to save sinners (otherwise what was the point?)
I accept I may be totally wrong in my beliefs along with billions of others,in which case I have lost nothing anyway.On the other hand if I happen to be right........
Quote. Apart from anything else common sense tells me judgement will follow death,and that Jesus came to earth solely to save sinners (otherwise what was the point?)
Whatever or whomever is telling you this may be many many things, but, please apologize to common sense for bringing that into that debacle of a sentence.
Again with the "otherwise what was the point?" Are you really saying that your entire belief system is for naught if there was any other secondary reason for Jesus' presence on Earth other than solely and only to save sinners?
Again, that has no reflection in Catholic teaching.
I think it was the Redemptorist Fathers or something which ran a mission in our parish years ago and they flatly rejected the fire-and-brimstone judgmental god that Tony's espousing. Their message was the god of unconditional love. Tony mustn't have gotten any memos from them. I wonder if he's been sneaking into Prod churches and getting persuaded by their ideas.
https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-did-jesus-teach-about-hell/
I will stick with Jesus' teaching,which is also Catholic (and Protestant) teaching on hell.It could not be clearer.Now delude yourselves and invent your own happy clappy God if you so desire.
Your source is a Presbyterian pastor in Pennsylvania.
Mine is Pope Pius encyclical and the opinion of which is Nihil Obstat.
Quote. NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Not to say that you aren't entitled to finding obscure pastors to back up your own personal non Catholic fundamentalism or indeed that they all aren't making it up about this God and Jesus the son thing. However if you're saying that the rules for the game are the Catholic Church, isn't it about time you realized that the moral indignant positions you espouse and the self righteousness are incorrect according to the faith you profess, and not only that, your position on Jesus' presence on Earth is actually heresy?
In fairness though you would be exempt from excommunication from the Catholic Church on the first clause of the "causae excusantes".
You really accept you may be wrong in your beliefs? But yet you hold them up against billions of others, so maybe accept is the wring word. Billions are wrong on a daily basis. And I know of no religion that sanctions your peculiar interpretation of scripture and catechism which you have now christened common sense.
I hear it is very popular for folks of a certain age born in Armagh to start their own religions when they can't find one sufficiently tuned to their needs. Might I suggest the Bob Jones University for a quick PhD to get you going? Going back to the thread (I keep trying) i should warn you that the hate filled save ulster from Sodomy thing has been done already.
The pastor uses examples from the gospel on Jesus' own descriptions of hell.All Christian faiths are scripture based! My views are simply informed by the catechism of the Catholic Church,which clearly the highly unattractive location of hell is the destiny of all unrepentant sinners or non believers.
This is not fundamentalism,it is the basic tenet of all Christian faith,informed by the words of Jesus himself,that at the end of life comes judgement.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/UpBHfIzWEejFS/giphy.gif)
Tony,
let me be very clear, your views as expressed in this thread are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church and its catechism. You may indeed clearly call yourself a christian, indeed, a fundamentalist christian but those views are simply not catholic.
now we have established that, I go back to my earlier point, surely you can just let two human beings fall in love, be happy, commit to each other and not tell them they are going to hell due to another public example of your (mis) interpretation of the teachings of a religion you profess to follow.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-hell-there-is
Catholic doctrine assuredly contains hell.
It is not for me to judge any individual but scripture is clear that homosexuality is sinful and therefore Christians must call it out.
I dont know why the moderators allow Fearon this outlet for his bile - it is this sort of rhetoric has led young gay people into depression and towards suicide and that is a fact. Nothing Christian or loving in this fundamentalism - is nasty and hate filled.
I don't understand why anyone would care what a fool like Fearon or the child abuse protector organisation he follows think about their sexuality. In fact I for one haven't gone near a church for a decade and still manage to be a decent human without some man in a frock telling me how to be one.
Unfortunately being a decent human being without faith will not get you to heaven,according to scripture.
There are far too many people wishing hell away and expecting churches to tolerate sinfulness under the guise of misplaced compassion.
They cannot act in defiance of scripture.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 09:22:40 AM
Unfortunately being a decent human being without faith will not get you to heaven,according to scripture.
You obviously believe being an arsehole with faith will though....
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 09:22:40 AM
Unfortunately being a decent human being without faith will not get you to heaven,according to scripture.
There are far too many people wishing hell away and expecting churches to tolerate sinfulness under the guise of misplaced compassion.
They cannot act in defiance of scripture.
If there is a heaven and it is reserved for the likes of you I'd prefer to take my chances elsewhere.
Gay rights campaigner Andrew Muir on similar fundamentalist homophobia from Ian Paisley jnr, "Our research proves that 29% of young people have actually attempted suicide because of homophobia in society and I think these comments are very concerning".
This is not religious fundamentalism or a crusade against gays.Does pointing out that murder is wrong traumatise murderers? Should we desist from drawing attention to stealing being a sin to preserve the mental health of thieves and robbers?
Christians believe homosexuality is sinful it does not condone any abuse of homosexuals.
Quote from: longballin on December 28, 2017, 10:17:08 AM
Gay rights campaigner Andrew Muir on similar fundamentalist homophobia from Ian Paisley jnr, "Our research proves that 29% of young people have actually attempted suicide because of homophobia in society and I think these comments are very concerning".
Sorry, 29% of young people have attempted suicide because of homophobia?? Are you are about that stat?? What defines a "young person"? Do the figures include heterosexual young people?? Sounds like bollocks to me.
