The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[LCohen]

I would argue that although Homosexuality appears in nature it doesn't make it natural.

Please explain?

Most if not all animals will also jump on their offspring if they are in heat. Is incest therefore natural?

Most you say. Should be plenty of evidence then. Post it and I will take a view.

An old grizzly animal will jump up on a young female in her first season - is pedophilia natural?

Paedophilia is (in the most part - see below) natural. It is not however consenual. The latter is quite important

(I say in the most part because there is some evidence of paedophile tendencies arising via exposure as a victim or as a prolonged investigator - more research required)

[armaghniac]

Similarly, if the church called for a return to stoning adulterers, as advocated in the Bible, I'd certainly consider it backward.

Couldn't we have a stone button on Facebook?

[LCohen]

Homosexuality is now actively promoted in society, it appears cool to be gay (and yes it is a choice, I know someone who is gay who when they came out turned camp as any stereotypical homosexual) I say again to all the people campaigning for gay rights you would shit a kitten if your son / daughter told you they were gay - no matter what crap you are going to spout here, a man indulging in sexual gratification with another man is not a normal (and I am just using men here as it appears to be all men here), yes people have human rights, they should be able to get married and have all legal right for financial security that brings, but for two men to adopt a child is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.

Would one man bringing up a child be tantamount to child abuse?

Are you stating that homosexuals in non human species are making a choice to be gay? Presumably to be cool?

Anyway congratulations on the extensive research

[Oraisteach]

Nothing quite like being stoned on Facebook, I imagine.

[LCohen]

Sidney what you do behind close doors with your partner is your own business, now sure how it is relevant to the debate.

I think you've just demolished the No case.

+1

[LCohen]

And if a family member were to commit murder,would there be a greater understanding for my lack of tolerance?

I would expect an adult to hold very different views between murder and being homosexual. Personally I cannot see any link between the 2

[The Iceman]

I would argue that although Homosexuality appears in nature it doesn't make it natural.

Please explain?

Most if not all animals will also jump on their offspring if they are in heat. Is incest therefore natural?

Most you say. Should be plenty of evidence then. Post it and I will take a view.

An old grizzly animal will jump up on a young female in her first season - is pedophilia natural?

Paedophilia is (in the most part - see below) natural. It is not however consenual. The latter is quite important

(I say in the most part because there is some evidence of paedophile tendencies arising via exposure as a victim or as a prolonged investigator - more research required)

why don't you go back and address the post where I further explained my point and see where you land. Nobody else has. In fact people are still asking for answers when I gave one...

[LCohen]

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

Should all adoptions be deferred until the child in question reaches the age of reason and can express a view on any of the many reasons why they might object to the placement? You see this as workable? or uou reserving it for just one issue - the homosexuality issue. Not that you are a homophobe like?

[LCohen]

Who have I called homophobic who has not made homophobic comments? Surely you don't have a problem with homophobes being correctly labelled?

Who have I said was trying to restrict debate who is not trying to restrict debate?

Shambolic post. You have accused the Yes campaign of trying to restrict debate. You use me as an example. I provide an argument as to why that cannot be the case. Seems to have been edited out in your attempt to quote me.

Would that be where you implied that anyone who supported marriage was unhinged?

Provide me with the quote where I said/implied that/"implied that anyone who supported marriage was unhinged" and I will provide a considered response. After all I'm all for debate

[T Fearon]

Both grossly offensive in God's eyes

[LCohen]

I would argue that although Homosexuality appears in nature it doesn't make it natural.

Please explain?

Most if not all animals will also jump on their offspring if they are in heat. Is incest therefore natural?

Most you say. Should be plenty of evidence then. Post it and I will take a view.

An old grizzly animal will jump up on a young female in her first season - is pedophilia natural?

Paedophilia is (in the most part - see below) natural. It is not however consenual. The latter is quite important

(I say in the most part because there is some evidence of paedophile tendencies arising via exposure as a victim or as a prolonged investigator - more research required)

why don't you go back and address the post where I further explained my point and see where you land. Nobody else has. In fact people are still asking for answers when I gave one...

Was that the one where you said that evidence of homosexual behaviour in the wider animal kingdom did not point towards homosexuality being natural. I don't think you actually refuted that homosexuality has been observed on an ongoing basis in many species.

What is the breakdown of the rationale where we cannot use analysis of closely related species as analogous to human beings?

