Poll
Question:
Should gays be allowed to legally marry?
Option 1: Yes
Option 2: No
Option 3: Don't care
I see it has passed fairly comfortably in the House of Commons, I have no real issue with it. What do the rest of you think ?
I will add a poll
No problem with gays at all as long as they are not proper poofy gay like that f**ker Louis Spence you seen on the TV
All the best to them
NO
I know a gay couple who think this equality agenda is a complete load of shite. They're happy with civil partnerships, but think marriage is way too far.
Also, I wonder if the DUP component of the flag protesters are annoyed that the same legislation is not applicable here. It is pick & mix britishness.
Quote from: Orior on February 05, 2013, 08:08:33 PM
I know a gay couple who think this equality agenda is a complete load of shite. They're happy with civil partnerships, but think marriage is way too far.
Also, I wonder if the DUP component of the flag protesters are annoyed that the same legislation is not applicable here. It is pick & mix britishness.
Sure King Billy was gay and married
Have no problem with Gays, but do not think society should turn natural law,logic and reason on its head to accommodate a misguided notion of rights
Gay couples should have the same legal rights as straight couples IMO. So if one of them dies the surviving partner should be entitled to inherit etc.
The argument that heterosexuals are superior marriage material is interesting now with Chris Huhne's ex-wife's carry on
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chris-huhne-trial-vicky-pryce-1587138
live and let live i say
I have no problem with it and I would vote yes.
Quote from: seafoid on February 05, 2013, 08:26:09 PM
Gay couples should have the same legal rights as straight couples IMO. So if one of them dies the surviving partner should be entitled to inherit etc.
Is this not what civil partnership is for?
IMO marriage is between a man and a woman, anything else is a contradiction of the word marriage.
I really cannot see how anyone would be against this. In 100 years time, people will look back and wonder why so many people were against it and why it was even illegal in the first place.
This is kind of related to this thread. I'm old enough to have lived in the days when homosexuality was a crime.
What sex crimes do you think will be legal in another 50 years?
How could this ever have been seen as a crime?
Quote from: Orior on February 05, 2013, 08:48:46 PM
This is kind of related to this thread. I'm old enough to have lived in the days when homosexuality was a crime.
What sex crimes do you think will be legal in another 50 years?
Mutton rights.
A definite No.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 05, 2013, 08:37:01 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 05, 2013, 08:26:09 PM
Gay couples should have the same legal rights as straight couples IMO. So if one of them dies the surviving partner should be entitled to inherit etc.
Is this not what civil partnership is for?
IMO marriage is between a man and a woman, anything else is a contradiction of the word marriage.
I thought civil partnership was a compromise.
If marriage is so sacred why do so many straight couples divorce?
I thought the origin of marriage was to force men to contribute to the upbringing of their spawn.
And then it turned into a public profession of whatever and got legalised and the priests got involved for the cashflow aspect . And later there was the wedding business and dresses and flowers and hotels etc.
Quote from: ziggysego on February 05, 2013, 08:50:04 PM
How could this ever have been seen as a crime?
Ask your parents, aunts or uncles.
Advances in the human brain in the early 1970s allowed us to work out that gay sex was actually a good thing. For some people of course!
Quote from: EC Unique on February 05, 2013, 08:37:01 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 05, 2013, 08:26:09 PM
Gay couples should have the same legal rights as straight couples IMO. So if one of them dies the surviving partner should be entitled to inherit etc.
Is this not what civil partnership is for?
IMO marriage is between a man and a woman, anything else is a contradiction of the word marriage.
Civil partnership is the same as civil marriage.
Pretty much every country that has a same sex civil partnership in its law, has moved or just about to move to confer marriage status. it removes a legal distinction which is regarded as a social stigma
Some people don't recognise this as being a marriage, but that pales into the shadows of the vast majority of people who think otherwise.
Orior, at one stage perhaps even in your early years, nurses were forbidden to marry.
I have no problem with gay marriage, and i'm in full support of equality, but I'm struggling to understand the push for it now that there are civil partnerships. Can anyone enlighten me?
We now live in an anything goes society Orior, in which any morality standing in the way of profit or the secular liberal philosophy will be brushed aside. Sodom and Gomorrah were in the half-penny place compared to us
Quote from: Pangurban on February 05, 2013, 09:28:21 PM
We now live in an anything goes society Orior, in which any morality standing in the way of profit or the secular liberal philosophy will be brushed aside. Sodom and Gomorrah were in the half-penny place compared to us
Where's the loss of morality here? And whose definition of morality are we using?
My brother had a civil partnership last year, over 150 at it and a great session, he is happy enough with that, he is quite religious and would consider himself a practicing catholic, but wouldn't ever consider getting married in a church. Each to their own i suppose. I find it funny, how people get so worked up about this and most of them don't darken a church door from one end of the year to the next. A gay man marries a woman........ come on in, a gay man marries a man, get out!!
Quote from: Pangurban on February 05, 2013, 09:28:21 PM
We now live in an anything goes society Orior, in which any morality standing in the way of profit or the secular liberal philosophy will be brushed aside. Sodom and Gomorrah were in the half-penny place compared to us
Sodom and Gomorrah were inside the door of the church for long enough...............
So what happens if your son/daughter/ grandchild turns out to be gay......... banished from your life? Just Curious?
Quote from: Pangurban on February 05, 2013, 09:28:21 PM
We now live in an anything goes society Orior, in which any morality standing in the way of profit or the secular liberal philosophy will be brushed aside. Sodom and Gomorrah were in the half-penny place compared to us
Hyperbole alert.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 05, 2013, 09:26:04 PM
I have no problem with gay marriage, and i'm in full support of equality, but I'm struggling to understand the push for it now that there are civil partnerships. Can anyone enlighten me?
That's a hard question, a difficult task.
But I have already answered it, the question is, are you enlightened enough to understand it? ;D
QuoteIn 100 years time, people will look back and wonder why so many people were against it and why it was even illegal in the first place.
That's the whole point. In 100 years when you can get "married" to any random collection of people for a weekend, any value in marriage as the building block of society will have been lost.
http://www.stonewall.org.uk/what_we_do/parliamentary/5714.asp
about time, it's all a bit last century.
Quote from: Pangurban on February 05, 2013, 09:28:21 PM
We now live in an anything goes society Orior, in which any morality standing in the way of profit or the secular liberal philosophy will be brushed aside. Sodom and Gomorrah were in the half-penny place compared to us
For the love of God Pangurban. What is immoral about this?
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on February 05, 2013, 09:35:06 PM
Quote from: Pangurban on February 05, 2013, 09:28:21 PM
We now live in an anything goes society Orior, in which any morality standing in the way of profit or the secular liberal philosophy will be brushed aside. Sodom and Gomorrah were in the half-penny place compared to us
So what happens if your son/daughter/ grandchild turns out to be gay......... banished from your life?
I also work with a man who only realised he was gay after he became a grandad.
Each to their own.
I've no issues with two fellas legally declaring a bind.
I'd have a fairly large concern though over gay couples adopting children. It could be considered narrowminded, but it does push rather sternly against everything in nature for two men to have a child. Which isn't right.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 05, 2013, 09:39:19 PM
QuoteIn 100 years time, people will look back and wonder why so many people were against it and why it was even illegal in the first place.
That's the whole point. In 100 years when you can get "married" to any random collection of people for a weekend, any value in marriage as the building block of society will have been lost.
A lot of the politicians against this in England, crying out about marriage, have been caught up in numerous affairs themselves. Is this gay people's fault?
I would value marriage highly. That is as long as it is a proper marriage carried out in a chapel or church and not one of these town hall jobs.
I hope there does not come a day when gay marriages are common place at the alter.
I'm all for shagging sheep. Yeos are okay but I draw the line with rams.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 05, 2013, 09:39:19 PM
QuoteIn 100 years time, people will look back and wonder why so many people were against it and why it was even illegal in the first place.
That's the whole point. In 100 years when you can get "married" to any random collection of people for a weekend, any value in marriage as the building block of society will have been lost.
What about all the couples who don't stay married for life and get divorced............Marriage was around before the church, if two people of the same sex love each other and want to make a commitment in front of God, where is the problem, i think Jesus mentioned something about where love lives, you will find me.......(could be wrong).....
Quote from: thewobbler on February 05, 2013, 09:41:00 PM
I've no issues with two fellas legally declaring a bind.
I'd have a fairly large concern though over gay couples adopting children. It could be considered narrowminded, but it does push rather sternly against everything in nature for two men to have a child. Which isn't right.
If two men or two women can provide a stable, loving environment for a child, surely this can not be a bad thing? Can understand some people's reticence regarding this, but when you hear about the shocking abuse and neglect inflicted on children by some male-female couples, surely gay couples should be free to raise a child if they want / can provide a good home.
As for the argument that gay couples would lead to children becoming gay, most gay people come from heterosexual couples.
Quote from: thewobbler on February 05, 2013, 09:41:00 PM
I've no issues with two fellas legally declaring a bind.
I'd have a fairly large concern though over gay couples adopting children. It could be considered narrowminded, but it does push rather sternly against everything in nature for two men to have a child. Which isn't right.
Could that point not be straying towards the gender inequality between men and woman in regards the raising of children.
The other side of that is a lesbian mother can raise a child with another lesbian without any legal block on her.
A woman (regardless of sexuality) can have a child and remain single, while it is far more difficult for a single man (regardless of sexuality) keeping his own child, let alone a straight/gay man adopting one, while a woman can just go down the sperm bank.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 05, 2013, 09:39:19 PM
QuoteIn 100 years time, people will look back and wonder why so many people were against it and why it was even illegal in the first place.
That's the whole point. In 100 years when you can get "married" to any random collection of people for a weekend, any value in marriage as the building block of society will have been lost.
we live differently now. the structure of families has had to change as the structure of society has changed.
http://www.gulbenkian.org.uk/pdffiles/Rethinking-families.pdf
This is about gay marriage not gay parenting. Different debate altogether.
Is there any church of any denomination willing to marry gays?
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on February 05, 2013, 09:45:56 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 05, 2013, 09:39:19 PM
QuoteIn 100 years time, people will look back and wonder why so many people were against it and why it was even illegal in the first place.
That's the whole point. In 100 years when you can get "married" to any random collection of people for a weekend, any value in marriage as the building block of society will have been lost.
What about all the couples who don't stay married for life and get divorced............Marriage was around before the church, if two people of the same sex love each other and want to make a commitment in front of God, where is the problem, i think Jesus mentioned something about where love lives, you will find me.......(could be wrong).....
Homosexuality was said to "be an abomination in the sight of God" in the Bible, hardly a ringing endorsement for two boys or girls to be getting married in a Church service.
If they want to get married what is wrong with doing it in front of a judge?
Can't see any church marrying gays,except mavericks like Pat Buckley
Quote from: EC Unique on February 05, 2013, 09:42:58 PM
I would value marriage highly. That is as long as it is a proper marriage carried out in a chapel or church and not one of these town hall jobs.
I hope there does not come a day when gay marriages are common place at the alter.
I'm not getting married in a chapel or church - is mine a "proper marriage"?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 05, 2013, 09:59:28 PM
Is there any church of any denomination willing to marry gays?
Yip, that shower of athiest twats who set up shop in the former Church in, I think, London. :P
Quote from: thewobbler on February 05, 2013, 09:41:00 PM
I've no issues with two fellas legally declaring a bind.
I'd have a fairly large concern though over gay couples adopting children. It could be considered narrowminded, but it does push rather sternly against everything in nature for two men to have a child. Which isn't right.
incorrect. what's important is that a child feels cared for enough to feel securely attached. secure attachment gives a child the confidence to detach and explore and to gradually become more independent and confident and to develop well cognitively. it is not against men's nature to be able to care for a child enough for that child to securely attach. it also isn't an issue of gender, or sexuality. read bowlby's attachment theory...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory
Quote from: Pangurban on February 05, 2013, 09:28:21 PM
We now live in an anything goes society Orior, in which any morality standing in the way of profit or the secular liberal philosophy will be brushed aside. Sodom and Gomorrah were in the half-penny place compared to us
In fairness the Magdalene women and the kids raped by the upstanding guardians of the Church paid a very heavy price for the illusion that Ireland was a decent god fearing catholic society.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 05, 2013, 09:59:28 PM
Is there any church of any denomination willing to marry gays?
I believe the Quaker Church is in favour of gay marriage
Quote from: stew on February 05, 2013, 10:01:06 PM
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on February 05, 2013, 09:45:56 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 05, 2013, 09:39:19 PM
QuoteIn 100 years time, people will look back and wonder why so many people were against it and why it was even illegal in the first place.
That's the whole point. In 100 years when you can get "married" to any random collection of people for a weekend, any value in marriage as the building block of society will have been lost.
What about all the couples who don't stay married for life and get divorced............Marriage was around before the church, if two people of the same sex love each other and want to make a commitment in front of God, where is the problem, i think Jesus mentioned something about where love lives, you will find me.......(could be wrong).....
Homosexuality was said to "be an abomination in the sight of God" in the Bible, hardly a ringing endorsement for two boys or girls to be getting married in a Church service.
If they want to get married what is wrong with doing it in front of a judge?
This is the bit I don't get. How can any Church under the Christian banner countenance gay marriage when it states clearly in the Bible that it is sinful. The argument that the Church must move with the times is balls imo.