Quote from: AQMP on December 28, 2017, 11:09:42 AM
Quote from: longballin on December 28, 2017, 10:17:08 AM
Gay rights campaigner Andrew Muir on similar fundamentalist homophobia from Ian Paisley jnr, "Our research proves that 29% of young people have actually attempted suicide because of homophobia in society and I think these comments are very concerning".
Sorry, 29% of young people have attempted suicide because of homophobia?? Are you are about that stat?? What defines a "young person"? Do the figures include heterosexual young people?? Sounds like bollocks to me.
Careful now AQMP, you could be labelled as a homophobe
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 09:22:40 AM
Unfortunately being a decent human being without faith will not get you to heaven,according to scripture.
There are far too many people wishing hell away and expecting churches to tolerate sinfulness under the guise of misplaced compassion.
They cannot act in defiance of scripture.
What about tribes in the Amazon who have never encountered civilisation and have no idea about the bible or God etc? I mean, them boys have no chance if that's the setup.
- You're not getting into heaven, amazon boy.
Why not?
- You didn't have faith.
But I was a good lad.
- That's not enough.
Ah for Jaysus sake!
Hardly fair that, is it?
Quote from: AQMP on December 28, 2017, 11:09:42 AM
Quote from: longballin on December 28, 2017, 10:17:08 AM
Gay rights campaigner Andrew Muir on similar fundamentalist homophobia from Ian Paisley jnr, "Our research proves that 29% of young people have actually attempted suicide because of homophobia in society and I think these comments are very concerning".
Sorry, 29% of young people have attempted suicide because of homophobia?? Are you are about that stat?? What defines a "young person"? Do the figures include heterosexual young people?? Sounds like bollocks to me.
Well it would if you dont want to hear it - is loads of research done... http://theconversation.com/why-do-so-many-gay-and-bisexual-men-die-from-suicide-78587
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 11:08:14 AM
This is not religious fundamentalism or a crusade against gays.Does pointing out that murder is wrong traumatise murderers? Should we desist from drawing attention to stealing being a sin to preserve the mental health of thieves and robbers?
Christians believe homosexuality is sinful it does not condone any abuse of homosexuals.
so now youre putting gays in with murderers and thieves?
By the way, I'm Christian and I certainly do not believe that homosexuality is a sin
I don't agree that the level of homophobia exists that the article alludes to or states -especially in a country like Canada where everything and anything goes.
There is a parade in every major city in the developed world celebrating gay pride. There are gay characters in every tv show there is lgbtq officers in every workforce promoting acceptance - it's the new great "cause"...so I disagree that the homophobia is causing suicide....
I would argue that struggling with their own sexuality causes suicide....I would argue gay men going through 100s and 1000s of partners in their lifetime and still not being satisfied or still feeling alone and empty and lost is what is causing suicide.
I know there are many gay men who settle down with one life time partner but that is not the norm. Most gay men are extremely promiscuous and this study is about gay men and the suicide rates are highest among young gay men. It's worth considering that these rates remain high, despite the pride celebrated around the world, despite the equality, despite the freedom of expression, because gay men are still struggling with being gay themselves.
It's an easy way out for anyone in the argument to throw the homophobia defense and think they've solved it all...
Quote from: The Iceman on December 28, 2017, 04:27:24 PM
I don't agree that the level of homophobia exists that the article alludes to or states -especially in a country like Canada where everything and anything goes.
There is a parade in every major city in the developed world celebrating gay pride. There are gay characters in every tv show there is lgbtq officers in every workforce promoting acceptance - it's the new great "cause"...so I disagree that the homophobia is causing suicide....
I would argue that struggling with their own sexuality causes suicide....I would argue gay men going through 100s and 1000s of partners in their lifetime and still not being satisfied or still feeling alone and empty and lost is what is causing suicide.
I know there are many gay men who settle down with one life time partner but that is not the norm. Most gay men are extremely promiscuous and this study is about gay men and the suicide rates are highest among young gay men. It's worth considering that these rates remain high, despite the pride celebrated around the world, despite the equality, despite the freedom of expression, because gay men are still struggling with being gay themselves.
It's an easy way out for anyone in the argument to throw the homophobia defense and think they've solved it all...
is loads of other articles and evidence but if people refuse to believe it... if you think a few parades make everything ok you are very niaive or in denial. as for the other homophobic comment highlighted...
It seems to me that LBGT community has more rights protection than Christians these days.Homophobia is clamped down on more firmly than racism,sectarianism etc.
They have little to complain about
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 04:40:28 PM
It seems to me that LBGT community has more rights protection than Christians these days.Homophobia is clamped down on more firmly than racism,sectarianism etc.
They have little to complain about
it should be clamped down on including on this Board as well
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 04:40:28 PM
It seems to me that LBGT community has more rights protection than Christians these days.Homophobia is clamped down on more firmly than racism,sectarianism etc.
They have little to complain about
are you serious?
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 07:22:31 AM
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-hell-there-is
Catholic doctrine assuredly contains hell.
It is not for me to judge any individual but scripture is clear that homosexuality is sinful and therefore Christians must call it out.
Then who??
