SDLP and Sinn Fein endorse gay marriage.

[BennyCake]

Marriage is naturally between members of the opposite sex,that is the natural order,it is very obvious,that's why God created separate genders.Any other scenario is unnatural,without any religious perspective

This is a piss poor argument. Only a homophobe in need of a cloak for their bias could buy that argument. It doesn't take much intelligence to realise that sexual attraction is more common place between genders than within a single gender but that does not make single-gender attraction "unnatural". They will also be able to point to evidence of homosexual acts nd homosexuality in other species within nature. Marriage will be more common between genders for teh same reason and historic numbers will be skewed by the historic legal frameworks. Marriage being more common between a man and a woman than between say 2 women because 2 women are not allowed to get married could not be used to statisiclly support an argument that same sex marriage is unnatural.

Linking marriage and nature is a bit weird in any event

Hetero marriage is more popular but gay attraction is just as natural, innit.
the sad thing about gay history is how little of it there is.

Well that's another point.

Homosexuality was a crime until not so long ago. If people were so concerned about equal gay rights, why didn't our forefathers demand it, take to the streets? They didn't because it was frowned upon, called allsorts, gays alienated, attacked, abused etc. People were told by media, governments, church, schools etc that it was a sin, immortal or whatever.

Nowadays people are told the opposite. People are told that this is good and this is bad, and you'll agree with us.

So, are you a better person than your forefathers, because you support gay marriage? Are you a more liberal, free-thinking citizen? Was, then, our forefathers bigoted, homophobic or anti-gay because they weren't as accepting of what was perceived as a sin in their era?

[Milltown Row2]

Marriage is naturally between members of the opposite sex,that is the natural order,it is very obvious,that's why God created separate genders.Any other scenario is unnatural,without any religious perspective

This is a piss poor argument. Only a homophobe in need of a cloak for their bias could buy that argument. It doesn't take much intelligence to realise that sexual attraction is more common place between genders than within a single gender but that does not make single-gender attraction "unnatural". They will also be able to point to evidence of homosexual acts nd homosexuality in other species within nature. Marriage will be more common between genders for teh same reason and historic numbers will be skewed by the historic legal frameworks. Marriage being more common between a man and a woman than between say 2 women because 2 women are not allowed to get married could not be used to statisiclly support an argument that same sex marriage is unnatural.

Linking marriage and nature is a bit weird in any event

Hetero marriage is more popular but gay attraction is just as natural, innit.
the sad thing about gay history is how little of it there is.

Well that's another point.

Homosexuality was a crime until not so long ago. If people were so concerned about equal gay rights, why didn't our forefathers demand it, take to the streets? They didn't because it was frowned upon, called allsorts, gays alienated, attacked, abused etc. People were told by media, governments, church, schools etc that it was a sin, immortal or whatever.

Nowadays people are told the opposite. People are told that this is good and this is bad, and you'll agree with us.

So, are you a better person than your forefathers, because you support gay marriage? Are you a more liberal, free-thinking citizen? Was, then, our forefathers bigoted, homophobic or anti-gay because they weren't as accepting of what was perceived as a sin in their era?

Leaving yourself wide open with that post bc... Your views are similar to Tony's. That's the bracket you sit in

[BennyCake]

I know where I sit. But that's not answering my question

[J70]

I don't agree with SS marriage but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen. Can't me what you want but I'm entitled to my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion but can you tell us what its based on?

If you had said "i don't think blacks should be allowed into the country but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen" I would pose the same question to you.

It's unnatural. It's not how nature intended. As I said, sign what they like but it ain't a marriage.

Who exactly did nature intend marriage to be between??? This is crazy stuff. You are happy enough for consenting adults to commit to each other for life and to get a piece of paper confirming this. You object to them calling it marriage because at that point it offends nature. Not even Tony in all his monumental fcukwittery has come out with something as stupi as that

Conventional marriage between a man and a woman, leads to children (usually). It's a natural union, the same as in nature because it works well. Man forages for food while woman fluffs the nest and looks after the brood. Old fashioned yes, but it's essentially what life is all about. For animals and humans. Gays can't naturally do this. Therefore it is unnatural.

But of course when this SS marriage is approved, then it's ivf, surrogates, adoption for gay couples, and in my opinion that is totally wrong.

An argument that marriage should not be allowed between gays because they cant have kids but is allowed between hetrosexuals who cannot have kids or have no intention of kids is definitively homophobic

Unable to bear children naturally is not the only reason that I disagree with gay marriage. As I said before, let them sign a form that gives their partner the house, car, etc after their death. I've no problem with that, but marriage, no.

What is your objection, now that the "it's unnatural " argument  has been shown to be baseless?