Being on the evangelical born again wing of Protestantism,I would be truly astounded if the Baptists/Quakers hosted a gay marriage ceremony.Opposition to all things gay unites both Catholics and protestants,the current debate about gay ministers is tearing the Anglican Church apart.I can see no gay marriages in any half mainstream Christian Church, bar peculiar sects like Pat Buckley's.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 05, 2013, 10:29:32 PM
Quote from: stew on February 05, 2013, 10:01:06 PM
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on February 05, 2013, 09:45:56 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 05, 2013, 09:39:19 PM
QuoteIn 100 years time, people will look back and wonder why so many people were against it and why it was even illegal in the first place.
That's the whole point. In 100 years when you can get "married" to any random collection of people for a weekend, any value in marriage as the building block of society will have been lost.
What about all the couples who don't stay married for life and get divorced............Marriage was around before the church, if two people of the same sex love each other and want to make a commitment in front of God, where is the problem, i think Jesus mentioned something about where love lives, you will find me.......(could be wrong).....
Homosexuality was said to "be an abomination in the sight of God" in the Bible, hardly a ringing endorsement for two boys or girls to be getting married in a Church service.
If they want to get married what is wrong with doing it in front of a judge?
This is the bit I don't get. How can any Church under the Christian banner countenance gay marriage when it states clearly in the Bible that it is sinful. The argument that the Church must move with the times is balls imo.
g
Agree. It should be left back in less enlightened times where it belongs.
They'll be giving them the vote next!
Exactly hardstation, live and let live. Do these lads think if it was their brother/sister/son/daughter, would they not want them to be happy?
Can't see why people are so against letting other people get on with things and doing what they want
I would question two sides of it...
Why would a church allow gay marriages when it views homosexuality as an abomination?
Why would a gay person want to be married in a church which deems it as an abomination?
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on February 05, 2013, 10:05:18 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 05, 2013, 09:42:58 PM
I would value marriage highly. That is as long as it is a proper marriage carried out in a chapel or church and not one of these town hall jobs.
I hope there does not come a day when gay marriages are common place at the alter.
I'm not getting married in a chapel or church - is mine a "proper marriage"?
Legally it will be but religiously no. It is up to the individual what matters to them.
On the day I got married things that mattered were the readings, the gospel, communion, blessing of the rings etc. Signing a piece of paper from the local council meant nothing emotionally to me.
Each to there own and good luck with it.
Quote from: imtommygunn on February 05, 2013, 10:49:38 PM
I would question two sides of it...
Why would a church allow gay marriages when it views homosexuality as an abomination?
Why would a gay person want to be married in a church which deems it as an abomination?
Marriage doesn't have to be in a church
Quote from: T Fearon on February 05, 2013, 10:31:28 PM
Being on the evangelical born again wing of Protestantism,I would be truly astounded if the Baptists/Quakers hosted a gay marriage ceremony.Opposition to all things gay unites both Catholics and protestants,the current debate about gay ministers is tearing the Anglican Church apart.I can see no gay marriages in any half mainstream Christian Church, bar peculiar sects like Pat Buckley's.
The Quaker Church have been seeking a change in the law for of years now and are in favour of gay marriage - See the article in The Independent today. For your information, the Quakers have always been a fairly liberal lot.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 05, 2013, 10:50:43 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on February 05, 2013, 10:05:18 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 05, 2013, 09:42:58 PM
I would value marriage highly. That is as long as it is a proper marriage carried out in a chapel or church and not one of these town hall jobs.
I hope there does not come a day when gay marriages are common place at the alter.
I'm not getting married in a chapel or church - is mine a "proper marriage"?
Legally it will be but religiously no. It is up to the individual what matters to them.
On the day I got married things that mattered were the readings, the gospel, communion, blessing of the rings etc. Signing a piece of paper from the local council meant nothing emotionally to me.
Each to there own and good luck with it.
I was the opposite, everything in the church meant nothing to me but I was looking forward to the craic in the hotel.
Quote from: michaelg on February 05, 2013, 10:57:11 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 05, 2013, 10:31:28 PM
Being on the evangelical born again wing of Protestantism,I would be truly astounded if the Baptists/Quakers hosted a gay marriage ceremony.Opposition to all things gay unites both Catholics and protestants,the current debate about gay ministers is tearing the Anglican Church apart.I can see no gay marriages in any half mainstream Christian Church, bar peculiar sects like Pat Buckley's.
The Quaker Church have been seeking a change in the law for of years now and are in favour of gay marriage - See the article in The Independent today. For your information, the Quakers have always been a fairly liberal lot.
I think I heard they were open to the concept of homosexual marriage.
Michaelg,google baptist church re homosexuality and you'll see the church opposes this.As in every church there are small pockets of liberals seeking to change this,but they've as much chance as a snowball in hell.
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
Oh shit, here we go. Brace yourself. ;D
Quote from: EC Unique on February 05, 2013, 11:15:19 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
Oh shit, here we go. Brace yourself. ;D
Well its obvious, is there any statictics. Not bashing gay people just stating the obvious.
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:18:50 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 05, 2013, 11:15:19 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
Oh shit, here we go. Brace yourself. ;D
Well its obvious, is there any statictics. Not bashing gay people just stating the obvious.
I'm with you on this but wait to all the libs on here get stuck in with a few google facts and stats.
Is IVF wrong?
Is adoption by infertile couples wrong?
Should infertile couples be allowed to marry?
Is IVF wrong? No
Is adoption by infertile couples wrong? No
Should infertile couples be allowed to marry? Yes
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
care to explain why being brought up by a gay couple wouldn't be great for a child's sexuality? do enlighten us.
Quote from: cadence on February 05, 2013, 11:48:53 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
care to explain why being brought up by a gay couple wouldn't be great for a child's sexuality? do enlighten us.
Huh? It's fairly self explanatory. Two kids being brought up by the same sex, could eventually turn gay. Its just my opinion amigo
Enlighten us with some stats.
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:01:18 AM
Quote from: cadence on February 05, 2013, 11:48:53 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
care to explain why being brought up by a gay couple wouldn't be great for a child's sexuality? do enlighten us.
Huh? It's fairly self explanatory. Two kids being brought up by the same sex, could eventually turn gay. Its just my opinion amigo
Enlighten us with some stats.
we'll get to the stats bit later.
so, are you saying that eventually turning gay, as you described it, would hardly be great? i'm just trying to figure out you're position here on being gay y'know. in your opinion, is it bad to be gay?
This lad seemed to turn out OK after being raised by two women: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ)
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:01:18 AM
Huh? It's fairly self explanatory. Two kids being brought up by the same sex, could eventually turn gay. Its just my opinion amigo
I'm pretty sure it doesn't quite work like that.
Could we not just move all the gays to their own country? No not Uraguay. They wouldnt reproduce without facilitation of kindly souls, but the steady immigration of those coming out would keep the population stable.
Continuing on the same theme, we could have;
All the Irish live in Ireland
All the british move to England
All the drunks go to Scotland
All the junkies go to Holland
All the fat people go to USA
Now then, who have I not yet insulted?
Quote from: cadence on February 06, 2013, 12:22:05 AM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:01:18 AM
Quote from: cadence on February 05, 2013, 11:48:53 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
care to explain why being brought up by a gay couple wouldn't be great for a child's sexuality? do enlighten us.
Huh? It's fairly self explanatory. Two kids being brought up by the same sex, could eventually turn gay. Its just my opinion amigo
Enlighten us with some stats.
we'll get to the stats bit later.
so, are you saying that eventually turning gay, as you described it, would hardly be great? i'm just trying to figure out you're position here on being gay y'know. in your opinion, is it bad to be gay?
Well i know if i was a kid being brought same sex up I wouldn't like it. I have no idea if it will make them gay or not. Its not bad to be gay people can be what they want.
Quote from: Orior on February 06, 2013, 12:27:10 AM
Could we not just move all the gays to their own country? No not Uraguay. They wouldnt reproduce without facilitation of kindly souls, but the steady immigration of those coming out would keep the population stable.
Continuing on the same theme, we could have;
All the Irish live in Ireland
All the british move to England
All the drunks go to Scotland
All the junkies go to Holland
All the fat people go to USA
Now then, who have I not yet insulted?
That would leave Wales empty. Is this intentional?
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:28:14 AM
Well i know if i was a kid being brought same sex up I wouldn't like it. I have no idea if it will make them gay or not. Its not bad to be gay people can be what they want.
How do you know?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 06, 2013, 12:29:28 AM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:28:14 AM
Well i know if i was a kid being brought same sex up I wouldn't like it. I have no idea if it will make them gay or not. Its not bad to be gay people can be what they want.
How do you know?
My gut feeling.
My gut feeling is that your head's cut.
As long as they don't play YMCA going up the aisle. Hate that feckin song.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 06, 2013, 12:42:40 AM
My gut feeling is that your head's cut.
A link from Ireland would have been more specific. Anyways im not going to carry on , they can marry but just dont think, its best for a male and female to bring up a child. Just my opinion. thats the end of it.
Quote from: ONeill on February 06, 2013, 12:47:19 AM
As long as they don't play YMCA going up the aisle. Hate that feckin song.
How about if they played it's raining men or dancing queen?
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:51:20 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 06, 2013, 12:42:40 AM
My gut feeling is that your head's cut.
A link from Ireland would have been more specific. Anyways im not going to carry on , they can marry but just dont think, its best for a male and female to bring up a child. Just my opinion. thats the end of it.
Well you're the one making the claim that gay parents are bad for a child's upbringing. That's a bit of a bold statement so I was hoping you could provide evidence to back your claim up instead of asking for evidence to the contrary. But no matter.
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:28:14 AM
Quote from: cadence on February 06, 2013, 12:22:05 AM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:01:18 AM
Quote from: cadence on February 05, 2013, 11:48:53 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
care to explain why being brought up by a gay couple wouldn't be great for a child's sexuality? do enlighten us.
Huh? It's fairly self explanatory. Two kids being brought up by the same sex, could eventually turn gay. Its just my opinion amigo
Enlighten us with some stats.
we'll get to the stats bit later.
so, are you saying that eventually turning gay, as you described it, would hardly be great? i'm just trying to figure out you're position here on being gay y'know. in your opinion, is it bad to be gay?
Well i know if i was a kid being brought same sex up I wouldn't like it. I have no idea if it will make them gay or not. Its not bad to be gay people can be what they want.
they can be what they want as long as it's not your parent right.
anyway.....
you probably wouldn't like the discrimination you'd experience as a family and the consequences it has, but on balance, you wouldn't want to have straight parents instead. you'd love your gay parents, and you might even think that you were closer to your gay parents than your friends were to their straight parents. read the stonewall study linked in this stonewall page...
http://www.stonewall.org.uk/what_we_do/research_and_policy/health_and_healthcare/3471.asp
Quote from: Captain Obvious on February 06, 2013, 12:52:26 AM
Quote from: ONeill on February 06, 2013, 12:47:19 AM
As long as they don't play YMCA going up the aisle. Hate that feckin song.
How about if they played it's raining men or dancing queen?
They're fair game.
Quote from: cadence on February 06, 2013, 01:00:58 AM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:28:14 AM
Quote from: cadence on February 06, 2013, 12:22:05 AM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:01:18 AM
Quote from: cadence on February 05, 2013, 11:48:53 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
care to explain why being brought up by a gay couple wouldn't be great for a child's sexuality? do enlighten us.
Huh? It's fairly self explanatory. Two kids being brought up by the same sex, could eventually turn gay. Its just my opinion amigo
Enlighten us with some stats.
we'll get to the stats bit later.
so, are you saying that eventually turning gay, as you described it, would hardly be great? i'm just trying to figure out you're position here on being gay y'know. in your opinion, is it bad to be gay?
Well i know if i was a kid being brought same sex up I wouldn't like it. I have no idea if it will make them gay or not. Its not bad to be gay people can be what they want.
they can be what they want as long as it's not your parent right.
anyway.....
you probably wouldn't like the discrimination you'd experience as a family and the consequences it has, but on balance, you wouldn't want to have straight parents instead. you'd love your gay parents, and you might even think that you were closer to your gay parents than your friends were to their straight parents. read the stonewall study linked in this stonewall page...
http://www.stonewall.org.uk/what_we_do/research_and_policy/health_and_healthcare/3471.asp
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 06, 2013, 12:56:07 AM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:51:20 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 06, 2013, 12:42:40 AM
My gut feeling is that your head's cut.
A link from Ireland would have been more specific. Anyways im not going to carry on , they can marry but just dont think, its best for a male and female to bring up a child. Just my opinion. thats the end of it.
Well you're the one making the claim that gay parents are bad for a child's upbringing. That's a bit of a bold statement so I was hoping you could provide evidence to back your claim up instead of asking for evidence to the contrary. But no matter.
What i meant to say above i think it should be only male and female raising a kid. I was just giving my opinion how it might be for a kid being raised by same couple.
I have no evidence just my opinion, you're own evidence is slack to say the least, a couple in america we are Ireland. Anyway thats the end of it.
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 01:05:03 AM
Quote from: cadence on February 06, 2013, 01:00:58 AM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:28:14 AM
Quote from: cadence on February 06, 2013, 12:22:05 AM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:01:18 AM
Quote from: cadence on February 05, 2013, 11:48:53 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
care to explain why being brought up by a gay couple wouldn't be great for a child's sexuality? do enlighten us.
