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
13567…16

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    powerzjim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 153 ✭✭powerzjim


    yes everyone should have equel rights no matter your religion, skin colour or sexual preference


  • Options
    #63
    El_Dangeroso
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    FearDark wrote: »
    I think my point was that I feel that its wrong, unnatural would be a better word I suppose. Fact is that so far 1/4 of the poll indicates that homosexuals shouldnt be allowed marry but here I am on my own.

    Unnatural? These penguins would differ:

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/gay-penguin-pair-adopt-abandoned-chick


  • Options
    #64
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    bronte wrote: »
    That reminds me of the 'Meat and you' Video they showed Lisa simpsons class when she became vegetarian.

    Could it be more condescending? :rolleyes:

    How is that condascending. It's more respectful than calling those who disagree with you bigots because you don't feel the same as they do on a certain issue isn't it?


  • Options
    #65
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    neddas wrote: »
    Unnatural? These penguins would differ:

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/gay-penguin-pair-adopt-abandoned-chick
    Haha, check and mate

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Options
    #66
    coffee_cake
    Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Jakkass wrote: »
    How is that condascending. It's more respectful than calling those who disagree with you bigots because you don't feel the same as they do on a certain issue isn't it?

    condescending is never respectful.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Soulja boy
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Soulja boy


    Morlar wrote: »
    You can not have gay marriage without gay adoption being the next logical step. Anyone who says you can is either naive or disingenous. Gay adoption is the part I would object to & that is why I voted no.

    Nah man thats stupid.
    Hetro couple: wants to get married, could potentially do that within a week.
    Hetro couple: wants to adopt, Takes ages, often years, and mostly never, its that strict.
    Could you imagine the difficulty associated with a homosexual couple trying to adopt?

    Besides the legislation on that is archaic at the moment. A gay couple where one member already has a kid is simply undefined by law. I'm comfortable with that.
    But if the parent who had the kid dies, then his or her partner doesn't have any legal right to care for the kid and it goes into the hell of foster care etc.
    Voting no kept that around which is depressing as hell.


  • Options
    #68
    coffee_cake
    Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Meller wrote: »
    lf everyone said that, we'd never get anywhere. Gay adoption would be rarer and rarer and the few kids involved would suffer even more. That is not the right attitude at all; the more common it is, the less trouble they will get.

    Yeah. Let's all pander to the bullies and live in fear of being "different", that'll solve everyone's problems.
    People would be surprised anyway - never encountered any problem with it myself.


  • Options
    #69
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    markok84 wrote: »
    This video was posted around the time of the Miss America debacle, I found it interesting, and I like cartoons.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zbpDe_QhS0

    If I was Dan or Michael I'd tell Tom to take that barbecue and shove it up his hole. :mad: All this "oh we must protect traditional family values" stuff really bugs the hell out of me. Heaven forbid children grow up in a society where homosexual marriage is seen as normal. And God help the poor parentless child who has to leave an orphanage when they're adopted into a good home by a loving gay couple! :rolleyes:

    Marriage is about more than just keeping the notion of the traditional family alive. I don't want to be a parent - should that stop me from ever being married?


  • Options
    #70
    galwayrush
    Registered Users Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    Pulls up sofa. grabs popcorn, thread getting serious alert.:)


  • Options
    #71
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    bluewolf wrote: »
    condescending is never respectful.

    We have yet to clarify how it was condascending. Any thoughts?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    ScienceNerd wrote: »
    People have problems with gay adoption but abusive parents have natural children all the time. Fairly flawed system to me.

    If those people had anyway of stopping the abusive parents from having those kids they would. It's not really comparable.
    I dunno how I'd stand on the situation. I'm still not a 100% sure of nature vs nurture no do I accept that it would definitely have no negative effect on the child.
    Outright apologies if that offends but it's how I feel on the issue.


  • Options
    #73
    FearDark
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,425 ✭✭✭FearDark


    neddas wrote: »
    Unnatural? These penguins would differ:

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/gay-penguin-pair-adopt-abandoned-chick
    Penguins in captivity, hardly natural.


  • Options
    #74
    bronte
    Registered Users Posts: 11,331 ✭✭✭✭bronte


    Jakkass wrote: »
    How is that condascending. It's more respectful than calling those who disagree with you bigots because you don't feel the same as they do on a certain issue isn't it?

    You have watched it, yes?

    I'll say no more.

    If you can't see it, there is absolutely no point in trying to convince you otherwise. :)


  • Options
    #75
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    If those people had anyway of stopping the abusive parents from having those kids they would. It's not really comparable.

