Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should gay marriage be legal in Ireland?

Options
1…78101213…16

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    Zillah wrote: »
    Ok, let me try again:

    You say gay people should not be allowed to get married because they can't have children.
    But what about infertile couples? we ask, should they not be forbidden getting married too?
    You say they can adopt.

    Therefore, gay people should be allowed to get married and adopt children.

    Do you see how "Gay people can't have children and therefore shouldn't allowed to get married" makes no sense as an argument?

    Infertile couples have the organs that normally would have allowed them to procreate gay people do not. That is my reasoning


  • Options
    #273
    Bobo78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 556 ✭✭✭Bobo78


    Absolutely no.


  • Options
    #274
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Infertile couples have the organs that normally would have allowed them to procreate gay people do not. That is my reasoning

    Not always. Should a woman who has had a hysterectomy be allowed marry, as she doesn't have the organs to allow procreation?


  • Options
    #275
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    MYOB wrote: »
    Because no law has been passed to allow it yet. There's a majority in support of full marriage rights based on the last opinion poll as it happens.

    None of which has any bearing on the fact that the bulk of the country do not consider homosexuality abnormal - check the ESRI sex/sexuality survey from about three years ago.

    Link please


  • Options
    #276
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Infertile couples have the organs that normally would have allowed them to procreate gay people do not. That is my reasoning

    You see, this doesn't make any sense... I'm not sure how else to phrase it for you. What you just said make no sense.

    Hmm. Be honest here, do you actually care about any of these reasons? Or is it just that queers are weird and wrong and you want them to go away?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    gcgirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭gcgirl


    sdonn wrote: »
    I would instead offer him or her a home with a loving heterosexual couple who in my opinion carry less risk of ****ing the kid up completely.

    My friend comes from a Normal married parents set up his parents have 7 kids his father drags them to mass every sunday his father has never treated him like his other brother, his father also treats his mother like crap 75%of the time! said guy has very low self estem and suffers from depression !


  • Options
    #278
    Splendour
    Registered Users Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Splendour


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    And to put it in terms that might resonate, how about same sex couples call it marriage and straight people call it something else?
    See?
    See how fucking stupid that concept is.




    .


    Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman. Why should same sex couples have to change. But hey if it had to happen we could call it something along the lines of 'Synergy, the contract formerly known as Marriage'.:D

    As for your gufaw at my Cain theory? Someone asked about where Cain's wife came from-I simply answered the question...


  • Options
    #279
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    MYOB wrote: »
    Not always. Should a woman who has had a hysterectomy be allowed marry, as she doesn't have the organs to allow procreation?

    Thats just pointless ALL heterosexual people should be allowed marry. ALL


  • Options
    #280
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Link please

    http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/

    I have it on paper here so can't provide a direct PDF link. It'll be up there.


  • Options
    #281
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    Zillah wrote: »
    You see, this doesn't make any sense... I'm not sure how else to phrase it for you. What you just said make no sense.

    Hmm. Be honest here, do you actually care about any of these reasons? Or is it just that queers are weird and wrong and you want them to go away?

    It makes perfect sense. Yes they are wierd and yes they are wrong and sure if ye'd all like to leave the country arrivederci


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Thats just pointless ALL heterosexual people should be allowed marry. ALL

    You originally said gay marriage shouldn't be allowed due to the lack of possiblities for children, though. Changing your tune now that you're being challenged on that, I see. If you support marriage on the basis of it being a foundation for a family and kids, you should require fertility tests as part of the notice period and remove it from those that don't have kids after, say, 5 years....



    (not seriously suggesting that, by the way).


  • Options
    #283
    gcgirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭gcgirl


    I know a girl who got married last sep it was just for the Fancy Day by the looks of it her husband has been screwing around and its in seriously trouble!!


  • Options
    #284
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    MYOB wrote: »
    http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/

    I have it on paper here so can't provide a direct PDF link. It'll be up there.

    Ah lad i may be blind and i just can't see it. Would be interested to read it though if you can find it


  • Options
    #285
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    MYOB wrote: »
    You originally said gay marriage shouldn't be allowed due to the lack of possiblities for children, though. Changing your tune now that you're being challenged on that, I see. If you support marriage on the basis of it being a foundation for a family and kids, you should require fertility tests as part of the notice period and remove it from those that don't have kids after, say, 5 years....



    (not seriously suggesting that, by the way).

    Wrong again that was in relation to ADOPTION. My view was poor people, or single parents or gay people cannot adopt!


  • Options
    #286
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Ah lad i may be blind and i just can't see it. Would be interested to read it though if you can find it

    Theres a Search box at the top of the site.


  • Options
    #287
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    It makes perfect sense. Yes they are wierd and yes they are wrong and sure if ye'd all like to leave the country arrivederci

    How does it make sense? First of all you say you can't get married if you can't have children. Then you say you can get married if you can't have children but you do have the organs that could make children even if they don't work. Then, when someone points out that a woman without a womb meets the criteria you give up and just state that all straight people can get married and don't explain why any of the shit you've been spouting was anything but ignorant, bigoted nonsense.

    Which it is.
    Ignorant, bigoted, nonsense.


  • Options
    #288
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Wrong again that was in relation to ADOPTION. My view was poor people, or single parents or gay people cannot adopt!

    You're changing your story to fit the situation you've worked yourself in to now.

    You also started off as just being anti gay marriage, whereas you've managed to admit your real reason for this, which is plain old fashioned homophobia. The reasons are never anything but, no matter how veiled up they are.