I usually wouldn't comment in these kinda threads, but that bit in bold is off the scales, and a little scary tbh. Blind faith in any religion (all complete works of fiction imo) has caused incalculable death and destruction through the ages and continues to do so in the name of [insert the god of your choosing].. Absolute lunacy
Well in my lifetime alone,we have seen prosecution of consenting adults for engaging in homosexual activity evolve into full legitimate gay marriage with full rights including adoption of children etc,full employment rights.Gay Pride parades attract thousands of participants (so much for fear of coming out) and are now triumphalist to the extent that they match any Orange parade.Last year even the Taoiseach confidently put on a public show of support at the Belfast Gay Pride Parade.Homosexuals are no longer lampooned on tv as figures of fun in sitcoms or the butt of stand up comedians' jokes,as was the case in the 70s.It does seem to me that any even tenuous incident of homophobia is responded to immediately by the Police.The LGBT community has numerous well known lobbyists,more than any other so called marginalised group.
Politicians,celebrities,sports people come out easily ( I remember the shock and horror when the world found out Rock Hudson was homosexual,only at his death from AIDS).
I seriously do not know what else they want?
Quote from: JoG2 on December 28, 2017, 05:35:00 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 07:22:31 AM
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-hell-there-is
Catholic doctrine assuredly contains hell.
It is not for me to judge any individual but scripture is clear that homosexuality is sinful and therefore Christians must call it out.
Then who??
I usually wouldn't comment in these kinda threads, but that bit in bold is off the scales, and a little scary tbh. Blind faith in any religion (all complete works of fiction imo) has caused incalculable death and destruction through the ages and continues to do so in the name of [insert the god of your choosing].. Absolute lunacy
Firstly I do not have blind faith in any religion.I find it reasonable enough to believe that a supreme being was ultimately responsible for creation,and see no reason for this temporary life other than a journey in preparation for eternity.Again it is reasonable enough to believe that Jesus came on earth to save sinners and point the way to heaven for all,and that he rose from the dead (the ultimate proof of God's existence)
I will not be instigating any acts of violence of any form on anyone for religious reasons,and neither will millions of others.This is contrary to my religious beliefs
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 05:38:21 PM
Well in my lifetime alone,we have seen prosecution of consenting adults for engaging in homosexual activity evolve into full legitimate gay marriage with full rights including adoption of children etc,full employment rights.Gay Pride parades attract thousands of participants (so much for fear of coming out) and are now triumphalist to the extent that they match any Orange parade.Last year even the Taoiseach confidently put on a public show of support at the Belfast Gay Pride Parade.Homosexuals are no longer lampooned on tv as figures of fun in sitcoms or the butt of stand up comedians' jokes,as was the case in the 70s.It does seem to me that any even tenuous incident of homophobia is responded to immediately by the Police.The LGBT community has numerous well known lobbyists,more than any other so called marginalised group.
Politicians,celebrities,sports people come out easily ( I remember the shock and horror when the world found out Rock Hudson was homosexual,only at his death from AIDS).
I seriously do not know what else they want?
Oh for the good old days, eh?
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 05:39:54 AM
https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-did-jesus-teach-about-hell/
I will stick with Jesus' teaching,which is also Catholic (and Protestant) teaching on hell.It could not be clearer.Now delude yourselves and invent your own happy clappy God if you so desire.
Your rejection of the middle man means you must have switched teams, Tony. This is very Protestantesque what you're espousing here. I never thought I'd see the day when Tony would reject catholic teaching.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 11:08:14 AM
This is not religious fundamentalism or a crusade against gays.
It's precisely what it is and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
Yawn.I have already presented official catholic doctrine on the subject and said I acccept it entirely
and straight from the DUP fundamentalist hymn book... Iris, Ian og, Tony...
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 06:46:06 PM
Yawn.I have already presented official catholic doctrine on the subject and said I acccept it entirely
You accept catholic doctrine on gays but you reject it on universal salvation. How convenient. What about contraception? Do you go bareback or do you throw on a joe bag regardless of what Father Whatever rants and raves about it at the weekend?
Sorry,belief in heaven and hell is not fundamentalist,it is shared by the main Protestant denominations (Anglican,Methodist and Presbyterian) and as I've shown,by the Catholic Church.Jesus,as has been shown earlier in this thread,confirmed on many occasions the existence of hell.I was taught almost from the day I started primary school, that mortal sin unrepented,would lead to hell.
But if you all don't believe this why are you so agitated?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 28, 2017, 07:37:55 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 06:46:06 PM
Yawn.I have already presented official catholic doctrine on the subject and said I acccept it entirely
You accept catholic doctrine on gays but you reject it on universal salvation. How convenient. What about contraception? Do you go bareback or do you throw on a joe bag regardless of what Father Whatever rants and raves about it at the weekend?
:D ah now Tony wouldn't be a hypocrite
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 05:38:21 PM
Well in my lifetime alone,we have seen prosecution of consenting adults for engaging in homosexual activity evolve into full legitimate gay marriage with full rights including adoption of children etc,full employment rights.Gay Pride parades attract thousands of participants (so much for fear of coming out) and are now triumphalist to the extent that they match any Orange parade.Last year even the Taoiseach confidently put on a public show of support at the Belfast Gay Pride Parade.Homosexuals are no longer lampooned on tv as figures of fun in sitcoms or the butt of stand up comedians' jokes,as was the case in the 70s.It does seem to me that any even tenuous incident of homophobia is responded to immediately by the Police.The LGBT community has numerous well known lobbyists,more than any other so called marginalised group.
Politicians,celebrities,sports people come out easily ( I remember the shock and horror when the world found out Rock Hudson was homosexual,only at his death from AIDS).