Huh? It's fairly self explanatory. Two kids being brought up by the same sex, could eventually turn gay. Its just my opinion amigo
Enlighten us with some stats.
we'll get to the stats bit later.
so, are you saying that eventually turning gay, as you described it, would hardly be great? i'm just trying to figure out you're position here on being gay y'know. in your opinion, is it bad to be gay?
Well i know if i was a kid being brought same sex up I wouldn't like it. I have no idea if it will make them gay or not. Its not bad to be gay people can be what they want.
they can be what they want as long as it's not your parent right.
anyway.....
you probably wouldn't like the discrimination you'd experience as a family and the consequences it has, but on balance, you wouldn't want to have straight parents instead. you'd love your gay parents, and you might even think that you were closer to your gay parents than your friends were to their straight parents. read the stonewall study linked in this stonewall page...
http://www.stonewall.org.uk/what_we_do/research_and_policy/health_and_healthcare/3471.asp
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 06, 2013, 12:56:07 AM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:51:20 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 06, 2013, 12:42:40 AM
My gut feeling is that your head's cut.
A link from Ireland would have been more specific. Anyways im not going to carry on , they can marry but just dont think, its best for a male and female to bring up a child. Just my opinion. thats the end of it.
Well you're the one making the claim that gay parents are bad for a child's upbringing. That's a bit of a bold statement so I was hoping you could provide evidence to back your claim up instead of asking for evidence to the contrary. But no matter.
What i meant to say above i think it should be only male and female raising a kid. I was just giving my opinion how it might be for a kid being raised by same couple.
I have no evidence just my opinion, you're own evidence is slack to say the least, a couple in america we are Ireland. Anyway thats the end of it.
2 lesbians and 2 gay men, that's the spirit, live and let live.
Quote from: Pangurban on February 05, 2013, 08:21:59 PM
Have no problem with Gays, but do not think society should turn natural law,logic and reason on its head to accommodate a misguided notion of rights
Care to define natural law in this context?
I'd love to know what's so "misguided" about the notion of two consenting adults being allowed to marry without being discriminated against on the grounds of their sexual orientation.
Yes, of course they should. Should the hillbillies who voted no on this poll be allowed to have children? I'd vote no on that one.
A gay couple I know, one half of which is from the street next to mine and played Gaelic (a tiny bit) when he was younger (just putting his background in context) has adopted a little boy. I can honestly say I believe this little guy will be loved as much as any other child and will have a life much better than the one he came from.
Quote from: thewobbler on February 05, 2013, 09:41:00 PM
I've no issues with two fellas legally declaring a bind.
I'd have a fairly large concern though over gay couples adopting children. It could be considered narrowminded, but it does push rather sternly against everything in nature for two men to have a child. Which isn't right.
lesbians should not be allowed to raise daughters. Imagine a poor lad end up marrying the daughter and having 2 mothers in law... Inhumane
The British House of Commons has back gay marriage.
From BBC
The bill was supported by SDLP's Mark Durkan (Foyle) and Alliance MP Naomi Long (Belfast East).
The bill was opposed by DUP MPs Gregory Campbell (Londonderry East), Nigel Dodds (Belfast North), Jeffrey Donaldson (Lagan Valley), Rev William McCrea (Antrim South), Ian Paisley Junior (Antrim North), Jim Shannon (Strangford), David Simpson (Upper Bann), Sammy Wilson (Antrim East) and independent MP Lady Sylvia Hermon (North Down).
The SDLP's Margaret Ritchie (South Down) and Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) did not vote.
As Sinn Fein MPs do not take their seats in Westminster they were not able to vote.
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:28:14 AM
Quote from: cadence on February 06, 2013, 12:22:05 AM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:01:18 AM
Quote from: cadence on February 05, 2013, 11:48:53 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
care to explain why being brought up by a gay couple wouldn't be great for a child's sexuality? do enlighten us.
Huh? It's fairly self explanatory. Two kids being brought up by the same sex, could eventually turn gay. Its just my opinion amigo
Enlighten us with some stats.
we'll get to the stats bit later.
so, are you saying that eventually turning gay, as you described it, would hardly be great? i'm just trying to figure out you're position here on being gay y'know. in your opinion, is it bad to be gay?
Well i know if i was a kid being brought same sex up I wouldn't like it. I have no idea if it will make them gay or not. Its not bad to be gay people can be what they want.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
You state it as fact that you wouldn't like it, how do you know?
If you knew nothing else only to have two same sex parents then I'd be pretty sure if they were good parents you'd love them the same way you love the parents you did get.
Has marriage not always been defined as being the union of a man and a woman? Surely certain traditions are sacred and should not be changed. If two men or two women want to be together why not create come kind of ceremony (civil partnership not enough?) that allows them to recongise their union? Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 06, 2013, 08:47:20 AM
Has marriage not always been defined as being the union of a man and a woman? Surely certain traditions are sacred and should not be changed. If two men or two women want to be together why not create come kind of ceremony (civil partnership not enough?) that allows them to recongise their union? Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.
That's if you view marriage as the sole preserve of the Church. You can have a civil marriage you know.
I doubt many gay couples would want to get married in a church given the way it views them.
Quote from: cadence on February 05, 2013, 11:48:53 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
care to explain why being brought up by a gay couple wouldn't be great for a child's sexuality? do enlighten us.
I'd hazard a guess and say that most gays today were brought up by a heterosexual couple.
Most Heterosexuals would probably prefer that their offspring were heterosexual also, but it just doesn't always work out as you planned.
Quote from: Rois on February 06, 2013, 07:31:42 AM
A gay couple I know, one half of which is from the street next to mine and played Gaelic (a tiny bit) when he was younger (just putting his background in context) has adopted a little boy. I can honestly say I believe this little guy will be loved as much as any other child and will have a life much better than the one he came from.
good on them. it's not rocket science is it!
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 06, 2013, 08:47:20 AM
Has marriage not always been defined as being the union of a man and a woman? Surely certain traditions are sacred and should not be changed. If two men or two women want to be together why not create come kind of ceremony (civil partnership not enough?) that allows them to recongise their union? Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.
How about we have a law saying Travellers can have a civil partnership with the same rights as a civil marriage but no rights to have a civil marriage?
Would you say that was not right? Probably, as the law would be imposing a social stigma upon one group in a society.
The law as it stood in the UK, imposed a social stigma against gays in a civil partnership who regarded themselves just as married as their next door neighbours who were in a male female partnership.
I don't see what the big deal is apart from fear/bigotry/conservatism/religious and other assorted dogmas.
The religious marriage ceremony is the reserve of that particular church and so it should be.
Interesting side issue on the "West Lothian Question". This legislation affects England and Wales only. Why should Mark Durkan and Jim Shannon be voting on this at all?? Maybe Ritchie and Big Al got it right.
Fair enough the church have their own rules and should not be expected to change.
I thought though the question was 'should gays be allowed to legally marry'
So we are not talking about a religion here.
In my mind of course they should be,I can't see any reason why not.
As regards children,I would say there are plenty of kids who would be far better off with two loving same sex parents rather than some of the filth that are sorry excuses for parents.
Quote from: laoislad on February 06, 2013, 08:23:38 AM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:28:14 AM
Quote from: cadence on February 06, 2013, 12:22:05 AM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:01:18 AM
Quote from: cadence on February 05, 2013, 11:48:53 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
care to explain why being brought up by a gay couple wouldn't be great for a child's sexuality? do enlighten us.
Huh? It's fairly self explanatory. Two kids being brought up by the same sex, could eventually turn gay. Its just my opinion amigo
Enlighten us with some stats.
we'll get to the stats bit later.
so, are you saying that eventually turning gay, as you described it, would hardly be great? i'm just trying to figure out you're position here on being gay y'know. in your opinion, is it bad to be gay?
Well i know if i was a kid being brought same sex up I wouldn't like it. I have no idea if it will make them gay or not. Its not bad to be gay people can be what they want.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
You state it as fact that you wouldn't like it, how do you know?
If you knew nothing else only to have two same sex parents then I'd be pretty sure if they were good parents you'd love them the same way you love the parents you did get.
Why, it's my opinion. If I was put up for adoption as a kid and it was between a gay couple and a straight couple,I think I would benefit more from being brought up with a straight couple. Gay couple could be great parents but an overall outlook on life I think a straight couple up bringing would be best.
A close family friend (who actually did a wonderful job officiating myself and my wife's wedding) recently married his boyfriend here in the US. Perhaps one of you geniuses could explain to me why he shouldn't be entitled to marry the love of HIS life, just like I and most of you have?
WHERE is the harm in it?
Some people need to open their eyes to their bigotry.
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 11:32:15 AM
A close family friend (who actually did a wonderful job officiating myself and my wife's wedding) recently married his boyfriend here in the US. Perhaps one of you geniuses could explain to me why he shouldn't be entitled to marry the love of HIS life, just like I and most of you have?
WHERE is the harm in it?
Some people need to open their eyes to their bigotry.
Just because people think gays shouldn't be allowed to "marry", that is not being a bigot. Nor is it being anti-gay or homophobic. But that's what people think as soon as you say you disagree with gay "marriage".
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 11:50:19 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?
I have not voted.
I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.
Presuming so that "gay" lifestyle is the same then as well as an heterosexual lifestyle in all aspects e.g, wild younger years, drinking, drug taking, promiscuity, followed by settling down and then pre-nuptial agreemnents, succession rights , equal division of properties, child custody battles, separate bedrooms, not talking for 10 years for the sake of the kids/family/neighbours but still share the same property and all the wonderful things that heterosexual couple do to get through life? Then the empty nest syndrome where you suddenly realise your pushing 60 and have feck all in common with this person with whom you've shared the majority of your adult life.
What's not to aspire to in that ;)
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 12:01:27 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 11:50:19 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?
I have not voted.
I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.
Fear works well :)
A fear that all those catholic gays are going to come forcing their way up the altar, is a form of bigotry.
Give the n'iggers the vote and access to university and the next thing they'll be after your daughter to marry her.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 12:01:27 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 11:50:19 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?
I have not voted.
I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.
Well then start your own thread on the subject.
As for the poll then by saying the bit
QuoteStanding beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away
indicates to me that you do think gays should be allowed to be married legally.
It's irrelevant if you think it's a real marriage or not as legally(which means in the eyes of the law,in case you are confused what it means) it would be.
As a matter of interest then do you not believe J70 is really married?
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 12:10:26 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 12:01:27 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 11:50:19 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?
I have not voted.
I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.
Well then start your own thread on the subject.
As for the poll then by saying the bit QuoteStanding beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away
indicates to me that you do think gays should be allowed to be married legally.
It's irrelevant if you think it's a real marriage or not as legally(which means in the eyes of the law,in case you are confused what it means) it would be.
As a matter of interest then do you not believe J70 is really married?
All the more reason why religious beliefs should have nothing to say in the legislative process.
More especially the bigoted beliefs.
But I'll give them the respect to have their own beliefs, if they keep them to themselves and not to sully my constitutional space with them :)
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
So to you a marriage is just the day in church not the rest of your life commitment to the person you love?
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 12:01:27 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 11:50:19 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?
I have not voted.
I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.
I am confused.
I thought you were a huge fan of Man United?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/may/31/privatelives.familyandrelationships
His father may turn out to be like lots of other kind, supportive, loving but homophobic men, who manage to adjust drastically when someone close to them turns out to be gay.
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Real as in a legal binding contract yes, real as in the eyes of the church no. What ever keeps you happy is most important.
All a matter of opinions. My wife is such because she took vows at an alter, not because she signed a piece of papervfrom the local council office.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
If the truth was told there'd be plenty of gays marrying, but they're the ones wearing the vestments at the minute.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 12:01:27 PM
I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.
Is that because you think being gay (and living your life that way) is a sin?
Because it says so in the Bible?
Would you take everything in Leviticus as being the "Word of God"?
Personally I agree with you about being married in a church is important. But I wouldnt object to gays marrying in a church. But then for me some parts of the Bible are worth reading and other parts (like a lot of Leviticus) is pure nonsense.
Just like someone in the past decided the Bible is wrong about lending money at interest being a sin (for one thing) I think in the future an elightened church might change its mind about homosexuality. (They also might change their mind again about banks and interest!!)
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 01:45:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Real as in a legal binding contract yes, real as in the eyes of the church no. What ever keeps you happy is most important.
All a matter of opinions. My wife is such because she took vows at an alter, not because she signed a piece of papervfrom the local council office.
"The church"? Which church? It probably won't be too many years before the official Anglican Communion allows it. And if its the general Christian churches you're talking about, what about all those Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and so on marriages across the globe? Are they "real" in your eyes?
Regardless, I'm "really" married because myself and my wife took vows to each other, not because of the place in which we took them or the fact that some alleged being gave us a supposed seal of approval.
This makes as much sense, as some of the gay couples adopting babies arguments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy2xEyInqIE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy2xEyInqIE)
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 02:22:42 PM
Regardless, I'm "really" married because myself and my wife took vows to each other, not because of the place in which we took them or the fact that some alleged being gave us a supposed seal of approval.
You make it sound as if a church marriage isn't the real thi . . . oh, I see what you did there!
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 06, 2013, 08:47:20 AM
Has marriage not always been defined as being the union of a man and a woman? Surely certain traditions are sacred and should not be changed. If two men or two women want to be together why not create come kind of ceremony (civil partnership not enough?) that allows them to recongise their union? Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.
Translation: "Marriage should only be between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman." AKA a circular argument.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 06, 2013, 05:24:56 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 06, 2013, 08:47:20 AM
Has marriage not always been defined as being the union of a man and a woman? Surely certain traditions are sacred and should not be changed. If two men or two women want to be together why not create come kind of ceremony (civil partnership not enough?) that allows them to recongise their union? Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.