[J70]

Marriage is naturally between members of the opposite sex,that is the natural order,it is very obvious,that's why God created separate genders.Any other scenario is unnatural,without any religious perspective

This is a piss poor argument. Only a homophobe in need of a cloak for their bias could buy that argument. It doesn't take much intelligence to realise that sexual attraction is more common place between genders than within a single gender but that does not make single-gender attraction "unnatural". They will also be able to point to evidence of homosexual acts nd homosexuality in other species within nature. Marriage will be more common between genders for teh same reason and historic numbers will be skewed by the historic legal frameworks. Marriage being more common between a man and a woman than between say 2 women because 2 women are not allowed to get married could not be used to statisiclly support an argument that same sex marriage is unnatural.

Linking marriage and nature is a bit weird in any event

Hetero marriage is more popular but gay attraction is just as natural, innit.
the sad thing about gay history is how little of it there is.

Well that's another point.

Homosexuality was a crime until not so long ago. If people were so concerned about equal gay rights, why didn't our forefathers demand it, take to the streets? They didn't because it was frowned upon, called allsorts, gays alienated, attacked, abused etc. People were told by media, governments, church, schools etc that it was a sin, immortal or whatever.

Nowadays people are told the opposite. People are told that this is good and this is bad, and you'll agree with us.

So, are you a better person than your forefathers, because you support gay marriage? Are you a more liberal, free-thinking citizen? Was, then, our forefathers bigoted, homophobic or anti-gay because they weren't as accepting of what was perceived as a sin in their era?

Using that logic, you could argue for a return to the enslavement  of black people  in the US.

And the penal laws too.

[easytiger95]

Marriage is naturally between members of the opposite sex,that is the natural order,it is very obvious,that's why God created separate genders.Any other scenario is unnatural,without any religious perspective

This is a piss poor argument. Only a homophobe in need of a cloak for their bias could buy that argument. It doesn't take much intelligence to realise that sexual attraction is more common place between genders than within a single gender but that does not make single-gender attraction "unnatural". They will also be able to point to evidence of homosexual acts nd homosexuality in other species within nature. Marriage will be more common between genders for teh same reason and historic numbers will be skewed by the historic legal frameworks. Marriage being more common between a man and a woman than between say 2 women because 2 women are not allowed to get married could not be used to statisiclly support an argument that same sex marriage is unnatural.

Linking marriage and nature is a bit weird in any event

Hetero marriage is more popular but gay attraction is just as natural, innit.
the sad thing about gay history is how little of it there is.

Well that's another point.

Homosexuality was a crime until not so long ago. If people were so concerned about equal gay rights, why didn't our forefathers demand it, take to the streets? They didn't because it was frowned upon, called allsorts, gays alienated, attacked, abused etc. People were told by media, governments, church, schools etc that it was a sin, immortal or whatever.

Nowadays people are told the opposite. People are told that this is good and this is bad, and you'll agree with us.

So, are you a better person than your forefathers, because you support gay marriage? Are you a more liberal, free-thinking citizen? Was, then, our forefathers bigoted, homophobic or anti-gay because they weren't as accepting of what was perceived as a sin in their era?

By that logic discovering fire was a bad thing. Face palm stuff BC.

[Maguire01]

Marriage is naturally between members of the opposite sex,that is the natural order,it is very obvious,that's why God created separate genders.Any other scenario is unnatural,without any religious perspective

This is a piss poor argument. Only a homophobe in need of a cloak for their bias could buy that argument. It doesn't take much intelligence to realise that sexual attraction is more common place between genders than within a single gender but that does not make single-gender attraction "unnatural". They will also be able to point to evidence of homosexual acts nd homosexuality in other species within nature. Marriage will be more common between genders for teh same reason and historic numbers will be skewed by the historic legal frameworks. Marriage being more common between a man and a woman than between say 2 women because 2 women are not allowed to get married could not be used to statisiclly support an argument that same sex marriage is unnatural.

Linking marriage and nature is a bit weird in any event

Hetero marriage is more popular but gay attraction is just as natural, innit.
the sad thing about gay history is how little of it there is.

Well that's another point.

Homosexuality was a crime until not so long ago. If people were so concerned about equal gay rights, why didn't our forefathers demand it, take to the streets? They didn't because it was frowned upon, called allsorts, gays alienated, attacked, abused etc. People were told by media, governments, church, schools etc that it was a sin, immortal or whatever.

Nowadays people are told the opposite. People are told that this is good and this is bad, and you'll agree with us.

So, are you a better person than your forefathers, because you support gay marriage? Are you a more liberal, free-thinking citizen? Was, then, our forefathers bigoted, homophobic or anti-gay because they weren't as accepting of what was perceived as a sin in their era?

Well we're less shackled by religion, so yes, many of us are definitely more liberal and free thinking. And of course in past generations homophobia was more prevalent and unquestioned, just as racism was.

[armaghniac]

This thread has the usual extremism, misuse and denial of analogous situations and general bollix of the previous 26 county thread.