I seriously do not know what else they want?
would you listen to yourself.
Come out easily? How many of these politicians celebrities, sports stars have come out easy? How do you know? How many gay people do you know? I know a few and they haven't come out easily, in fact I know a couple of gay people of each sex who have been disowned by their family but aye, that's coming out easy
It's bloody harder coming out as a totally deranged fundamentalist Catholic. Let's have a Catholic Pride Day.
Well the gay pride parade is thronged annually with the participants over hyping dare I say,their sexuality.Listen over the last few months even I've seen on facebook many gay ceremony celebrations,of people and families I know,at which both families are there dressed up to the nines as if it was a conventional wedding.One in particular amazed me as I knew the family background and deeply religious nature of this family.
At this stage I simply shake my head and am beyond being surprised by anything now.
If you're not surprised at it, stop talking about it.
maybe they ain't bigots like you Tony and have unconditional love for their family members
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 08:08:18 PM
Well the gay pride parade is thronged annually with the participants over hyping dare I say,their sexuality.Listen over the last few months even I've seen on facebook many gay ceremony celebrations,of people and families I know,at which both families are there dressed up to the nines as if it was a conventional wedding.One in particular amazed me as I knew the family background and deeply religious nature of this family.
At this stage I simply shake my head and am beyond being surprised by anything now.
How dare they overhype their sexuality
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 06:46:06 PM
Yawn.I have already presented official catholic doctrine on the subject and said I acccept it entirely
Shocking to no no one of course, but you actually did nothing of the sort. You posted a statement which is either blasphemous or heresy depending on the motivation of the individual, and blatantly contradicted Catholic catechism, but carry on...
Do you use contraception, Tony? Or do you not need to because you wouldn't have enough in you to stick a stamp?
I posted official Catholic doctrine on hell,which based on scripture states that mortal sin unrepented leads to hell.Reading through the comments here you'd think I was actually responsible for this doctrine
Do you use contraception, Tony?
Jesus Mary and Joseph you'll go to hell for that one :-[ suggesting Tony may be an ala carte Catholic
Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2017, 10:41:36 PM
I posted official Catholic doctrine on hell,which based on scripture states that mortal sin unrepented leads to hell.Reading through the comments here you'd think I was actually responsible for this doctrine
No, you didn't. In fairness it was like expecting a 7 year old with a paper plane to expound on angle of attack and Bernoulli and stall planes.
With a map you couldn't find official Catholic doctrine, and with Google you couldn't explain it, but, no matter, carry on offending left right and centre...
I'm sure your parish is delighted by how well you have clung to the indoctrination of confirmation.
Best of luck with the heresy defence. I'm sure all the other non Catholics are rooting for you
Hows that a la carte thing going?
It is simple.I googled catholic doctrine on hell and posted it.
Surely you are not going to ignore facts? Only the blindingly stupid do that.I agree with the late Pope John Paul II,priests should have the courage to preach more frequently about hell.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-hell-there-is
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire.' The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs" (CCC 1035).
Heganboy read this as many times as you need.
So you believe anyone who uses contraceptives will go to hell?
What and why the obsession with contraceptives on this thread?????
Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2017, 08:20:04 AM
What and why the obsession with contraceptives on this thread?????
because there is an interest to see have you an ala carte Catholic menu or just support the rules that suit your anti-gay agenda. You keep dodging the question.. Hell for using contraceptives - Yes or no?
Years ago, a relative of mine went to a Protestant friend's wedding, happened to tell her priest (I'm not sure why, but anyway...) and he told her it was a mortal sin entering a Protestant church. Her friend happened to tell her priest and he didn't bat an eyelid.
Kinda sums the whole thing up really.
I know of a priest, now deceased, who asked the congregation had any of them ever murdered anyone. Of course no takers. Then he asked, has anyone used contraceptives because if you have you have committed murder! :P
Quite a lot of Catholics believe Protestants are hell bound and vice Versa for following fatally flawed doctrine.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2017, 02:02:35 PM
Quite a lot of Catholics believe Protestants are hell bound and vice Versa for following fatally flawed doctrine.
so what's the story on contraceptives? Hell or the high road? Need to know basis...
In all matters I follow the teachings of the Church.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2017, 02:29:03 PM
In all matters I follow the teachings of the Church.
I'm not interested in what you do... I want to know does using contraceptives lead to going to hell... like you say is the penno for gay activity
Mortal sin leads to hell.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2017, 02:58:04 PM
Mortal sin leads to hell.
Thanks Tony... anyone want to buy a box on condoms? :o
It simple really.Believers will generally avoid serious sin and always repent,and their daily lives will be a mission to win salvation.
Non believers won't.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2017, 02:02:35 PM
Quite a lot of Catholics believe Protestants are hell bound and vice Versa for following fatally flawed doctrine.
Well - something has to give there then. Or, maybe the whole lot of them will end up there. ....even better.
From that deep thinker, Fr McGuire...
"And what about not eating meat on Fridays? How come that's Ok now but it wasn't back then? Did people who ate meat on Fridays back then all go to hell or what? I mean, it's mad".
There are two Bible passages that refer to embracing a life of poverty. The first is found in the Gospel of Luke where Jesus teaches that those who wish to follow Him should dispose of their personal property. The second is found in the Acts of the Apostles where it is revealed that the early Christians did not claim private ownership of any possessions, but rather, shared everything in common.