Translation: "Marriage should only be between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman." AKA a circular argument.
Until a couple of centuries ago the maximum safe speed for man was thought to be that of a horse.
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 06, 2013, 08:47:20 AM
Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.
Incorrect. You do not speak for all people, irrespective of their sexual orientation.
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
What if it was a gay priest officiating at the altar? No shortage of them around!
Quote from: tyssam5 on February 06, 2013, 05:46:06 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
What if it was a gay priest officiating at the altar? No shortage of them around!
Would you know many?
Speaking of church weddings and that, the womans sister got married, church wedding and all that. Anyways about 3 months later they got a call from the priest to say that there was a problem and could he call to them.
Turned out he wasn't authorised to carry out the wedding for some bizarre reason and they weren't legally married. Was a bit dramatic for her in particular and she felt very let down. Preist wasn't too arsed about it though and told them they had to get it sorted, no offer of assistance.
She had to book a wedding in the civil offices with herself, husband and best man and bridesmaid to get formally married again.
Quote from: Bingo on February 06, 2013, 05:58:00 PM
Speaking of church weddings and that, the womans sister got married, church wedding and all that. Anyways about 3 months later they got a call from the priest to say that there was a problem and could he call to them.
Turned out he wasn't authorised to carry out the wedding for some bizarre reason and they weren't legally married. Was a bit dramatic for her in particular and she felt very let down. Preist wasn't too arsed about it though and told them they had to get it sorted, no offer of assistance.
She had to book a wedding in the civil offices with herself, husband and best man and bridesmaid to get formally married again.
I missed that episode of father ted.
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 05:48:14 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on February 06, 2013, 05:46:06 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
What if it was a gay priest officiating at the altar? No shortage of them around!
Would you know many?
interesting piece of research here in relation to some of the terrible experiences of faith and in the wider community that lgbt people have in northern ireland. reference xxvvii page 65 for example would go some way to answering your question regarding the potential numbers of gay priests there are out there...
http://www.irishpeacecentres.org/files/LGBTPublication7BOOKLET.pdf
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 05:35:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
A woman.
Why?
this may sound a wee bit counter intuitive, but can any one who is in the no camp give me a reason why people of the same sex should not marry each other, and also explain how it materially effects them whether they do or not?
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 05:35:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
A woman.
Why?
Just wondering if you were a gay.
right to have a civil marriage comes 3rd on priorities for lgbt people in ireland...
http://www.nlgf.ie/Publications_&_Policy_files/NLGF_Burning-Issues_Research-Report_FINAL.pdf
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 06:43:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 05:35:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
A woman.
Why?
Just wondering if you were a gay.
I'd try another site if I were you.
Quote from: BennyCake on February 06, 2013, 11:58:59 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 11:32:15 AM
A close family friend (who actually did a wonderful job officiating myself and my wife's wedding) recently married his boyfriend here in the US. Perhaps one of you geniuses could explain to me why he shouldn't be entitled to marry the love of HIS life, just like I and most of you have?
WHERE is the harm in it?
Some people need to open their eyes to their bigotry.
Just because people think gays shouldn't be allowed to "marry", that is not being a bigot. Nor is it being anti-gay or homophobic. But that's what people think as soon as you say you disagree with gay "marriage".
If you said black people shouldn't be allowed to "marry", would that be bigoted, anti-black or racist?
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 12:01:27 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 11:50:19 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?
I have not voted.
I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.
Given the privileged position of churches, I doubt that will ever happen. And how could it, legally?
Quote from: heganboy on February 06, 2013, 06:41:35 PM
this may sound a wee bit counter intuitive, but can any one who is in the no camp give me a reason why people of the same sex should not marry each other, and also explain how it materially effects them whether they do or not?
Because the bible, which the revere and adhere to verbatim forbids it.
Because nature, which they work tirelessly to protect is against it
Because the church, which they respect on all issues does not approve of it.
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 06:43:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 05:35:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
A woman.
Why?
Just wondering if you were a gay.
would i be right in guessing that you've missed the whole you can be pro-lgbt rights and not be from the lgbt community thing? ethical value-based position?
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 06:43:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 05:35:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
A woman.
Why?
Just wondering if you were a gay.
A gay???
And that's relevant because....
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 07:30:17 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 06:43:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 05:35:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
A woman.
Why?
Just wondering if you were a gay.
A gay???
And that's relevant because....
Look at the thread title mate there is a small clue in it ;)
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 07:30:17 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 06:43:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 05:35:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
A woman.
Why?
Just wondering if you were a gay.
A gay???
And that's relevant because....
Seems there is only one allowed per village, he might have to make do with village idiot.
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 07:57:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 07:30:17 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 06:43:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 06:31:59 PM
[quote authyor=tommysmith link=topic=22712.msg1197662#msg1197662 date=1360172113]
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: uEC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
A woman.
Why?
Just wondering if you were a gay.
A gay???
And that's relevant because....
Look at the thread title mate there is a small clue in it ;)
[/quote]
You're looking for the gay perspective or you think a gay person's opinion is more or less relevant?
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 08:02:27 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 07:57:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 07:30:17 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 06:43:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 06:31:59 PM
[quote authyor=tommysmith link=topic=22712.msg1197662#msg1197662 date=1360172113]
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: uEC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
A woman.
Why?
Just wondering if you were a gay.
A gay???
And that's relevant because....
Look at the thread title mate there is a small clue in it ;)
You're looking for the gay perspective or you think a gay person's opinion is more or less relevant?
[/quote]
Im not really bothered, i didnt read whole thread and seen you were not married in church and others were saying this and that so i just asked.
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 06:43:18 PM
Just wondering if you were a gay.
This line made me laugh.
A Gay. Did not think there was anyone out there, who'd phrase it like that! ;D
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 08:12:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 08:02:27 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 07:57:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 07:30:17 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 06:43:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 06:31:59 PM
[quote authyor=tommysmith link=topic=22712.msg1197662#msg1197662 date=1360172113]
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
A woman.
Why?
Just wondering if you were a gay.
A gay???
And that's relevant because....
Look at the thread title mate there is a small clue in it ;)
You're looking for the gay perspective or you think a gay person's opinion is more or less relevant?
Im not really bothered, i didnt read whole thread and seen you were not married in church and others were saying this and that so i just asked.
[/quote]
Well, since you were wondering, I'm an atheist, not "a gay"!
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on February 06, 2013, 08:00:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 07:30:17 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 06:43:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 05:35:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
A woman.
Why?
Just wondering if you were a gay.
A gay???
And that's relevant because....
Seems there is only one allowed per village, he might have to make do with village idiot.
And what does that make EC Unique? He must be in the running for that title too.
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 07:25:47 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 12:01:27 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 11:50:19 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?
I have not voted.
I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.
Given the privileged position of churches, I doubt that will ever happen. And how could it, legally?
I hope you are right.
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 08:22:58 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on February 06, 2013, 08:00:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 07:30:17 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 06:43:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 05:35:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
A woman.
Why?
Just wondering if you were a gay.
A gay???
And that's relevant because....
Seems there is only one allowed per village, he might have to make do with village idiot.
And what does that make EC Unique? He must be in the running for that title too.
Why, when you are involved in a debate, do you feel the need to throw simplistic insults at people who have a different opinion to yours. It does not help your cause. Quite the opposite in fact. You seem to have form in this way.
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:31:41 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 06, 2013, 12:29:28 AM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 12:28:14 AM
Well i know if i was a kid being brought same sex up I wouldn't like it. I have no idea if it will make them gay or not. Its not bad to be gay people can be what they want.
How do you know?
My gut feeling.
what if you were brought up by 2 gay men in Tralee and you grew up witnessing 10 all Irelands ?
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 08:24:28 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 07:25:47 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 12:01:27 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 11:50:19 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?
I have not voted.
I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.
Given the privileged position of churches, I doubt that will ever happen. And how could it, legally?
I hope you are right.
You might not get invited anyway!
Quote from: seafoid on February 06, 2013, 08:30:03 PM
what if you were brought up by 2 gay men in Tralee and you grew up witnessing 10 all Irelands ?
The O'Gé brothers?
What have they got to do with it??
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 08:27:32 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 08:22:58 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on February 06, 2013, 08:00:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 07:30:17 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 06:43:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 05:35:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
A woman.
Why?
Just wondering if you were a gay.
A gay???
And that's relevant because....
Seems there is only one allowed per village, he might have to make do with village idiot.
And what does that make EC Unique? He must be in the running for that title too.
Why, when you are involved in a debate, do you feel the need to throw simplistic insults at people who have a different opinion to yours. It does not help your cause. Quite the opposite in fact. You seem to have form in this way.
You couldn't debate your way out of a wet paper bag ffs, as proved by your answers on this thread.
It's also ironic the biggest troll on the board is upset by someone insulting them :D
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 08:40:49 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 08:27:32 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 08:22:58 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on February 06, 2013, 08:00:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 07:30:17 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 06:43:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 05:35:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
A woman.
Why?
Just wondering if you were a gay.
A gay???
And that's relevant because....
Seems there is only one allowed per village, he might have to make do with village idiot.
And what does that make EC Unique? He must be in the running for that title too.
Why, when you are involved in a debate, do you feel the need to throw simplistic insults at people who have a different opinion to yours. It does not help your cause. Quite the opposite in fact. You seem to have form in this way.
You couldn't debate your way out of a wet paper bag ffs, as proved by your answers on this thread.
It's also ironic the biggest troll on the board is upset by someone insulting them :D
I'm not upset. I don't think anything you type would upset me. I was just pointing out that you don't offer anything to the debate except for basic, simplistic insults. Keep doing it if it makes you feel good.
I'm struggling with the objection for gays to marry in a church. Why would anybody really care if they did marry in a church, it will have no infringement on you or anyone else.
If you are against it then I doubt you'll be invited and I'm guessing not go. As for the clowns who believe that if you have two men that are gay and adopt a kid then that child will surely become gay aren't living in the real world. Gays are born gay IMO, you don't become gay cause your dad is gay ffs.
As for the church being against it because the bible says so is mental, they have let a lot worse creatures in (priests) who have actually abuse kids and then tried to cover these things up.
My answer is yes because who am I to say who can or can't marry. There should only be two people involved in that decision..A couple who are in a same sex relationship is as loving, as spiritually nourishing, socially important, human and valid as a happy marriage between men and women.If a same sex couple were to marry they are not going to change the way you love your life, but instead make a recognised loving commitment to each other that should never be denied of two people in love, regardless of sexuality.If two consenting adults love each other & want a deeper commitment before their friends and family, this should be allowed.Love is love.
We haven't had the slippery slope thrown in yet! Polygamy, polyandry, sheep, dogs...where does it end?? ;D
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 09:00:48 PM
We haven't had the slippery slope thrown in yet! Polygamy, polyandry, sheep, dogs...where does it end?? ;D
Thats a different thread, only the west of Ireland will debate on the sheep, could be at least the 30 pager!!
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 08:51:32 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 08:40:49 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 08:27:32 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 08:22:58 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on February 06, 2013, 08:00:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 07:30:17 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 06:43:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 05:35:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
I didn't get married in a church. Is my marriage not "real"?
Did you marry a man or a woman?
A woman.
Why?
Just wondering if you were a gay.
A gay???
And that's relevant because....
Seems there is only one allowed per village, he might have to make do with village idiot.
And what does that make EC Unique? He must be in the running for that title too.
Why, when you are involved in a debate, do you feel the need to throw simplistic insults at people who have a different opinion to yours. It does not help your cause. Quite the opposite in fact. You seem to have form in this way.
You couldn't debate your way out of a wet paper bag ffs, as proved by your answers on this thread.
It's also ironic the biggest troll on the board is upset by someone insulting them :D
I'm not upset. I don't think anything you type would upset me. I was just pointing out that you don't offer anything to the debate except for basic, simplistic insults. Keep doing it if it makes you feel good.
Please tell me you can see the irony in what you are saying!!
Though you probably don't.
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 09:00:48 PM
We haven't had the slippery slope thrown in yet! Polygamy, polyandry, sheep, dogs...where does it end?? ;D
You may jest, but these things will happen, not because it is right or wrong, but because it is possible.
Quote from: Orior on February 06, 2013, 09:54:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 09:00:48 PM
We haven't had the slippery slope thrown in yet! Polygamy, polyandry, sheep, dogs...where does it end?? ;D
You may jest, but these things will happen, not because it is right or wrong, but because it is possible.
Polygamy is very expensive. It is also hard to see mna na hEireann going for it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/21/religion.gender
My answer to the question is a resounding 'yes': why should gay people escape scot free? :)
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 08:24:28 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 07:25:47 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 12:01:27 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 11:50:19 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?
I have not voted.
I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.
Given the privileged position of churches, I doubt that will ever happen. And how could it, legally?
I hope you are right.
That begs the question, though.... What are you afraid of?
If the churches were to start marrying gay people, what difference will it make to you? How will it affect you?
In 50 years some Oxbridge guru will have worked out that the optimum relationship length is 2.4 years. After which all men must shift one house to the left.
And then our descendants will down their noses at GAA Boarders stuck in the past.
I might as well give my view on it.
I think it's wrong and should not be allowed.
Why?
Quote from: ONeill on February 06, 2013, 10:46:06 PM
Why?