  • Options
    #289
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Thats just pointless ALL heterosexual people should be allowed marry. ALL

    I agree.
    I also think that ALL homosexual people should be allowed marry. ALL

    Why?

    *Because if any two consenting adults love each other and want to spnd the rest of their lives together, then no-one should be allowed get in the way of that.

    *Homosexuality is NOT unnatural and is NOT a choice. Anyone who says otherwise is actually just stupid.

    *Civil partnerships are not good enough because they don't offer all the rights that married heterosexual couples have.

    *The function of marriage (despite what some people living in the past will say) is NOT to bear children, so the procreation argument fails miserably.

    *If gay marriage leads to gay adoption, all that means is that there are more couples out there who can offer a child a loving home.

    *"affecting people of faith" - I would have lol'd at that if I didn't know Jakkass was actually being serious.

    I don't know how it can be made clearer and simpler to you or anyone else here opposing gay marriage why your "opinions" and arguments are so wrong.


  • Options
    #290
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    this thread is moving way too fast...


  • Options
    #291
    gcgirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭gcgirl


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ1I_-MY_NY


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    MYOB wrote: »
    You're changing your story to fit the situation you've worked yourself in to now.

    You also started off as just being anti gay marriage, whereas you've managed to admit your real reason for this, which is plain old fashioned homophobia. The reasons are never anything but, no matter how veiled up they are.

    Hey i have no problem saying im homophobic and i am. Im also racist towards specifically nigerians and romanians and if you want me to get into the reasons why im more than happy to explain.

    Edit: By the way i did not change my story. I was talking about adoption originally.


  • Options
    #293
    Splendour
    Registered Users Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Splendour


    MYOB wrote: »
    A
    You've been implying it. You're using it as a scare tactic even though there isn't any comparison. One is illegal, has been for centuries, will continue to be and has no backing for legalising it. The other has been legal for some time, had huge public support for its legalisation, and is staying that way.


    But why do you think it's a scare tactic? This is my point! What is so scary about it?! If we'd been having this conversation 100 years ago about homosexuality being legalised you'd probably have thought that was a scare tactic back then too!


  • Options
    #294
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    Zillah wrote: »
    How does it make sense? First of all you say you can't get married if you can't have children. Then you say you can get married if you can't have children but you do have the organs that could make children even if they don't work. Then, when someone points out that a woman without a womb meets the criteria you give up and just state that all straight people can get married and don't explain why any of the shit you've been spouting was anything but ignorant, bigoted nonsense.

    Which is it.
    Ignorant, bigoted, nonsense.

    Lets get back to simple ideas then . Gay people cannot get married.


  • Options
    #295
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Splendour wrote: »
    But why do you think it's a scare tactic? This is my point! What is so scary about it?! If we'd been having this conversation 100 years ago about homosexuality being legalised you'd probably have thought that was a scare tactic back then too!

    What, that legalising homosexuality (as there were discussions about 100 years ago, but no serious attempts) would lead to legalising incest? Yes, if we'd been having this conversation 100 years ago I'd have said it was a scare tactic, and I'd be right. There isn't a single chance of it happening, so referring to it is a scare tactic.

    In fact, it WAS used as a scare tactic (as was the suggestion that the age of consent would be removed) in 1960s Britain against the campaign for legalisation there. And again, it hasn't happened nor is it going to happen.


  • Options
    #296
    Splendour
    Registered Users Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Splendour


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    this thread is moving way too fast...

    Indeed it is and alas I must bow out and bid you all adieu. Enjoyed the debate though...


  • Options
    #297
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Hey i have no problem saying im homophobic and i am. Im also racist towards specifically nigerians and romanians and if you want me to get into the reasons why im more than happy to explain.

    So why didn't you say that from the off? "I'm against gay marriage because I hate gays". You've been thrashing around giving the worst non-sensical excuses possible rather than just saying the actual reason why you're against it.


  • Options
    #298
    bronte
    Registered Users Posts: 11,331 ✭✭✭✭bronte


    Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »
    I agree.
    I also think that ALL homosexual people should be allowed marry. ALL

    Why?

    *Because if any two consenting adults love each other and want to spnd the rest of their lives together, then no-one should be allowed get in the way of that.

    *Homosexuality is NOT unnatural and is NOT a choice. Anyone who says otherwise is actually just stupid.

    *Civil partnerships are not good enough because they don't offer all the rights that married heterosexual couples have.

    *The function of marriage (despite what some people living in the past will say) is NOT to bear children, so the procreation argument fails miserably.

    *If gay marriage leads to gay adoption, all that means is that there are more couples out there who can offer a child a loving home.

    *"affecting people of faith" - I would have lol'd at that if I didn't know Jakkass was actually being serious.

    I don't know how it can be made clearer and simpler to you or anyone else here opposing gay marriage why your "opinions" and arguments are so wrong.


    Knife-WREEENCH, You make a sh it-load of sense.


  • Options
    #299
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    this thread is moving way too fast...

    On wings of disgust,
    Ignorance, no greater fuel.
    She soars like the wind.


  • Options
    #300
    gcgirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭gcgirl


    I think i am more affended by 2 gingers trying to pro create!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    MYOB wrote: »
    So why didn't you say that from the off? "I'm against gay marriage because I hate gays". You've been thrashing around giving the worst non-sensical excuses possible rather than just saying the actual reason why you're against it.

    Apologies MYOB for any confusion. I'm against gay marriage, gay adoption and gays because i HATE gays. Glad to clear that up for you though.

    Edit: Don't even get me started on gingers


Advertisement