"A certain ruler asked him, 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus said to him, 'Why doyou call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.' He replied, 'I have kept all these since my youth.' When Jesus heard this, he said to him, 'There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me. Jesus looked at him and said, 'How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!'" [Lk. 18:18-23]
"Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need." [Acts 4:32-5]
So - how come there are churches, especially in the vatican, covered in gold and housing priceless paintings? Is it true even the pope is not a proper Christian ignoring the bible in this way.
The Pope doesn't own any of it though.
Quote from: Rossfan on December 29, 2017, 04:28:12 PM
The Pope doesn't own any of it though.
All run by the totally corrupt Vatican banking setup?
Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2017, 02:29:03 PM
In all matters I follow the teachings of the Church.
Including contraception?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 29, 2017, 07:07:54 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2017, 02:29:03 PM
In all matters I follow the teachings of the Church.
Including contraception?
I am not sure what the campaign is here Eamonn? You seem very interested in Tony's sex life...
Nobody said being Catholic was about being a saint..it's recognizing you're a sinner and trying to fix that...by following Jesus.
Being Catholic doesn't mean you don't sin. We're among the biggest sinners because if you take your faith seriously you know the gravity of your actions and omissions.
Following Church teaching sometimes means going against popular opinion. Listening to a priest's personal opinion on a church teaching does not change the teaching. The Church continues on despite your hatred for it, despite Tony's misunderstanding of it, despite rogue clergy, despite popular opinion, despite corrupt bishops and popes, despite it all....it continues on....
I think the reason you hate God so much is you don't like the competition...
I think we need a rule prohibiting posters demanding information on the nature of other poster's marital relations.
I certainly have no interest in Tonys private life... was asking the doctrine on contraceptives - hell or highway?
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 29, 2017, 04:36:01 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 29, 2017, 04:28:12 PM
The Pope doesn't own any of it though.
All run by the totally corrupt Vatican banking setup?
My point is the bible is clearly calling for followers to be rid of their wealth. Just wondering how is it that Catholic church doesn't call this out or why Tony never mentions it. After all it's very hard for a rich man to get to heaven. It maybe Tony just picks the bits that suit his own homophobic bias?
If the private lives of other people isn't fair game then we might as well lock up this thread and ban all future discussion of gay matters.
Quote from: Itchy on December 29, 2017, 09:20:39 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 29, 2017, 04:36:01 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 29, 2017, 04:28:12 PM
The Pope doesn't own any of it though.
All run by the totally corrupt Vatican banking setup?
My point is the bible is clearly calling for followers to be rid of their wealth. Just wondering how is it that Catholic church doesn't call this out or why Tony never mentions it. After all it's very hard for a rich man to get to heaven. It maybe Tony just picks the bits that suit his own homophobic bias?
I always considered the rich man not getting into heaven thing patronising. It's a bit like...don't you worry wee peasant. Sure you're crawling on your belly in this life, but don't worry because youll get into heaven no problem, unlike thon moneybags neighbour of yours. He's going straight to hell. So cheer up, count your blessings, and be grateful you're a piss poor peasant.
f**k right off.
Quote from: Rossfan on December 29, 2017, 04:28:12 PM
The Pope doesn't own any of it though.
Is it okay for the church to own it?
Quote from: BennyCake on December 29, 2017, 09:54:38 PM
Quote from: Itchy on December 29, 2017, 09:20:39 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 29, 2017, 04:36:01 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 29, 2017, 04:28:12 PM
The Pope doesn't own any of it though.
All run by the totally corrupt Vatican banking setup?
My point is the bible is clearly calling for followers to be rid of their wealth. Just wondering how is it that Catholic church doesn't call this out or why Tony never mentions it. After all it's very hard for a rich man to get to heaven. It maybe Tony just picks the bits that suit his own homophobic bias?
I always considered the rich man not getting into heaven thing patronising. It's a bit like...don't you worry wee peasant. Sure you're crawling on your belly in this life, but don't worry because youll get into heaven no problem, unlike thon moneybags neighbour of yours. He's going straight to hell. So cheer up, count your blessings, and be grateful you're a piss poor peasant.
f**k right off.
So does the Bible promote Socialism or reinforce Capitalism?
Quote from: mrdeeds on December 29, 2017, 10:00:21 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 29, 2017, 09:54:38 PM
Quote from: Itchy on December 29, 2017, 09:20:39 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 29, 2017, 04:36:01 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 29, 2017, 04:28:12 PM
The Pope doesn't own any of it though.
All run by the totally corrupt Vatican banking setup?
My point is the bible is clearly calling for followers to be rid of their wealth. Just wondering how is it that Catholic church doesn't call this out or why Tony never mentions it. After all it's very hard for a rich man to get to heaven. It maybe Tony just picks the bits that suit his own homophobic bias?
I always considered the rich man not getting into heaven thing patronising. It's a bit like...don't you worry wee peasant. Sure you're crawling on your belly in this life, but don't worry because youll get into heaven no problem, unlike thon moneybags neighbour of yours. He's going straight to hell. So cheer up, count your blessings, and be grateful you're a piss poor peasant.
f**k right off.
So does the Bible promote Socialism or reinforce Capitalism?
Totalitarian of course.
Anyway poor auld priest after winning the lotto and in doing so consigning himself to hell. Doesn't matter how good a life he lived he has gone against the holy bible
Quote from: armaghniac on December 29, 2017, 08:02:17 PM
I think we need a rule prohibiting posters demanding information on the nature of other poster's marital relations.
