The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[easytiger95]

Every culture has had some form of marriage, though it has taken various dfferent guises depending on the tradition - interestingly though, if you're talking about the eternal nature of the Catholic sacrament, it actually was not consecrated as a sacrament until the 13th century. So the concept you're talking about Tony is essentially a man-made construct.

Of course, that doesn't stop religious people having misgivings about gay marriage, but as this referendum will seek to change civil procedures, in my opinion, in any democracy the extension of civil liberties to all the population should take precedence over those misgivings, especially since their freedom to practice their religion is also guaranteed under the constitution.

[LCohen]

Why do same sex couples want children? If they did really,wouldn't they opt for a conventional relationship which would produce them without any undue controversy?

Are you contending that people opt for hetrosexual relationships not out of love for their partner but purely in order to have children and that this is a good thing? Such a shocking condemnation of the very institution of marriage that you pretend to define. Yet more utter crap.

Could the answer be they simply want to surf the current tide of gay supremacy

Sorry , surf the wah???

and further annoy religiously minded people (who have no wish other than to save their souls) by making a mockery of the sacrament of marriage by crassly seeking to redefine it.

Very easily these people. If people are annoyed about what consenting adults do in their own home its going fairly difficult not tp annoy them

It is laughable too the number of theophobes who "support" gay marriage but wouldn't be seen dead in a gay bar or would recoil in horror should anyone even joke that they may be gay.

Who are these people? Name one?

Civil partnerships for gay couples are more than sufficient.

You are entitled to that view. But if you are going to publically state it then be prepared to be asked to provide some supporting evidence. That would appear to be something you have completely failed to do

[T Fearon]

Evidence? How about I believe gay marriage is morally wrong and contrary to God's word?

[heganboy]

Marriage is rooted in religious belief,even the term has religious inferences.

Lads and lasses,
Don't feed the troll(s)

[Oraisteach]

Tony, I have this image of you giggling uncontrollably in your Poyntzpass B & B, like a shaken bowl of jelly, deriving great joy at people's reactions to your postings, which veer from the outrageous to the offensive.

You ask, "why wouldn't they opt for a conventional relationship which would produce them [children] without any undue controversy."  Really?  How about because they're gay and thus are attracted to people of the same sex.  They can't choose to be straight any more than you can choose to be gay.  And I apologise that their God-created sexuality is such an undue inconvenience to you and society. And while they're at it, especially since choice is so easy, maybe those annoying blacks could opt for a more agreeable hue, one less offensive to us palefaces.

And building on that, you state that their primary motivation is to "annoy religiously minded people", not unlike those annoying Civil Rights marchers who in times past took to the streets just to irritate god-fearing Unionists.  Of course, you've hit the nail on the head.  They don't want mere civil rights and equal treatment under the law, they just want to test the Christianity of Christians. As an earlier poster noted, a cunning plan, very Baldrickian.

And these gays are making a mockery of the sacrament of marriage. Of course they are.  In a world in which divorce is ever more prevalent and couples opt to forgo the ceremony and simply shack up with each other, you mock a section of society that actually wants to pursue marriage.  Far from mocking it, they are embracing it, thereby showing it the highest respect.

And what brings you back to your pet noir—theophobia?  I am not a theophobe, but I do defend the right of same-sex couples to marry.  And what's this odd reference to gay bars?  Tony, I imagine that you'd defend a Jew's right to practice his or her religion, but does that mean that you have to be seen at a temple or synagogue?

[armaghniac]

The sad thing about this is that various zealots bait each other and call each other "homophobe" or "theophobe" and talk about children without any real interest in their welfare, but rather as ammunition to get at the other guy. So we get statements like "children are better off in an orphanage" or "I consider myself lucky to live in a town, and on a street where there are many same sex couples bringing up children". While not doubt subject to same variation as every other part of the human race, same sex couples are certainly capable of providing better care to children than an orphanage, and many do. However, any child in such a situation is cut off from at least one parent, and has an less equal exposure to the human race than a regular upbringing provides, so an same sex couples bringing up children is the making the best of bad job, the mitigation of damage, but not something to be welcomed as a trend by any responsible person.

The adoption law regulates such thing, as I pointed out pages back. The success of individual same sex couples in bringing up children is no more a reason to vote to devalue marriage than the success of someone who left school when they were 16 is a reason to stop investing in further education.