[The Iceman]

Because you're reading human behaviour into animals. Science doesn't do that. Homosexual behaviour may exist but not homosexuality. That term should only be reserved for humans.
I argue that it isn't normal from a scientific perspective when you draw the comparison to animals. Existence of behaviour in nature does not equate to normal or natural.

For pediophilia in nature talk to any dog breeder, horse breeder. In-line breeding happens all the time - it is encouraged infact to retain desirable traits in animals. Grandfathers to grand-daughters.... happens all the time. Doesn't make it normal or justify it in humans.

Like Muppet pointed out from the start - its a red herring shouldnt be part of the conversation at all.

[The Boy Wonder]

Browsing through this thread and having followed the debate in the media I do wonder if the actual constitutional change that is proposed has been read and understood by all concerned. I've read many letters to the editor(s) etc. and having read the explanatory leaflet received in the post in the last few days I'm of the opinion that many contributors to the debate are actually ill-informed - I was myself.

The origin of this referendum, I believe, was a grouping that was formed to review the constitution and propose amendments if and where required - the 2 proposed amendments that we vote on this month result from the recommendations of the review group.

The most glaring fault line in the same-sex marriage debate is that members of the main political parties are not properly upfront and representing the views (whether Yes or No) of their constituents. It's ironic in the circumstances that here on this forum some of the people willing to put their heads above the parapet and go against the supposed mainstream don't actually have a vote - fair play to the boys from Armagh (There's one fair county in Ireland....).

Anyway, our constitution does not actually define marriage (up to recent years this was no debate as to it's definition) so nobody can state categorically that the constitution discriminates against gays and lesbians. Of course our actual legislation is a different matter and is subject to the parameters of our constitution. No constitution (whether that of a nation, political party, sports club) can be all things to all people - it has to formulated for the greater good (which is what this debate is all about).

I will be voting No but I do respect and understand many of the viewpoints put forward by the Yes side - I would say I am 80% NO.

[J70]

Because you're reading human behaviour into animals. Science doesn't do that. Homosexual behaviour may exist but not homosexuality. That term should only be reserved for humans.
I argue that it isn't normal from a scientific perspective when you draw the comparison to animals. Existence of behaviour in nature does not equate to normal or natural.

Ok, so if we pretend that humans aren't animals and that animal behaviour has no light to shed on human behaviour, then what does "natural" actually mean when it comes to humans?

For pediophilia in nature talk to any dog breeder, horse breeder. In-line breeding happens all the time - it is encouraged infact to retain desirable traits in animals. Grandfathers to grand-daughters.... happens all the time. Doesn't make it normal or justify it in humans.

Like Muppet pointed out from the start - its a red herring shouldnt be part of the conversation at all.

Yet the fact that it "goes against nature" is a "criticism" often leveled at homosexuality.

The existence of the behaviour in animals is a perfectly valid response to such as charge. And given that its homosexual acts and behaviour, not only sexual orientation, that seems to drive these people crazy, the distinction between the behaviour itself and orientation, even if it were valid, is not really relevant to such a conversation.

But yeah, I would agree, it is a red herring, albeit one that is introduced when all else fails in terms of arguing against homosexuality.

[J70]

Browsing through this thread and having followed the debate in the media I do wonder if the actual constitutional change that is proposed has been read and understood by all concerned. I've read many letters to the editor(s) etc. and having read the explanatory leaflet received in the post in the last few days I'm of the opinion that many contributors to the debate are actually ill-informed - I was myself.

The origin of this referendum, I believe, was a grouping that was formed to review the constitution and propose amendments if and where required - the 2 proposed amendments that we vote on this month result from the recommendations of the review group.

The most glaring fault line in the same-sex marriage debate is that members of the main political parties are not properly upfront and representing the views (whether Yes or No) of their constituents. It's ironic in the circumstances that here on this forum some of the people willing to put their heads above the parapet and go against the supposed mainstream don't actually have a vote - fair play to the boys from Armagh (There's one fair county in Ireland....).

Anyway, our constitution does not actually define marriage (up to recent years this was no debate as to it's definition) so nobody can state categorically that the constitution discriminates against gays and lesbians. Of course our actual legislation is a different matter and is subject to the parameters of our constitution. No constitution (whether that of a nation, political party, sports club) can be all things to all people - it has to formulated for the greater good (which is what this debate is all about).

I will be voting No but I do respect and understand many of the viewpoints put forward by the Yes side - I would say I am 80% NO.

A constitution should guarantee rights for every individual. "Greater good" is a nebulous concept that can be harnessed for better or worse.