It's not about demand, it's the absolute confusion/contradiction that arises with picturing as a reality the basis of the concept of the question, Tony and sex (under the looming crucifix).
and the aul sex before marriage, another trip to Hades :-[
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1229/930151-jerry-buttimer-wedding/
Go n-eiri an bóthar leo.
Amazing the lengths to which cynics will go on this thread,including crass banalities,to attempt to disprove the existence of God.
The thing is if they are really convinced in their atheism why get so agitated?
Quote from: Rossfan on December 30, 2017, 12:12:07 AM
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1229/930151-jerry-buttimer-wedding/
Go n-eiri an bóthar Leo.
Enda looked well.
It's wonderful to think that a country where two decades ago divorce barely passed a popular vote that Taoisigh can attend same sex marriages without anyone batting an eyelid. We feel like a nation that's found it's feet socially in those intervening years.
For all our flaws we're not doing too badly.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 30, 2017, 01:21:28 AM
Amazing the lengths to which cynics will go on this thread,including crass banalities,to attempt to disprove the existence of God.
The thing is if they are really convinced in their atheism why get so agitated?
The vast majority of posts are aimed at you to show your incredible hypocrisy..
Quote from: T Fearon on December 30, 2017, 01:21:28 AM
Amazing the lengths to which cynics will go on this thread,including crass banalities,to attempt to disprove the existence of God.
The thing is if they are really convinced in their atheism why get so agitated?
Is few challenging the existence of God rather it is the nonsense you are going over... DUP type fundamentalism (laced with hypocrisy)
How many pages of this thread taken up by Tony and the rest of ye responding to him?
I suppose it proves one thing anyway -
Tony does exist.
Belief in hell is not fundamentalism.As I have demononstrated hell is a part of Catholic Catechism and other mainstream Churches.
When you read some of the pulpit drivel & bible babble on here, then you begin to understand Sartre's "hell is other people" statement.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 30, 2017, 01:21:28 AM
Amazing the lengths to which cynics will go on this thread,including crass banalities,to attempt to disprove the existence of God.
The thing is if they are really convinced in their atheism why get so agitated?
Who is trying to disprove the existence of god? And how do you disprove it when it has never been proven
Quote from: Syferus on December 30, 2017, 01:35:53 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 30, 2017, 12:12:07 AM
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1229/930151-jerry-buttimer-wedding/
Go n-eiri an bóthar Leo.
Enda looked well.
It's wonderful to think that a country where two decades ago divorce barely passed a popular vote that Taoisigh can attend same sex marriages without anyone batting an eyelid. We feel like a nation that's found it's feet socially in those intervening years.
For all our flaws we're not doing too badly.
Give us the old "we have matured as a nation" line.
No need to mention any little disagreements
It will be the height of embarrassment for the Holy Father to be welcomed to Ireland by a gay Taoiseach,and indeed to an Ireland that has sanctioned gay marriage.
Given ironically he's coming to celebrate the traditional family unit,it might be better if the Taoiseach steps aside and allow someone else to welcome him.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 06:10:34 PM
It will be the height of embarrassment for the Holy Father to be welcomed to Ireland by a gay Taoiseach,and indeed to an Ireland that has sanctioned gay marriage.
Given ironically he's coming to celebrate the traditional family unit,it might be better if the Taoiseach steps aside and allow someone else to welcome him.
You are a hateful human being.
Quote from: michaelg on December 31, 2017, 06:16:51 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 06:10:34 PM
It will be the height of embarrassment for the Holy Father to be welcomed to Ireland by a gay Taoiseach,and indeed to an Ireland that has sanctioned gay marriage.
Given ironically he's coming to celebrate the traditional family unit,it might be better if the Taoiseach steps aside and allow someone else to welcome him.
You are a hateful human being.
Detestable
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 06:10:34 PM
It will be the height of embarrassment for the Holy Father to be welcomed to Ireland by a gay Taoiseach,and indeed to an Ireland that has sanctioned gay marriage.
Given ironically he's coming to celebrate the traditional family unit,it might be better if the Taoiseach steps aside and allow someone else to welcome him.
Why should the Pope be embarrassed?
Quote from: Rossfan on December 31, 2017, 06:41:04 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 06:10:34 PM
It will be the height of embarrassment for the Holy Father to be welcomed to Ireland by a gay Taoiseach,and indeed to an Ireland that has sanctioned gay marriage.
Given ironically he's coming to celebrate the traditional family unit,it might be better if the Taoiseach steps aside and allow someone else to welcome him.
Why should the Pope be embarrassed?
Because Fearon is on his team.
He is coming to celebrate the Year of the Family.It would be appropriate therefore if he was met by someone who supports the traditional family unit,and only the traditional family unit as endorsed throughout scripture
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 06:52:39 PM
He is coming to celebrate the Year of the Family.It would be appropriate therefore if he was met by someone who supports the traditional family unit,and only the traditional family unit as endorsed throughout scripture
You know Mother of God, Mary was 14?... that is actually true according to your scripture...
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 06:52:39 PM
He is coming to celebrate the Year of the Family.It would be appropriate therefore if he was met by someone who supports the traditional family unit,and only the traditional family unit as endorsed throughout scripture
A bit ironic that the Pope has no family and neither can Bishops or Priests.
Maybe he will have a lot of Empathy for Leo and the rest of the gay folks.