[easytiger95]

Ah c'mon Armaghniac - you're better than that. Seriously.....

However, any child in such a situation is cut off from at least one parent, and has an less equal exposure to the human race than a regular upbringing provides

Face palm.

[muppet]

The sad thing about this is that various zealots bait each other and call each other "homophobe" or "theophobe" and talk about children without any real interest in their welfare, but rather as ammunition to get at the other guy. So we get statements like "children are better off in an orphanage" or "I consider myself lucky to live in a town, and on a street where there are many same sex couples bringing up children". While not doubt subject to same variation as every other part of the human race, same sex couples are certainly capable of providing better care to children than an orphanage, and many do. However, any child in such a situation is cut off from at least one parent, and has an less equal exposure to the human race than a regular upbringing provides, so an same sex couples bringing up children is the making the best of bad job, the mitigation of damage, but not something to be welcomed as a trend by any responsible person.

The adoption law regulates such thing, as I pointed out pages back. The success of individual same sex couples in bringing up children is no more a reason to vote to devalue marriage than the success of someone who left school when they were 16 is a reason to stop investing in further education.

Those two statements are not opposites, nor comparable as weapons from opposite sides, nowhere near it.

The first is an idiotic generalisation while the latter is simply a personal preference. Saying that you see the latter as 'ammunition' shows how far you are willing to travel to get offended.

Regarding the orphanage, read Paul McGrath's book and see how he felt everytime his mother and sister left after visiting him in the orphanage. Religious intolerance of inter-racial extra-marital children, drilled into his mother's family by the Church, put him there. The same religious intolerance we see from the usual suspect on this thread.

The rest of your argument is the old No Divorce argument rehashed. Many children are cut off from one parent. Broken marriages, prison and even work ffs can deny a child seeing a parent. Gay marriage doesn't cause any of this.

[T Fearon]

The core point here is children being placed in the setting of a non normal upbringing,before they reach the age of consent or reason.

How if one is reared in a non normal environment is one going to grow up to be normal,and how will anyone feel and react to this non normal upbringing when they reach the age of reason.

[andoireabu]

The core point here is children being placed in the setting of a non normal upbringing,before they reach the age of consent or reason.

How if one is reared in a non normal environment is one going to grow up to be normal,and how will anyone feel and react to this non normal upbringing when they reach the age of reason.

Do you get that this vote has got nothing to do with gay people being allowed to raise children since they are already allowed to? And that if it passes the church still wont be obliged to marry them? The core point as I see it is all they want is to be allowed to be married rather than have a civil partnership and personally I see no problem with that.

[LeoMc]

The core point here is children being placed in the setting of a non normal upbringing,before they reach the age of consent or reason.

How if one is reared in a non normal environment is one going to grow up to be normal,and how will anyone feel and react to this non normal upbringing when they reach the age of reason.

How do children grow up to be abnormal* when brought up in a normal environment?
* I assume this is your term for someone who is gay.

Apologies for feeding the troll.

[Stall the Bailer]

tony describes describes a child being raised by a same sex couple as a bizzare proposition. Yet when asked for evidence that it cannot work he falls silent. I never thought there was any link between faith and decency but i understood that spiritualists would make that claim. Tony's willingness to deal in ignorance and hatred and not to have the decency to address the argument and come up with some evidence (or to admit that his arguments are baseless in fact) shows that spiritualists have given up on even the appearance of decency.

That is some claim, using one person's viewpoint for all the people of one grouping.
Tony is also a member of the GAA (I persume), would this sound right "shows that GAA have given up on even the appearance of decency"

[muppet]

The core point here is children being placed in the setting of a non normal upbringing,before they reach the age of consent or reason.

How if one is reared in a non normal environment is one going to grow up to be normal,and how will anyone feel and react to this non normal upbringing when they reach the age of reason.

Are you talking about children of divorced parents, separated parents or jailed parents?

Are you talking about children reared by nannies, as well as mammies or even grannies.

Or is it just another weak disguise for your prejudices in your crusade to dictate how everyone else lives?

[T Fearon]

My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?

[Bingo]

My concern is the redefination of marriage to accommodate abnormal relationships.What next? Will people be allowed to.marry their dogs?

I'll tell you what is abnormal, a supposedly grown man posting/trolling the same old shite over and over again on an internet forum for his own twisted satisfaction.