Back off. He's under no obligation, unless he's married to a monster.
Quote from: ONeill on February 06, 2013, 10:46:06 PM
Why?
It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.
People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
Here's a question - what proportion of gay people today have gay parents?
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 10:12:59 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 08:24:28 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 07:25:47 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 12:01:27 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 11:50:19 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?
I have not voted.
I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.
Given the privileged position of churches, I doubt that will ever happen. And how could it, legally?
I hope you are right.
That begs the question, though.... What are you afraid of?
If the churches were to start marrying gay people, what difference will it make to you? How will it affect you?
The churches will only start marrying gay people if they are legally forced to do so. This is highly unlikely but in the modern world of 'human rights' you never know.
If it gets to the stage where the law can dictate to the church as to who they must marry even if it is against the churches beliefs and teachings then surely you can understand why people who value the religion would be upset.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 06, 2013, 10:56:50 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
Here's a question - what proportion of gay people today have gay parents?
None
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 10:55:25 PM
Quote from: ONeill on February 06, 2013, 10:46:06 PM
Why?
It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.
People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.
Why would people wake up and decide to be gay?
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 10:55:25 PM
Quote from: ONeill on February 06, 2013, 10:46:06 PM
Why?
It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.
People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.
Maybe that's what happened the Dinosaurs
Quote from: laoislad on February 06, 2013, 11:03:18 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 10:55:25 PM
Quote from: ONeill on February 06, 2013, 10:46:06 PM
Why?
It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.
People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.
Maybe that's what happened the Dinosaurs
Mega-sore-ass.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 06, 2013, 10:56:50 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
Here's a question - what proportion of gay people today have gay parents?
Hate to re-post this, but Del Boy Jr just ain't getting it.
(http://static.themetapicture.com/media/funny-gay-marriage-sign-straight-people.jpg)
Quote from: Puckoon on February 06, 2013, 11:09:20 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 06, 2013, 10:56:50 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 05, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
Would there not be a fair chance a child brought up by a gay couple, would eventually turn gay in the future too. They might be good parents for the kid, but that sort of enviroment would hardly be great for their own sexuality in future years.
Here's a question - what proportion of gay people today have gay parents?
Hate to re-post this, but Del Boy Jr just ain't getting it.
0.. Where are we talking about Ireland or the World in general, because Eamon posted a youtube link from a couple in America.
None in Ireland I would think
(http://static.themetapicture.com/media/funny-gay-marriage-sign-straight-people.jpg)
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 10:55:25 PM
Quote from: ONeill on February 06, 2013, 10:46:06 PM
Why?
It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.
People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.
Normal?
What if it wasn't normal 25'000 years ago? There's increasing evidence that men preferred men and women preferred women back then. It was only when we managed to process the info that copulation was handy that things changed.
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 06, 2013, 11:09:06 PM
Quote from: hardstation on February 06, 2013, 11:07:13 PM
On the flip side of that, Maguire, maybe most people grow up to be heterosexual as that's what they see, love between their mother & father.
Therefore someone who grows up seeing love between their two fathers may be more inclined to be gay?
I don't know at all but I see a logic in there somewhere.
Maguire has all the answers. In my view it would lead that way.
I never claimed to have all the answers, just that none of the gay people I know have gay parents.
Rodney - I can't understand your question. What is it that there are none of in Ireland?
I wasn't asking a question puckoon, just stating i didn't know if there was many gay parents in Ireland
Quote from: ONeill on February 06, 2013, 11:14:55 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 10:55:25 PM
Quote from: ONeill on February 06, 2013, 10:46:06 PM
Why?
It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.
People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.
Normal?
What if it wasn't normal 25'000 years ago? There's increasing evidence that men preferred men and women preferred women back then. It was only when we managed to process the info that copulation was handy that things changed.
Fortunately they managed to process that info before they all died.
I suppose before they managed to work it out, the stork was in overdrive?
Quote from: ONeill on February 06, 2013, 11:14:55 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 10:55:25 PM
Quote from: ONeill on February 06, 2013, 10:46:06 PM
Why?
It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.
People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.
Normal?
What if it wasn't normal 25'000 years ago? There's increasing evidence that men preferred men and women preferred women back then. It was only when we managed to process the info that copulation was handy that things changed.
Copulation is old hat and messy. Gimme an orgasmatron sphere and I'm not posting the rest of the night.
Given that Ireland is one of the remaining countries that does not acknowledge the parenting rights of same sex couples, the statistics are not out there.
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 11:32:15 AM
A close family friend (who actually did a wonderful job officiating myself and my wife's wedding) recently married his boyfriend here in the US. Perhaps one of you geniuses could explain to me why he shouldn't be entitled to marry the love of HIS life, just like I and most of you have?
WHERE is the harm in it?
Some people need to open their eyes to their bigotry.
That is lazy, ignorant and predictable, not to mention wrong.
I dont believe that they should be able to marry, that is for reasons of faith, that does not make me a bigot, if they have to be allowed to marry they should do a civil union and not in a Church, that is my opinion.
Just because people do not agree with it does not make them bigots!
Quote from: hardstation on February 06, 2013, 11:07:13 PM
On the flip side of that, Maguire, maybe most people grow up to be heterosexual as that's what they see, love between their mother & father.
Therefore someone who grows up seeing love between their two fathers may be more inclined to be gay?
I don't know at all but I see a logic in there somewhere.
So by that logic seeing your brother being gay or sister being gay growing up would make you more inclined to be gay? My parents smoked so did that mean I that was more inclined to smoke? Watching that kids show growing up 'my two dads' would have made you gay?
This is all silly, if someone is gay they are gay from birth, I don't think anybody, especially young boys growing up want to be gay, there is no way they would want to be ridiculed for a serious proportion of their lives by homophobic arseholes. Once they except that they are gay I'm sure it is easier but I doubt very much this is something that they choose
There's two lads that were in my class in school who I knew from the age of 11. Reconnected with them on FB lately and lo - they are both gay. And it came as no surprise at all. It was pretty obvious even back then.
They had traits which are not learned.
Gayness is an inherent characteristic, it is not a choice and is certainly not the result of a monkey-see-monkey-do casual surrender to the power of suggestion. Seeing two gay people, whether they are part of your family or not, is not going to make a person gay. It is simply an accident of birth.
Furthermore, the myth that homosexuality is a "choice" has led to the creation of "rehabilitation clinics" in the USA which have been found to cause profound psychological harm by trying to turn people away from their own nature.
Off the top of my head HS I think there are scientific reports of a genentic pre-disposition to homosexuality. While children aren't necessarily gay from birth I believe their sexual orientation is already set up, although there is no guarantee how their sexual behaviour as sexually mature adults will manifest.
I have no opinion on whether gay couples should be allowed to get married. On the subject of parenting, surely the jury is out on the impact to any child due to them being same sex parents. I couldn't say myself but I think (away from celeb lifestyles) many might struggle as they move into adolescence....could be wrong
Quote from: stew on February 06, 2013, 11:37:46 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 11:32:15 AM
A close family friend (who actually did a wonderful job officiating myself and my wife's wedding) recently married his boyfriend here in the US. Perhaps one of you geniuses could explain to me why he shouldn't be entitled to marry the love of HIS life, just like I and most of you have?
WHERE is the harm in it?
Some people need to open their eyes to their bigotry.
That is lazy, ignorant and predictable, not to mention wrong.
I dont believe that they should be able to marry, that is for reasons of faith, that does not make me a bigot, if they have to be allowed to marry they should do a civil union and not in a Church, that is my opinion.
Just because people do not agree with it does not make them bigots!
Who is talking about them getting married in a church?
If you think they should be allowed a secular marriage, like I myself have (with all its legal benefits), we have no quarrel. My problem is with those who do not want them to be allowed to married at all, inside or outside a church.
That aside (and this is not necessarily aimed at you), I find the justification of something solely on reasons of faith (e.g. opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage, evolution etc) ridiculous. Faith and the bible have been used over the ages to support some abhorrent views and behaviour. If you're reduced to defending a position based on faith and in the face of logic and evidence and simple compassion, you're either uneducated, closed minded or intellectually dishonest.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 10:59:12 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 10:12:59 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 08:24:28 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 06, 2013, 07:25:47 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 12:01:27 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 06, 2013, 11:50:19 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 06, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
A debate that would be more relevent to me personally would be ''should gays be allowed to marry in a church or chapel?''
Standing beside each other in a town hall or whatever telling each other that they love each other and signing a piece of paper to me is not really a marriage so tear away.
So I assume you voted Yes in the above poll then?
I have not voted.
I would have a fear that once the right to legally marry has been sorted the next step would be, for some gay couples, to force their way to marrage at the alter. That would be a massive NO for me.
Given the privileged position of churches, I doubt that will ever happen. And how could it, legally?
I hope you are right.
That begs the question, though.... What are you afraid of?
If the churches were to start marrying gay people, what difference will it make to you? How will it affect you?
The churches will only start marrying gay people if they are legally forced to do so. This is highly unlikely but in the modern world of 'human rights' you never know.
If it gets to the stage where the law can dictate to the church as to who they must marry even if it is against the churches beliefs and teachings then surely you can understand why people who value the religion would be upset.
So your objection then is to the church being forced to do something it doesn't want to, as opposed to gay marriage itself?
Quote from: theskull1 on February 07, 2013, 12:09:40 AM
I have no opinion on whether gay couples should be allowed to get married. On the subject of parenting, surely the jury is out on the impact to any child due to them being same sex parents. I couldn't say myself but I think (away from celeb lifestyles) many might struggle as they move into adolescence....could be wrong
I was walking home in Salford one day and a small child, couldn't have been more than 5 years old, trips and falls over hurting herself. Mother's reaction? "f**king stupid! Get up!"
I was going to the shops in Manchester one time and a young child was walking with her teenage mum alongside a low wall. The kid gets up on the wall and walks along it, as children do. Mother's reaction? "Get down off there you f**king d**khead!"
I saw a group of teenage mothers who got into a scuffle one time and one of them used her pram (baby and all) as a battering ram to hit one of the other girls.
I could go on all day giving you examples of abusive sc**bag parents who seem to breed before they can read. Where's the debate about restricting them from having children? It'd be a bit more of a pressing concern, wouldn't you say?
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 10:55:25 PM
Quote from: ONeill on February 06, 2013, 10:46:06 PM
Why?
It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.
People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.
Its not normal for an Irish person to be Jewish, yet a small percentage of the population of Ireland are in fact Jewish. Its not normal for men to be seven feet tall, yet the NBA is full of huge men playing centre. "Normal" does not equal "natural".
And I don't know if you're on the wind up or not, but who the hell wakes up in the morning and decides to be gay?
And if you are in fact serious, I suggest you learn a little about statistics and biology.
And as for the "natural" argument, homosexuality is widespread in nature. It's been observed in thousands of species and was well documented in about 500 species last time I looked.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 07, 2013, 01:02:43 AM
And as for the "natural" argument, homosexuality is widespread in nature. It's been observed in thousands of species and was well documented in about 500 species last time I looked.
Indeed. They should start by checking out our closest living relatives, bonobos!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 06, 2013, 11:51:08 PM
There's two lads that were in my class in school who I knew from the age of 11. Reconnected with them on FB lately and lo - they are both gay. And it came as no surprise at all. It was pretty obvious even back then.
They had traits which are not learned.
Gayness is an inherent characteristic, it is not a choice and is certainly not the result of a monkey-see-monkey-do casual surrender to the power of suggestion. Seeing two gay people, whether they are part of your family or not, is not going to make a person gay. It is simply an accident of birth.
Furthermore, the myth that homosexuality is a "choice" has led to the creation of "rehabilitation clinics" in the USA which have been found to cause profound psychological harm by trying to turn people away from their own nature.
THere was a kid who grew up a few doors down from us - he was an obvious gayer from around 3 years of age.
Bonobos are all over the place where sex is concerned. Gay, bisexual, casual sex, it's all there.
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 10:55:25 PM
It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.
People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.
Christ
If everyone woke up in the morning and decided to become a priest or nun the population of the world would die of. therefore we should logically make it illegal to become a priest or nun
Quote from: Puckoon on February 06, 2013, 05:27:59 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 06, 2013, 08:47:20 AM
Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.
Incorrect. You do not speak for all people, irrespective of their sexual orientation.
I don't know what way you were brought up or what you saw going on around you but I know that where I'm from that marriage has always been seen as something that unites a man and a woman.
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2013, 12:41:10 AM
So your objection then is to the church being forced to do something it doesn't want to, as opposed to gay marriage itself?
While I'm in favour of gay marriage, I object to the fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages. Or more to the point, a test case will be brought - I'm sure Ivana Bacik is already on the case - and churches will be told that if they want to conduct straight marriages they'll have to conduct gay marriages. Now, there's a relatively simple solution to this - complete separation of religious and civil ceremonies. That's how it works in France, for example. But it will be unedifying when the moment arrives when churches are told that free association is something that is only permitted in psychoanalysis.
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 07, 2013, 08:41:52 AM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 06, 2013, 05:27:59 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 06, 2013, 08:47:20 AM
Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.
Incorrect. You do not speak for all people, irrespective of their sexual orientation.
I don't know what way you were brought up or what you saw going on around you but I know that where I'm from that marriage has always been seen as something that unites a man and a woman.
Are you not missing the whole point? Where you were growing up marriage was seen as between man and woman because it couldnt possible be seen as anything else - gay marriage was illegal.