Quote from: longballin on December 31, 2017, 07:05:13 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 06:52:39 PM
He is coming to celebrate the Year of the Family.It would be appropriate therefore if he was met by someone who supports the traditional family unit,and only the traditional family unit as endorsed throughout scripture
You know Mother of God, Mary was 14?... that is actually true according to your scripture...
And Mary wasn't married either.
Not sure how God thought he was reinforcing the traditional family unit but bringing Jesus into the world to an unmarried couple.
Jesus was born to parents of opposite sex.Engagement under Jewish Law at the time was tantamount to marriage.This clearly represent's God's intentions regarding marriage and family,parents of male and female gender.
Why does God create gay people?
God doesn't create anything only human beings,the rest is personal choice
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 09:07:24 PM
Jesus was born to parents of opposite sex.Engagement under Jewish Law at the time was tantamount to marriage.This clearly represent's God's intentions regarding marriage and family,parents of male and female gender.
Mother age 14... you not going to explain that?
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 06:10:34 PM
It will be the height of embarrassment for the Holy Father to be welcomed to Ireland by a gay Taoiseach,and indeed to an Ireland that has sanctioned gay marriage.
Given ironically he's coming to celebrate the traditional family unit,it might be better if the Taoiseach steps aside and allow someone else to welcome him.
Grow up
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 09:07:24 PM
Jesus was born to parents of opposite sex.Engagement under Jewish Law at the time was tantamount to marriage.This clearly represent's God's intentions regarding marriage and family,parents of male and female gender.
catch a grip of yourself
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 09:49:08 PM
God doesn't create anything only human beings,the rest is personal choice
Like the concept of marriage then did God create that or has it always existed in other cultures?
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 06:52:39 PM
He is coming to celebrate the Year of the Family.It would be appropriate therefore if he was met by someone who supports the traditional family unit,and only the traditional family unit as endorsed throughout scripture
Fcuk me, I think I'd rather have that moron Garth Brooks play 5 nights my back garden than worry about who greets the pope let alone see him.
Send Ian Og.... because no one of any intelligence gives a f**k.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 09:49:08 PM
God doesn't create anything only human beings,the rest is personal choice
It must really sicken you that Leo the gay Fine Gael Taoiseach has done more for northern nationalists than any of your elected representatives since brexit vote.
Not really.He is protecting the interests of the South only.
Quote from: Tubberman on January 01, 2018, 02:08:37 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 09:49:08 PM
God doesn't create anything only human beings,the rest is personal choice
It must really sicken you that Leo the gay Fine Gael Taoiseach has done more for northern nationalists than any of your elected representatives since brexit vote.
Why, what has he done?
Quote from: Tubberman on January 01, 2018, 02:08:37 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 09:49:08 PM
God doesn't create anything only human beings,the rest is personal choice
It must really sicken you that Leo the gay Fine Gael Taoiseach has done more for northern nationalists than any of your elected representatives since brexit vote.
Leo has done what exactly??? The next one of those fackers that does anything for us will be the first one, all they are fit for is fawning over british royalty.
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 09:49:08 PM
God doesn't create anything only human beings,the rest is personal choice
So we're all straight -just some choose to be homosexual??
You'd be a great man in the DUPUDA! !!
Quote from: T Fearon on December 31, 2017, 09:49:08 PM
God doesn't create anything only human beings,the rest is personal choice
Do you "choose" to be attracted to women Tony?
Do you get sexually aroused by men, but suppress it?
Or is your natural involuntary reaction to be sexually attracted to women but not men?
Quote from: J70 on January 01, 2018, 02:12:28 PM
Do you get sexually aroused by men, but suppress it?
I think speculation that other posters have perverted sexual predilections is not acceptable in this forum and it is a disappointing start to 2018.
Quote from: armaghniac on January 01, 2018, 02:26:35 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 01, 2018, 02:12:28 PM
Do you get sexually aroused by men, but suppress it?
I think speculation that other posters have perverted sexual predilections is not acceptable in this forum and it is a disappointing start to 2018.
Lighten up, we are all perverts ffs!
Quote from: armaghniac on January 01, 2018, 02:26:35 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 01, 2018, 02:12:28 PM
Do you get sexually aroused by men, but suppress it?
I think speculation that other posters have perverted sexual predilections is not acceptable in this forum and it is a disappointing start to 2018.
Being sexually aroused by men is not perverted
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 01, 2018, 03:11:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 01, 2018, 02:26:35 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 01, 2018, 02:12:28 PM
Do you get sexually aroused by men, but suppress it?
I think speculation that other posters have perverted sexual predilections is not acceptable in this forum and it is a disappointing start to 2018.
Being sexually aroused by men is not perverted
Who made that a fact?
We are all born innocently,but as we develop and grow due to external factors such as perhaps poor upbringing,falling into the wrong company etc a minority veer from convention.This would apply also to murderers,rapists,paedophiles etc.No one is born with these afflictions,in my opinion
I also believe a fair few of the modern LGBT community are rebelling with their sexual choices.
Quote from: T Fearon on January 01, 2018, 06:53:31 PM
We are all born innocently,but as we develop and grow due to external factors such as perhaps poor upbringing,falling into the wrong company etc a minority veer from convention.This would apply also to murderers,rapists,paedophiles etc.No one is born with these afflictions,in my opinion
I also believe a fair few of the modern LGBT community are rebelling with their sexual choices.
Have you a psychology degree or just an expert in everything?