[Rossfan]

I see the SDLP are saying they'll lose a third of their Assembly seats in the next Election.

[Maguire01]

I see the SDLP are saying they'll lose a third of their Assembly seats in the next Election.

A few of those losses seem very likely, unless a new leader brings a slight bounce. Although in West Belfast I would have thought the People Before Profit candidate was a threat to a SF seat more so than the SDLP. It would also make sense if they had N Mallon as the North Belfast candidate as she's a much better future prospect, and I'd imagine much more electable, than Alban.

[smelmoth]

I don't agree with SS marriage but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen. Can't me what you want but I'm entitled to my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion but can you tell us what its based on?

If you had said "i don't think blacks should be allowed into the country but it's not for religious reasons. I just don't agree with it or think it should happen" I would pose the same question to you.

It's unnatural. It's not how nature intended. As I said, sign what they like but it ain't a marriage.

Who exactly did nature intend marriage to be between??? This is crazy stuff. You are happy enough for consenting adults to commit to each other for life and to get a piece of paper confirming this. You object to them calling it marriage because at that point it offends nature. Not even Tony in all his monumental fcukwittery has come out with something as stupi as that

Conventional marriage between a man and a woman, leads to children (usually). It's a natural union, the same as in nature because it works well. Man forages for food while woman fluffs the nest and looks after the brood. Old fashioned yes, but it's essentially what life is all about. For animals and humans. Gays can't naturally do this. Therefore it is unnatural.

But of course when this SS marriage is approved, then it's ivf, surrogates, adoption for gay couples, and in my opinion that is totally wrong.

An argument that marriage should not be allowed between gays because they cant have kids but is allowed between hetrosexuals who cannot have kids or have no intention of kids is definitively homophobic

Unable to bear children naturally is not the only reason that I disagree with gay marriage. As I said before, let them sign a form that gives their partner the house, car, etc after their death. I've no problem with that, but marriage, no.

Not the only reaon eh? So it is a reason then. Do you object to people getting married if they cant or dont want children or you only object if they are gay?? If so I cannot see how you could argue that your argument is based on anything other than hate and ignorance.

This objection that is not on people getting together but their ability to call it marriage needs some explanation. What is wrong with the label marriage being used? What is less worthy of the word marriage about 2 women getting married than say a post menopausal couple or a sterile couple or a couple that just don't want or cant afford kids?

[smelmoth]

Marriage is naturally between members of the opposite sex,that is the natural order,it is very obvious,that's why God created separate genders.Any other scenario is unnatural,without any religious perspective

This is a piss poor argument. Only a homophobe in need of a cloak for their bias could buy that argument. It doesn't take much intelligence to realise that sexual attraction is more common place between genders than within a single gender but that does not make single-gender attraction "unnatural". They will also be able to point to evidence of homosexual acts nd homosexuality in other species within nature. Marriage will be more common between genders for teh same reason and historic numbers will be skewed by the historic legal frameworks. Marriage being more common between a man and a woman than between say 2 women because 2 women are not allowed to get married could not be used to statisiclly support an argument that same sex marriage is unnatural.

Linking marriage and nature is a bit weird in any event

Hetero marriage is more popular but gay attraction is just as natural, innit.
the sad thing about gay history is how little of it there is.

Well that's another point.

Homosexuality was a crime until not so long ago. If people were so concerned about equal gay rights, why didn't our forefathers demand it, take to the streets? They didn't because it was frowned upon, called allsorts, gays alienated, attacked, abused etc. People were told by media, governments, church, schools etc that it was a sin, immortal or whatever.

Nowadays people are told the opposite. People are told that this is good and this is bad, and you'll agree with us.

So, are you a better person than your forefathers, because you support gay marriage? Are you a more liberal, free-thinking citizen? Was, then, our forefathers bigoted, homophobic or anti-gay because they weren't as accepting of what was perceived as a sin in their era?

Not better - but less ignorant.

Abe Lincoln helped smashed slavery but did not agree on equality between races. By today's standards he was a racists but in general its best not to judge figures from the past by today's moral standards.

[smelmoth]

I see the SDLP are saying they'll lose a third of their Assembly seats in the next Election.

Maybe a more vocal stance on some of the criminality that nationalist/repbublican areas are being subjected to might bring success. And a determination to work with statutory agencies to break these gangs.

[T Fearon]

Do those of influence in the SDLP care a jot as long as Mc Donnell,Ritchie,Durkan are assured of their Westminster seats and perks and Attwood,Kelly,Mc Glone stay in Stormont?

[foxcommander]

I see the SDLP are saying they'll lose a third of their Assembly seats in the next Election.

Maybe a more vocal stance on some of the criminality that nationalist/repbublican areas are being subjected to might bring success. And a determination to work with statutory agencies to break these gangs.

Maybe the SDLP should just exit the stage now. Since Hume left they've been a failure. They offer nothing.