But now there are moves to legalise it so it will be seen more, and I think the rationale is there is no logical or other reason why it should be illegal.
Likewise there's no rationale reason in my view why gay marriage is unchristian. If you get married and are faithful to your partner, I don't see how there can be any objection on religious grounds.
Quote from: deiseach on February 07, 2013, 09:15:17 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2013, 12:41:10 AM
So your objection then is to the church being forced to do something it doesn't want to, as opposed to gay marriage itself?
While I'm in favour of gay marriage, I object to the fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages. Or more to the point, a test case will be brought - I'm sure Ivana Bacik is already on the case - and churches will be told that if they want to conduct straight marriages they'll have to conduct gay marriages. Now, there's a relatively simple solution to this - complete separation of religious and civil ceremonies. That's how it works in France, for example. But it will be unedifying when the moment arrives when churches are told that free association is something that is only permitted in psychoanalysis.
I certainly don't think churches should be forced to accept it, but why wouldnt they accept it? Can you not be religious and gay?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 07, 2013, 12:46:53 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on February 07, 2013, 12:09:40 AM
I have no opinion on whether gay couples should be allowed to get married. On the subject of parenting, surely the jury is out on the impact to any child due to them being same sex parents. I couldn't say myself but I think (away from celeb lifestyles) many might struggle as they move into adolescence....could be wrong
I was walking home in Salford one day and a small child, couldn't have been more than 5 years old, trips and falls over hurting herself. Mother's reaction? "f**king stupid! Get up!"
I was going to the shops in Manchester one time and a young child was walking with her teenage mum alongside a low wall. The kid gets up on the wall and walks along it, as children do. Mother's reaction? "Get down off there you f**king d**khead!"
I saw a group of teenage mothers who got into a scuffle one time and one of them used her pram (baby and all) as a battering ram to hit one of the other girls.
I could go on all day giving you examples of abusive sc**bag parents who seem to breed before they can read. Where's the debate about restricting them from having children? It'd be a bit more of a pressing concern, wouldn't you say?
::)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OSbH7zkbWts/T1nsN4yhhBI/AAAAAAAAA_c/eJJVnpSARg4/s1600/exposestraw.jpg)
You'd think the jury is still out on whether scumbags do or do not have a detrimental impact on the lives of their children or indeed whether they should be allowed to adopt or not (your argument not mine btw but I'm going with it)
Quote from: Hound on February 07, 2013, 09:27:10 AM
I certainly don't think churches should be forced to accept it, but why wouldnt they accept it? Can you not be religious and gay?
They wouldn't accept it because it's against their beliefs as to what a marriage is. Let's look at what the Anglican Book of Common Prayer says is the priority in a marriage (http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/compraym.html):
QuoteFirst, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
It seems pretty clear that marriage is between a woman and a man. There's nothing stopping them changing that. But it shouldn't be forced upon them.
Quote from: deiseach on February 07, 2013, 09:15:17 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2013, 12:41:10 AM
So your objection then is to the church being forced to do something it doesn't want to, as opposed to gay marriage itself?
While I'm in favour of gay marriage, I object to the fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages. Or more to the point, a test case will be brought - I'm sure Ivana Bacik is already on the case - and churches will be told that if they want to conduct straight marriages they'll have to conduct gay marriages. Now, there's a relatively simple solution to this - complete separation of religious and civil ceremonies. That's how it works in France, for example. But it will be unedifying when the moment arrives when churches are told that free association is something that is only permitted in psychoanalysis.
Is it a fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages? Where do you get this fact from?
The issue at hand was gays and civil marriage, a social upgrade from civil partnership, removing a perceived social stigma.
The opposition to this comes from (in the main) religious afflicted ideologues.
Part of their argument was that if we allows gays to have a civil marriage, then what next? church weddings will be forced upon us?
You appear to be trying to apply a factual basis for this fear.
This fear has no factual basis. It is simply used to whip up the fear complex of religious ideologues to oppose the civil marriage recognition.
I can't think of one similar opposition campaign by religious ideologues which did not involve such nonsense, when part of their dogma was being de- legalised.
Are churches currently force to marry any hetero couple that asks since the marriage is legal?
Quote from: deiseach on February 07, 2013, 09:35:45 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 07, 2013, 09:27:10 AM
I certainly don't think churches should be forced to accept it, but why wouldnt they accept it? Can you not be religious and gay?
They wouldn't accept it because it's against their beliefs as to what a marriage is. Let's look at what the Anglican Book of Common Prayer says is the priority in a marriage (http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/compraym.html):
QuoteFirst, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
It seems pretty clear that marriage is between a woman and a man. There's nothing stopping them changing that. But it shouldn't be forced upon them.
Don't think there has been any suggestion of forcing it on them. Just that the debate should be had as to "why not?"
Marriage for the "procreation of children" is clearly a nonsense as it would rule out anyone with fertility problems.
You can find any number of links stating marriage is between man and woman, but that's just because of how being gay used to be seen as an abomination. I don't see any reason why all those can't be changed to one person marrying another person.
Quote from: nifan on February 07, 2013, 08:22:40 AM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 10:55:25 PM
It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.
People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.
Christ
If everyone woke up in the morning and decided to become a priest or nun the population of the world would die of. therefore we should logically make it illegal to become a priest or nun
Priests should be allowed marry, i think they would have more right to marry than the gays.
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2013, 10:05:44 AM
Is it a fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages? Where do you get this fact from?
It's based on the idea that if you are going to provide a service sanctioned by the state then you cannot discriminate about to whom you offer the service. When legislation was introduced in Britain to prevent guest houses discriminating on the basis of race, colour or sexual orientation, there was a lot of talk about how no-one would be forced to do anything that conflicted with their religious beliefs. And that's what it was - talk. When push came to shove, anti-discrimination laws trumped freedom of expression (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19991266). And maybe that's fair enough. But let's be honest about the way it is heading rather than dismissing anyone who points it out as a scaremonger.
Quote from: Hound on February 07, 2013, 09:27:10 AM
Quote from: deiseach on February 07, 2013, 09:15:17 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2013, 12:41:10 AM
So your objection then is to the church being forced to do something it doesn't want to, as opposed to gay marriage itself?
While I'm in favour of gay marriage, I object to the fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages. Or more to the point, a test case will be brought - I'm sure Ivana Bacik is already on the case - and churches will be told that if they want to conduct straight marriages they'll have to conduct gay marriages. Now, there's a relatively simple solution to this - complete separation of religious and civil ceremonies. That's how it works in France, for example. But it will be unedifying when the moment arrives when churches are told that free association is something that is only permitted in psychoanalysis.
I certainly don't think churches should be forced to accept it, but why wouldnt they accept it? Can you not be religious and gay?
Good question, is being gay itself not a sin, but its the sexual act that is a sin?
For the record I am totally in favour of LGBT rights, but some of these arguments are ridiculous. The nature argument can work both ways
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 07, 2013, 01:02:43 AM
And as for the "natural" argument, homosexuality is widespread in nature. It's been observed in thousands of species and was well documented in about 500 species last time I looked.
So has zebras mating with horses and lions mating with tigers. Should humans now be permitted to shag bonobos? (Queue the Tyrone posters getting excited)
Quote from: johnneycool on February 07, 2013, 10:28:43 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 07, 2013, 09:27:10 AM
Quote from: deiseach on February 07, 2013, 09:15:17 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 07, 2013, 12:41:10 AM
So your objection then is to the church being forced to do something it doesn't want to, as opposed to gay marriage itself?
While I'm in favour of gay marriage, I object to the fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages. Or more to the point, a test case will be brought - I'm sure Ivana Bacik is already on the case - and churches will be told that if they want to conduct straight marriages they'll have to conduct gay marriages. Now, there's a relatively simple solution to this - complete separation of religious and civil ceremonies. That's how it works in France, for example. But it will be unedifying when the moment arrives when churches are told that free association is something that is only permitted in psychoanalysis.
I certainly don't think churches should be forced to accept it, but why wouldnt they accept it? Can you not be religious and gay?
Good question, is being gay itself not a sin, but its the sexual act that is a sin?
As far as I know the thought itself is as much of a sin as the act. The church sees homosexuality as a sin in any shape or form.
I would imagine most gay people move away from religion once they personally accept they are gay. Why would they want to be involved with an organisation that sees their way of life as wrong?
My fear would be that the gay people,that are at the front of the gay rights movement, would push and push until theycan marry in a church just to proclaim that they are equal in every way.
Quote from: qubdub on February 07, 2013, 10:33:11 AM
For the record I am totally in favour of LGBT rights, but some of these arguments are ridiculous. The nature argument can work both ways
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 07, 2013, 01:02:43 AM
And as for the "natural" argument, homosexuality is widespread in nature. It's been observed in thousands of species and was well documented in about 500 species last time I looked.
So has zebras mating with horses and lions mating with tigers. Should humans now be permitted to shag bonobos? (Queue the Tyrone posters getting excited)
The argument for equality for gay people is the same as the argument against bestiality - consenting adults.
Quote from: deiseach on February 07, 2013, 10:18:13 AM
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2013, 10:05:44 AM
Is it a fact that churches will eventually be forced to accept gay marriages? Where do you get this fact from?
It's based on the idea that if you are going to provide a service sanctioned by the state then you cannot discriminate about to whom you offer the service. When legislation was introduced in Britain to prevent guest houses discriminating on the basis of race, colour or sexual orientation, there was a lot of talk about how no-one would be forced to do anything that conflicted with their religious beliefs. And that's what it was - talk. When push came to shove, anti-discrimination laws trumped freedom of expression (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19991266). And maybe that's fair enough. But let's be honest about the way it is heading rather than dismissing anyone who points it out as a scaremonger.
You are talking about an idea.
A fact that an idea exists of a possibility that a Churchs' own canon laws could be overturned by anti-discrimination laws, even when the law states that they can't. Afaia there are no canon laws (protected by law), allowing B&B owners to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
There are laws protecting the right of a church to have and to hold onto its definition of marriage, that exist as a fundamental part of its canon laws and practice that definition within the church walls. The laws state that this is not discrimination.
What you may be referring to, is that this right of a Church may be challenged sometime in the future. Hyping up that scare as a means to prevent same sex civil marriage, is scaremongering.
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2013, 11:08:36 AM
You are talking about an idea.
A fact that an idea exists of a possibility that a Churchs' own canon laws could be overturned by anti-discrimination laws, even when the law states that they can't. Afaia there are no canon laws (protected by law), allowing B&B owners to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
There are laws protecting the right of a church to have and to hold onto its definition of marriage, that exist as a fundamental part of its canon laws and practice that definition within the church walls. The laws state that this is not discrimination.
I'm saying that if the church wants to provide state-sanctioned marriage, it eventually either have to conform to the law or stop providing state-sanctioned marriage. This is the way it will go, as it is in France.
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2013, 11:08:36 AMWhat you may be referring to, is that this right of a Church may be challenged sometime in the future. Hyping up that scare as a means to prevent same sex civil marriage, is scaremongering.
I'm in favour of same sex civil marriage. Pointing out the inevitable consequences of this legislation is not scaremongering.
Quote from: deiseach on February 07, 2013, 11:12:33 AM
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2013, 11:08:36 AM
You are talking about an idea.
A fact that an idea exists of a possibility that a Churchs' own canon laws could be overturned by anti-discrimination laws, even when the law states that they can't. Afaia there are no canon laws (protected by law), allowing B&B owners to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
There are laws protecting the right of a church to have and to hold onto its definition of marriage, that exist as a fundamental part of its canon laws and practice that definition within the church walls. The laws state that this is not discrimination.
I'm saying that if the church wants to provide state-sanctioned marriage, it eventually either have to conform to the law or stop providing state-sanctioned marriage. This is the way it will go, as it is in France.
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2013, 11:08:36 AMWhat you may be referring to, is that this right of a Church may be challenged sometime in the future. Hyping up that scare as a means to prevent same sex civil marriage, is scaremongering.
I'm in favour of same sex civil marriage. Pointing out the inevitable consequences of this legislation is not scaremongering.
You may regard the consequences as inevitable, I certainly don't. And you have not presented any facts to support your opinion.
And your opinion is totally contradicted by the legislation.
Off hand, I can't think of one example of where a church has been forced by law to change its canon laws.
Regardless of whether you regard this as inevitable or not, it is not a valid argument to prevent same sex civil marriage.
When used in the debate to prevent same sex civil marriages it can only be defined as scaremongering to prevent a socially progressive legislative move.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 07, 2013, 11:01:17 AM
As far as I know the thought itself is as much of a sin as the act. The church sees homosexuality as a sin in any shape or form.
I would imagine most gay people move away from religion once they personally accept they are gay. Why would they want to be involved with an organisation that sees their way of life as wrong?
My fear would be that the gay people,that are at the front of the gay rights movement, would push and push until theycan marry in a church just to proclaim that they are equal in every way.
Its a sin now (as is any form of sex outside of marriage), but who's to say it won't be a sin in the future. As said before, charging interest on money lent used to be a sin.
What exactly do you fear about gays getting married in a church and being equal in every way?
Do you really think a person who is born gay, but is a good Christian in every other way, apart from having a faithful relationship with a partner, would be rejected by God because they are gay? That sounds very "unchristian" to me.
[appreciate this is a completely different debate to legalising gay civil marriages]
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2013, 11:23:53 AM
You may regard the consequences as inevitable, I certainly don't. And you have not presented any facts to support your opinion.