Quote from: T Fearon on January 01, 2018, 06:53:31 PM
We are all born innocently,but as we develop and grow due to external factors such as perhaps poor upbringing,falling into the wrong company etc a minority veer from convention.This would apply also to murderers,rapists,paedophiles etc.No one is born with these afflictions,in my opinion
I also believe a fair few of the modern LGBT community are rebelling with their sexual choices.
You have said on numerous times in threads like this, that you would disown a family member if they came out as gay. By your own argument here, you should also disown their family too. After all, it it was clearly their poor upbringing that caused those gay people to "rebel with their sexual choices".
I did not say that.But poor upbringing is a factor in many instances from veering from convention.
Apart from that what chance has a child being reared in a gay marriage got of being straight when he or she grows up?
Quote from: T Fearon on January 01, 2018, 07:19:33 PM
I did not say that.But poor upbringing is a factor in many instances from veering from convention.
Apart from that what chance has a child being reared in a gay marriage got of being straight when he or she grows up?
You didn't say what?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 30, 2015, 09:28:16 PM
Annapr ,sad to say but I couldn't tolerate any gay family members.I would have to say I would be forced to disown them.Harsh I know but this is my honest view
Quote from: T Fearon on January 01, 2018, 07:19:33 PM
I did not say that.But poor upbringing is a factor in many instances from veering from convention.
Apart from that what chance has a child being reared in a gay marriage got of being straight when he or she grows up?
Nearly 50 posts in just over a week. You've given this topic a lot of thought.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks!
Quote from: T Fearon on January 01, 2018, 07:19:33 PM
I did not say that.But poor upbringing is a factor in many instances from veering from convention.
Apart from that what chance has a child being reared in a gay marriage got of being straight when he or she grows up?
It would appear that you have been hacked old boy. The quote from you highlighted by laoislad is disgusting. How anyone who claims to be a "christian" could come out with such a statement is beyond me.
Quote from: Maiden1 on January 01, 2018, 07:37:04 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 01, 2018, 07:19:33 PM
I did not say that.But poor upbringing is a factor in many instances from veering from convention.
Apart from that what chance has a child being reared in a gay marriage got of being straight when he or she grows up?
Nearly 50 posts in just over a week. You've given this topic a lot of thought.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks!
was thinking the same... such anti-gay protest.... mmm
Quote from: longballin on January 01, 2018, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: Maiden1 on January 01, 2018, 07:37:04 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 01, 2018, 07:19:33 PM
I did not say that.But poor upbringing is a factor in many instances from veering from convention.
Apart from that what chance has a child being reared in a gay marriage got of being straight when he or she grows up?
Nearly 50 posts in just over a week. You've given this topic a lot of thought.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks!
Can you disown yourself?
was thinking the same... such anti-gay protest.... mmm
Quote from: stew on January 01, 2018, 03:35:38 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 01, 2018, 03:11:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 01, 2018, 02:26:35 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 01, 2018, 02:12:28 PM
Do you get sexually aroused by men, but suppress it?
I think speculation that other posters have perverted sexual predilections is not acceptable in this forum and it is a disappointing start to 2018.
Being sexually aroused by men is not perverted
Who made that a fact?
Are you saying being sexually aroused by men is perverted?
Quote from: T Fearon on January 01, 2018, 07:19:33 PM
I did not say that.But poor upbringing is a factor in many instances from veering from convention.
Apart from that what chance has a child being reared in a gay marriage got of being straight when he or she grows up?
Plenty of people brought up in perfectly normal heterosexual households are gay so why wouldn't children brought up in a gay marriage be straight
Quote from: armaghniac on January 01, 2018, 02:26:35 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 01, 2018, 02:12:28 PM
Do you get sexually aroused by men, but suppress it?
I think speculation that other posters have perverted sexual predilections is not acceptable in this forum and it is a disappointing start to 2018.
Who is speculating ( or making claims about perversion)?
I asked an obvious question in light of Tony's contention that everything beyond the act of creation by god is down to person choice.
Sexual orientation and attraction isn't a choice for me personally. I was just wondering if it was for Tony given his claim.
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 01, 2018, 09:07:00 PM
Quote from: stew on January 01, 2018, 03:35:38 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 01, 2018, 03:11:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 01, 2018, 02:26:35 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 01, 2018, 02:12:28 PM
Do you get sexually aroused by men, but suppress it?
I think speculation that other posters have perverted sexual predilections is not acceptable in this forum and it is a disappointing start to 2018.
Being sexually aroused by men is not perverted
Who made that a fact?
Are you saying being sexually aroused by men is perverted?
I'd love to meet a perverted woman
Quote from: michaelg on January 01, 2018, 08:44:49 PM
Quote from: longballin on January 01, 2018, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: Maiden1 on January 01, 2018, 07:37:04 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on January 01, 2018, 07:19:33 PM
I did not say that.But poor upbringing is a factor in many instances from veering from convention.
Apart from that what chance has a child being reared in a gay marriage got of being straight when he or she grows up?
Nearly 50 posts in just over a week. You've given this topic a lot of thought.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks!
Can you disown yourself?
was thinking the same... such anti-gay protest.... mmm
If anyone could this boy could. Or wullie fraser. I think they are the same person ;D
I suspect he thinks there is a "cure" just like Iris did.
Right wing head the balls ranting about homosexuality always reminds me of this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/northern_ireland/4509109.stm
It also reminds me of the priest training schools thst have more gay sex going on than in The George