And your opinion is totally contradicted by the legislation.
Off hand, I can't think of one example of where a church has been forced by law to change its canon laws.
Regardless of whether you regard this as inevitable or not, it is not a valid argument to prevent same sex civil marriage.
When used in the debate to prevent same sex civil marriages it can only be defined as scaremongering to prevent a socially progressive legislative move.
I've presented my argument, i.e. that if you want to provide a state-sanctioned/regulated service you can't discriminate. There are multiple examples of this being the case. Can you imagine if there were a vintner's law that said publicans didn't have to serve Travellers? It'd be laughed out of any court, and canon law has about as much sway.
Quote from: deiseach on February 07, 2013, 11:30:58 AM
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2013, 11:23:53 AM
You may regard the consequences as inevitable, I certainly don't. And you have not presented any facts to support your opinion.
And your opinion is totally contradicted by the legislation.
Off hand, I can't think of one example of where a church has been forced by law to change its canon laws.
Regardless of whether you regard this as inevitable or not, it is not a valid argument to prevent same sex civil marriage.
When used in the debate to prevent same sex civil marriages it can only be defined as scaremongering to prevent a socially progressive legislative move.
I've presented my argument, i.e. that if you want to provide a state-sanctioned/regulated service you can't discriminate. There are multiple examples of this being the case. Can you imagine if there were a vintner's law that said publicans didn't have to serve Travellers? It'd be laughed out of any court, and canon law has about as much sway.
I guess you have accepted that it is scaremongering to use this fear as part of the argument to prevent same sex civil marriage.
I also guess that you have accepted that the legislation allows for a Church not to be challenged on how they conduct their marriages.
The Church provides a marriage ceremony for its members which is also recognised by the state as a legal marriage. The state provides its own civil marriage ceremony. The two are not the same.
When I hear of a sex discrimination case being carried out by a female cleric about the inherent sex discrimination within a church's canon laws preventing her from rising up the hierarchy, then I will take note.
Perhaps I will hear of a challenge being taken out in court, challenging a churches dogma that a woman is spiritually an inferior being, compared to the male.
We're going around in circles on this, so we'll agree to disagree and see who is right in the long run. However, there is one other thing:
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2013, 11:41:38 AM
The Church provides a marriage ceremony for its members which is also recognised by the state as a legal marriage. The state provides its own civil marriage ceremony. The two are not the same.
In England, where the legislation currently in the news applies, this is wrong. As the Church of England is established, these are state-sanctioned marriages. The ceremonies are indivisible.
Quote from: deiseach on February 07, 2013, 12:03:32 PM
We're going around in circles on this, so we'll agree to disagree and see who is right in the long run. However, there is one other thing:
You may be going around in circles but I have made my points clear and remained focussed :)
QuoteIn England, where the legislation currently in the news applies, this is wrong. As the Church of England is established, these are state-sanctioned marriages. The ceremonies are indivisible.
I can't say I'm au fait with established churches marriages, that's why laws were passed in the UK protecting the established churches from any anti discrimination claims?
I do not see any move in France now to force Churches to change their canon laws policy.
I certainly do not see any precedent for a legal challenge to blatant anti female dogma as is practiced by the catholic Church. I do not even see a whisper of a campaign. It would be absurd, and that's all in despite of a raft of anti female discrimination legislation. In the main, a Church's canon law is sacrosanct, the common law does not apply effect on canon law.
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2013, 12:53:02 PM
I do not see any move in France now to force Churches to change their canon laws policy.
I certainly do not see any precedent for a legal challenge to blatant anti female dogma as is practiced by the catholic Church. I do not even see a whisper of a campaign. It would be absurd, and that's all in despite of a raft of anti female discrimination legislation. In the main, a Church's canon law is sacrosanct, the common law does not apply effect on canon law.
I know I shouldn't go back to this, but if you're going to blatantly misrepresent what I'm saying . . . I never said the state can force churches to change their rules. They can't force the Catholic Church to have women priests any more than they can force Giovanni Trapattoni to field women soccer players. What they can do is require organisations providing state-regulated services to not discriminate in the provision of those services. And it doesn't matter if they include opt-outs to the requirements. It is my belief that in the future someone will take a case against a church saying that if they provide state-backed marriage to heterosexual couples then they have to provide it to homosexual couples. Based on precedent, I can't see any other outcome than a win for the plaintiff in that situation.
Quote from: tommysmith on February 07, 2013, 10:17:44 AM
Quote from: nifan on February 07, 2013, 08:22:40 AM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 10:55:25 PM
It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.
People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.
Christ
If everyone woke up in the morning and decided to become a priest or nun the population of the world would die of. therefore we should logically make it illegal to become a priest or nun
Priests should be allowed marry, i think they would have more right to marry than the gays.
what about all the gay priests?
Someone upthread said it's "not natural" for gay people to marry. Which is true- it is far more "natural" for gay people to be persecuted because they are different. Nobody chooses to be gay and suicide rates for gay teenagers are far higher than for their straight peers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/03/comment.gayrights
In the 1950s there were no manuals for the young, and we had to do our best with baffling encyclopaedia entries. Our elders wanted to re-establish the imagined values of Britain's lost empire. They were full of warnings about VD and how Rome fell because of its tolerance of homosexuality. So as well as the disastrous Suez campaign of 1956, there was a tripling of prosecutions for homosexual offences after 1945. The police frequently obtained their convictions by offering not to charge a man in return for the names of his partners, until they had a whole "ring" to bring to court. Suicides before these mass trials were common, and those found guilty usually received long prison sentences
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2013, 02:05:25 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 07, 2013, 10:17:44 AM
Quote from: nifan on February 07, 2013, 08:22:40 AM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 10:55:25 PM
It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.
People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.
Christ
If everyone woke up in the morning and decided to become a priest or nun the population of the world would die of. therefore we should logically make it illegal to become a priest or nun
Priests should be allowed marry, i think they would have more right to marry than the gays.
what about all the gay priests?
Are we talking about the happy ones or the homosexual ones?
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 07, 2013, 08:41:52 AM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 06, 2013, 05:27:59 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 06, 2013, 08:47:20 AM
Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.
Incorrect. You do not speak for all people, irrespective of their sexual orientation.
I don't know what way you were brought up or what you saw going on around you but I know that where I'm from that marriage has always been seen as something that unites a man and a woman.
Where I was brought up there were no blacks. Only white Catholics and Protestants.
Does that mean that my view of normalcy in society should discount the rights of anyone outside those two groups?
EC, if you're going to hide behind the skirts of the church, at least get their pisition right.
Being homosexual is not a sin. Indulging in homosexual acts is.
According to Rome, that is.
Quote from: Puckoon on February 07, 2013, 03:43:29 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 07, 2013, 08:41:52 AM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 06, 2013, 05:27:59 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on February 06, 2013, 08:47:20 AM
Marriage is not the avenue to pursue unfortunately, and irrelevant of their sexual orientation all people have been brought up to understand marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that is who the marriage ceremony has been created to cater for.
Incorrect. You do not speak for all people, irrespective of their sexual orientation.
I don't know what way you were brought up or what you saw going on around you but I know that where I'm from that marriage has always been seen as something that unites a man and a woman.
Where I was brought up there were no blacks. Only white Catholics and Protestants.
Does that mean that my view of normalcy in society should discount the rights of anyone outside those two groups?
Or what if you grew up protestant in the north in the 60s? Normality then had catholics as second class citizens. The way things are or were is not always the right way.
QuoteI would imagine most gay people move away from religion once they personally accept they are gay. Why would they want to be involved with an organisation that sees their way of life as wrong?
My fear would be that the gay people,that are at the front of the gay rights movement, would push and push until theycan marry in a church just to proclaim that they are equal in every way.
Your imagination is a battle of 2 brain cells looking hard for one another but being like ships in the night. It's a wonder the bigotry and heterosexual prowess that makes you more equal than a gay man gets to shine through at all!
Your opinion on equality and purposeful inability to see all men equal is nothing short than that of a KKK member.
Quote from: seafoid on February 07, 2013, 02:05:25 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 07, 2013, 10:17:44 AM
Quote from: nifan on February 07, 2013, 08:22:40 AM
Quote from: tommysmith on February 06, 2013, 10:55:25 PM
It's not normal for two men to be together never mind marry.
People will tell you its 2013 blah blah blah they can do what they want but if everyone woke up in the morning and decided they were a gay that would mean no kids and the population of the world would end up dying off.
Christ
If everyone woke up in the morning and decided to become a priest or nun the population of the world would die of. therefore we should logically make it illegal to become a priest or nun
Priests should be allowed marry, i think they would have more right to marry than the gays.
what about all the gay priests?
What about them?
Quote from: theskull1 on February 07, 2013, 09:34:59 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 07, 2013, 12:46:53 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on February 07, 2013, 12:09:40 AM
I have no opinion on whether gay couples should be allowed to get married. On the subject of parenting, surely the jury is out on the impact to any child due to them being same sex parents. I couldn't say myself but I think (away from celeb lifestyles) many might struggle as they move into adolescence....could be wrong
I was walking home in Salford one day and a small child, couldn't have been more than 5 years old, trips and falls over hurting herself. Mother's reaction? "f**king stupid! Get up!"
I was going to the shops in Manchester one time and a young child was walking with her teenage mum alongside a low wall. The kid gets up on the wall and walks along it, as children do. Mother's reaction? "Get down off there you f**king d**khead!"
I saw a group of teenage mothers who got into a scuffle one time and one of them used her pram (baby and all) as a battering ram to hit one of the other girls.
I could go on all day giving you examples of abusive sc**bag parents who seem to breed before they can read. Where's the debate about restricting them from having children? It'd be a bit more of a pressing concern, wouldn't you say?
::)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OSbH7zkbWts/T1nsN4yhhBI/AAAAAAAAA_c/eJJVnpSARg4/s1600/exposestraw.jpg)
You'd think the jury is still out on whether scumbags do or do not have a detrimental impact on the lives of their children or indeed whether they should be allowed to adopt or not (your argument not mine btw but I'm going with it)
Has it ever been shown that gay parents have a detrimental impact on their children just by being gay?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 07, 2013, 04:02:50 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on February 07, 2013, 09:34:59 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 07, 2013, 12:46:53 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on February 07, 2013, 12:09:40 AM
I have no opinion on whether gay couples should be allowed to get married. On the subject of parenting, surely the jury is out on the impact to any child due to them being same sex parents. I couldn't say myself but I think (away from celeb lifestyles) many might struggle as they move into adolescence....could be wrong
I was walking home in Salford one day and a small child, couldn't have been more than 5 years old, trips and falls over hurting herself. Mother's reaction? "f**king stupid! Get up!"
I was going to the shops in Manchester one time and a young child was walking with her teenage mum alongside a low wall. The kid gets up on the wall and walks along it, as children do. Mother's reaction? "Get down off there you f**king d**khead!"
I saw a group of teenage mothers who got into a scuffle one time and one of them used her pram (baby and all) as a battering ram to hit one of the other girls.
I could go on all day giving you examples of abusive sc**bag parents who seem to breed before they can read. Where's the debate about restricting them from having children? It'd be a bit more of a pressing concern, wouldn't you say?
::)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OSbH7zkbWts/T1nsN4yhhBI/AAAAAAAAA_c/eJJVnpSARg4/s1600/exposestraw.jpg)
You'd think the jury is still out on whether scumbags do or do not have a detrimental impact on the lives of their children or indeed whether they should be allowed to adopt or not (your argument not mine btw but I'm going with it)
Has it ever been shown that gay parents have a detrimental impact on their children just by being gay?
Is there many gay parents around?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 07, 2013, 04:02:50 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on February 07, 2013, 09:34:59 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 07, 2013, 12:46:53 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on February 07, 2013, 12:09:40 AM
I have no opinion on whether gay couples should be allowed to get married. On the subject of parenting, surely the jury is out on the impact to any child due to them being same sex parents. I couldn't say myself but I think (away from celeb lifestyles) many might struggle as they move into adolescence....could be wrong
I was walking home in Salford one day and a small child, couldn't have been more than 5 years old, trips and falls over hurting herself. Mother's reaction? "f**king stupid! Get up!"
I was going to the shops in Manchester one time and a young child was walking with her teenage mum alongside a low wall. The kid gets up on the wall and walks along it, as children do. Mother's reaction? "Get down off there you f**king d**khead!"
I saw a group of teenage mothers who got into a scuffle one time and one of them used her pram (baby and all) as a battering ram to hit one of the other girls.
I could go on all day giving you examples of abusive sc**bag parents who seem to breed before they can read. Where's the debate about restricting them from having children? It'd be a bit more of a pressing concern, wouldn't you say?
::)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OSbH7zkbWts/T1nsN4yhhBI/AAAAAAAAA_c/eJJVnpSARg4/s1600/exposestraw.jpg)
You'd think the jury is still out on whether scumbags do or do not have a detrimental impact on the lives of their children or indeed whether they should be allowed to adopt or not (your argument not mine btw but I'm going with it)
Has it ever been shown that gay parents have a detrimental impact on their children just by being gay?
No...because the data isnt there AFAIK...therefore I was only giving a personal opinion. Are you saying that it's definitely nothing to be concerned about? Looks like you are
I've seen the offspring of gay parents and didn't see anything terribly out of place. No there's not a lot of them around, that's just a statistical fact. But they exist. And so far, based on what I've seen, I'd be more concerned about the shell-suited urban teenagers in dole-ville having children than a committed gay couple who work for a living.
Quote from: qubdub on February 07, 2013, 10:33:11 AM
For the record I am totally in favour of LGBT rights, but some of these arguments are ridiculous. The nature argument can work both ways
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 07, 2013, 01:02:43 AM
And as for the "natural" argument, homosexuality is widespread in nature. It's been observed in thousands of species and was well documented in about 500 species last time I looked.
So has zebras mating with horses and lions mating with tigers. Should humans now be permitted to shag bonobos? (Queue the Tyrone posters getting excited)
I appreciate that you're being devil's advocate here, but if you were actually using that as an argument against gay marriage my response would be "so you said homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, now you're saying it's wrong because it's natural. You can't have it both ways."
"unnatural"! the ignorant nonsense that gets put forward in this thread. it's not much to ask of people to go onto feckin' wikipedia and read a wee bit. perfectly reasonable explanations for sexual orientation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation
Thank you!
Quote from: Puckoon on February 07, 2013, 03:54:29 PM
QuoteI would imagine most gay people move away from religion once they personally accept they are gay. Why would they want to be involved with an organisation that sees their way of life as wrong?
My fear would be that the gay people,that are at the front of the gay rights movement, would push and push until theycan marry in a church just to proclaim that they are equal in every way.
Your imagination is a battle of 2 brain cells looking hard for one another but being like ships in the night. It's a wonder the bigotry and heterosexual prowess that makes you more equal than a gay man gets to shine through at all!
Your opinion on equality and purposeful inability to see all men equal is nothing short than that of a KKK member.
If all else fails.....throw in a few insults. That will teach him.
::)
To be perfectly frank with you - my insults are miniscule in comparision with your assertion that homosexuals are less than equal. That is exactly how the KKK used to think, not to mention the unionist hordes not that long ago either. I don't suppose you'd be the boy to tell Donal Og he's less equal in your eyes?
May I also point out how difficult this gay stuff is for the older generation?
My granny grew up in the end of the victorian era. She passed some of the thoughts and disciplines from that age to my parents and thence to me. Dresses down to her ankles, and absolutely no hint of a cleavage.
I remember once a conversation between my granny and my mother while they didnt know I was listening. I was too young to understand the conversation anyway. My granny was telling my mother that frosted glass on bathroom windows was not enough. Blinds and curtains had to be drawn when she was in the bathroom because and I quote "the mere outline is enough her them".
Aye, when I was growing up, Mary Whitehouse was a celebrity. How times have changed.
Quote from: Orior on February 08, 2013, 12:19:55 AM
May I also point out how difficult this gay stuff is for the older generation?
Orior, I think that is a fair point. I can understand it, although I don't agree with it as a justification.
It's akin to being brought up racist. There comes a time where difficult or not you have to acknowledge that all of us are equal, regardless of who you go to bed with (provided they are adults and consenting) and that discrimination of any kind can't be really justified because it's how you were raised?
Quote from: Puckoon on February 08, 2013, 12:17:07 AM
To be perfectly frank with you - my insults are miniscule in comparision with your assertion that homosexuals are less than equal. That is exactly how the KKK used to think, not to mention the unionist hordes not that long ago either. I don't suppose you'd be the boy to tell Donal Og he's less equal in your eyes?
"Not that long ago" as in yesterday?
I suppose I was referring to the historical organization, not the current pocket activists.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 07, 2013, 06:20:56 PM
I've seen the offspring of gay parents and didn't see anything terribly out of place. No there's not a lot of them around, that's just a statistical fact. But they exist. And so far, based on what I've seen, I'd be more concerned about the shell-suited urban teenagers in dole-ville having children than a committed gay couple who work for a living.
So as much as you don't have the same concerns, you don't really know yourself due to lack of data. Why didn't you post this reply yesterday instead of your strawman attack of what was only a personal concern and nothing else? :-\
If you want to start a thread about why we should neuter neds then work away. I'm with you on that one but you and I know its gonna take a fairly ugly shift in society to hand down those sentences.
What are the "concerns" someone might have over someone brought up by same-sex parents. That they might also be gay? Why is this anybody else's "concern" in the slightest?
Jack and John down the road adopt a baby. EC, tommysmith, nrico and the skull have never met and will never meet any of Jack, John or the child. What concern is it of yours if the child is gay, straight, bi etc.??
Are there not gay ned's and scumbags as well or are they entirely heterosexual?
Would they be neutered as well whilst we're at it?
Ah the gay debates and the political correctness that goes with them - live and let live etc etc and fair play but call a spade a spade it is the most unnatural act, and it seems now to be the trendy thing to be, sure if we were all gay the human population would cease - unless that is you were a fat bald rock star who could buy a few kids!
Quote from: Cold tea on February 08, 2013, 08:35:58 AM
Ah the gay debates and the political correctness that goes with them - live and let live etc etc and fair play but call a spade a spade it is the most unnatural act, and it seems now to be the trendy thing to be, sure if we were all gay the human population would cease - unless that is you were a fat bald rock star who could buy a few kids!
You honestly believe a significant propotion of gays are only gay because its trendy???
Quote from: deiseach on February 07, 2013, 01:13:10 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2013, 12:53:02 PM
I do not see any move in France now to force Churches to change their canon laws policy.
I certainly do not see any precedent for a legal challenge to blatant anti female dogma as is practiced by the catholic Church. I do not even see a whisper of a campaign. It would be absurd, and that's all in despite of a raft of anti female discrimination legislation. In the main, a Church's canon law is sacrosanct, the common law does not apply effect on canon law.
I know I shouldn't go back to this, but if you're going to blatantly misrepresent what I'm saying . . . I never said the state can force churches to change their rules. They can't force the Catholic Church to have women priests any more than they can force Giovanni Trapattoni to field women soccer players. What they can do is require organisations providing state-regulated services to not discriminate in the provision of those services. And it doesn't matter if they include opt-outs to the requirements. It is my belief that in the future someone will take a case against a church saying that if they provide state-backed marriage to heterosexual couples then they have to provide it to homosexual couples. Based on precedent, I can't see any other outcome than a win for the plaintiff in that situation.
The catholic church is not providing a state regulated service with the church marriage, they are providing a marriage ceremony for their church members, which the state recognises as a legal marriage. The state provides its own marriage service which is subject to state regulations.
The state does not regulate the catholic church marriage ceremony.
What precedent are you talking about where a state required a church teachings and practices to follow sex equality regulations?
You have only presented your belief that this bizzarre scenario could happen and calling it a fact, this is true David Icke territory :)
Quote from: Cold tea on February 08, 2013, 08:35:58 AM
Ah the gay debates and the political correctness that goes with them - live and let live etc etc and fair play but call a spade a spade it is the most unnatural act, and it seems now to be the trendy thing to be, sure if we were all gay the human population would cease - unless that is you were a fat bald rock star who could buy a few kids!
If serious, that's about the dumbest comment yet, and that's saying something!!
The "trendy" assertion aside (I guess some less intelligent people could mistake the growing acceptance of homosexuality in society encouraging otherwise reluctant and fearful people to come out of the closet for a fashion trend!), your other "points" have been refuted thoroughly on this thread already.
Quote from: gallsman on February 08, 2013, 08:16:18 AM
What are the "concerns" someone might have over someone brought up by same-sex parents. That they might also be gay? Why is this anybody else's "concern" in the slightest?
Jack and John down the road adopt a baby. EC, tommysmith, nrico and the skull have never met and will never meet any of Jack, John or the child. What concern is it of yours if the child is gay, straight, bi etc.??
I think they are concerned about a pyramid scheme. The kids would all be gay. They would get married and produce more gay children and next thing you know there is only one town in Ireland that is straight. And that would be the end of the world.
Quote from: J70 on February 08, 2013, 01:42:26 PM
Quote from: Cold tea on February 08, 2013, 08:35:58 AM
Ah the gay debates and the political correctness that goes with them - live and let live etc etc and fair play but call a spade a spade it is the most unnatural act, and it seems now to be the trendy thing to be, sure if we were all gay the human population would cease - unless that is you were a fat bald rock star who could buy a few kids!
If serious, that's about the dumbest comment yet, and that's saying something!!
The "trendy" assertion aside (I guess some less intelligent people could mistake the growing acceptance of homosexuality in society encouraging otherwise reluctant and fearful people to come out of the closet for a fashion trend!), your other "points" have been refuted thoroughly on this thread already.
I couldn't be arsed reading 18 pages of shite. How can a man wanting to put his c**k up another man's ass be natural, catch a grip ffs, and then you hear there are takers and receivers, some only take it and some only give it - yeah that's a natural act ok. ::)
Quote from: Cold tea on February 08, 2013, 03:54:07 PM
I couldn't be arsed reading 18 pages of shite. How can a man wanting to put his c**k up another man's ass be natural, catch a grip ffs, and then you hear there are takers and receivers, some only take it and some only give it - yeah that's a natural act ok. ::)
No harm but i just burst out laughing in the office that and the tae went everywhere. Post of the year. The first line sits very well with the rest of it! Call be immature and send me home Shirley ;D
Quote from: Cold tea on February 08, 2013, 03:54:07 PMsome only take it and some only give it - yeah that's a natural act ok. ::)
It works fine for men and women, doesn't it? ::)
Quote from: EC Unique on February 07, 2013, 11:49:29 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 07, 2013, 03:54:29 PM
QuoteI would imagine most gay people move away from religion once they personally accept they are gay. Why would they want to be involved with an organisation that sees their way of life as wrong?
My fear would be that the gay people,that are at the front of the gay rights movement, would push and push until theycan marry in a church just to proclaim that they are equal in every way.
Your imagination is a battle of 2 brain cells looking hard for one another but being like ships in the night.
That made me laugh out loud
Well done Puck ;D
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 08, 2013, 04:12:04 PM
Quote from: Cold tea on February 08, 2013, 03:54:07 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 08, 2013, 01:42:26 PM
Quote from: Cold tea on February 08, 2013, 08:35:58 AM
Ah the gay debates and the political correctness that goes with them - live and let live etc etc and fair play but call a spade a spade it is the most unnatural act, and it seems now to be the trendy thing to be, sure if we were all gay the human population would cease - unless that is you were a fat bald rock star who could buy a few kids!
If serious, that's about the dumbest comment yet, and that's saying something!!
The "trendy" assertion aside (I guess some less intelligent people could mistake the growing acceptance of homosexuality in society encouraging otherwise reluctant and fearful people to come out of the closet for a fashion trend!), your other "points" have been refuted thoroughly on this thread already.
I couldn't be arsed reading 18 pages of shite. How can a man wanting to put his c**k up another man's ass be natural, catch a grip ffs, and then you hear there are takers and receivers, some only take it and some only give it - yeah that's a natural act ok. ::)
Class, funny as fook!
I remember one man saying that you are only gay if you are the reviever! :D
"Lesbians. I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own home as long as they do it in front of me." - Bobby Chariot.
Quote from: Cold tea on February 08, 2013, 03:54:07 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 08, 2013, 01:42:26 PM
Quote from: Cold tea on February 08, 2013, 08:35:58 AM
Ah the gay debates and the political correctness that goes with them - live and let live etc etc and fair play but call a spade a spade it is the most unnatural act, and it seems now to be the trendy thing to be, sure if we were all gay the human population would cease - unless that is you were a fat bald rock star who could buy a few kids!
If serious, that's about the dumbest comment yet, and that's saying something!!
The "trendy" assertion aside (I guess some less intelligent people could mistake the growing acceptance of homosexuality in society encouraging otherwise reluctant and fearful people to come out of the closet for a fashion trend!), your other "points" have been refuted thoroughly on this thread already.
I couldn't be arsed reading 18 pages of shite. How can a man wanting to put his c**k up another man's ass be natural, catch a grip ffs, and then you hear there are takers and receivers, some only take it and some only give it - yeah that's a natural act ok. ::)
All right, so you're not being serious!
Quote from: EC Unique on February 08, 2013, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 08, 2013, 04:12:04 PM
Quote from: Cold tea on February 08, 2013, 03:54:07 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 08, 2013, 01:42:26 PM
Quote from: Cold tea on February 08, 2013, 08:35:58 AM
Ah the gay debates and the political correctness that goes with them - live and let live etc etc and fair play but call a spade a spade it is the most unnatural act, and it seems now to be the trendy thing to be, sure if we were all gay the human population would cease - unless that is you were a fat bald rock star who could buy a few kids!
If serious, that's about the dumbest comment yet, and that's saying something!!
The "trendy" assertion aside (I guess some less intelligent people could mistake the growing acceptance of homosexuality in society encouraging otherwise reluctant and fearful people to come out of the closet for a fashion trend!), your other "points" have been refuted thoroughly on this thread already.
I couldn't be arsed reading 18 pages of shite. How can a man wanting to put his c**k up another man's ass be natural, catch a grip ffs, and then you hear there are takers and receivers, some only take it and some only give it - yeah that's a natural act ok. ::)
Class, funny as fook!
I remember one man saying that you are only gay if you are the reviever! :D
That what you tell yourself?
what is a wonder to behold is the power and influence that institutionalised religious homophobia has on people's ability to think about homosexuality in a different way. To take on board, to even think about there might be a different way of looking at the matter other than it being an unnatural seems very difficult for some people to do. sexual orientation isn't an aberration, it's created by a variety of factors.
you've just internalized religious views on sexual orientation and homosexuality. mindless lemmings. sorry. but you are. so there.