    We have the methods to take them away from the abusive parents, but its rarely done to avoid upsetting the legally protected idyll of a 'family unit' which is often in no way stable, in no way secure and in no way safe. Its fairly comparable - the state is complicit in keeping kids with abusive parents (and when they used to take kids away from parents frequently in the past, they didn't really find them non-abusive environments...).


  • Options
    #76
    Dennis the Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,358 ✭✭✭Dennis the Stone


    bronte wrote: »
    You have watched it yes?

    I'll say no more.

    If you can see it there is absolutely no point in trying to convince you otherwise. :)

    I thought it was a joke first. Who is it aimed at, children?


  • Options
    #77
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Sharpshooter wrote: »
    Just as a matter of interest can I ask why?:pac:

    No.

    But if you must be tiresome -a ) = common sense.


    There is no way the gay lobby groups internationally and in Ireland would suddenly call a halt at gay marriage.

    It would obviously be a stepping stone. Gay adoption would immediately be even more likely to skip to the top of their agenda (which it is already a part of btw) with gay marriage rights granted.

    Any body who seriously claims otherwise is either (as mentioned) being naiive or being disingenous.


  • Options
    #78
    Soulja boy
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Soulja boy


    ScienceNerd wrote: »
    People have problems with gay adoption but abusive parents have natural children all the time. Fairly flawed system to me.

    Its incredibly hypocritical, the major problem with the state involving itself in how people raise kids is that they take a huge blind eye to abuse.

    I'm not joking when I say this: A child has to die in order for the state to intervene.
    Now if a gay couple would be better raising the kid then the animals who get away with some of the **** I have seen, they should be allowed to raise their foster kids.

    Turn a blind eye to the flat out abuse, but say no to gray area, state opinion is such a joke sometimes.


  • Options
    #79
    trout
    Registered Users Posts: 9,945 ✭✭✭trout


    Morlar wrote: »
    There is no way the gay lobby groups internationally and in Ireland would suddenly call a halt at gay marriage.

    It would obviously be a stepping stone. Gay adoption would immediately be even more likely to skip to the top of their agenda (which it is already a part of btw) with gay marriage rights granted.

    Any body who seriously claims otherwise is either (as mentioned) being naiive or being disingenous.

    What would be next on the gay lobby groups agenda, after marriage and adoption rights ?


  • Options
    #80
    Soulja boy
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Soulja boy


    trout wrote: »
    What would be next on the gay lobby groups agenda, after marriage and adoption rights ?
    Dethroning the jewish conspiracy and claiming their throne as the secret rulers of the world duh!


  • Options
    #81
    bronte
    Registered Users Posts: 11,331 ✭✭✭✭bronte


    Tago Mago wrote: »
    I thought it was a joke first. Who is it aimed at, children?

    I thought so too, If whoever made it can't treat their audience with a bit of respect, I don't know where they expect to get.
    Seriously! google the 'meat and you' vid from the simpsons ..VERRRY similar :P


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Arathorn
    Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭Arathorn


    FearDark wrote: »
    No.
    Its just wrong, Im not coming from a religious point of view at all but when I see two guys kissing or being intimate I physically feel sick, I know its cool these days to be gay but Im not buying it. Savage me all you want people but I thnk its wrong.

    Think about a straight couple in their 70's and imagine them kissing and going at it. That would gross most people out too but there's nothing morally wrong with it. Just because something doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean its wrong.


  • Options
    #83
    El_Dangeroso
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    FearDark wrote: »
    Penguins in captivity, hardly natural.

    Over 1,500 species of animals practice same sex coupling in the wild.

    Booya.


  • Options
    #84
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    trout wrote: »
    What would be next on the gay lobby groups agenda, after marriage and adoption rights ?
    World domination

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Options
    #85
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Soulja boy wrote: »
    Its incredibly hypocritical, the major problem with the state involving itself in how people raise kids is that they take a huge blind eye to abuse.

    I'm not joking when I say this: A child has to die in order for the state to intervene.
    Now if a gay couple would be better raising the kid then the animals who get away with some of the **** I have seen, they should be allowed to raise their foster kids.

    Turn a blind eye to the flat out abuse, but say no to gray area, state opinion is such a joke sometimes.


    The choices available for children to be adopted are NOT

    1) abusive heterosexual parents
    & b) non abusive homosexual parents.

    Likewise the choices from the other side of the argument are not 1) sexually abusive homosexual parents and b) non sexually abusive heterosexual parents.

    The choices available are non abusive/sexual or otherwise parents which are a) heterosexual or b ) homosexual - those would be the choices and my view is that non abusive heterosexual parents are more beneficial to a child than non abusive homosexual parents.


  • Options
    #86
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    bronte wrote: »
    You have watched it, yes?

    Yes, I did, and I found it a brilliant and fair depiction of why someone could have voted yes on Proposition 8, and why I would oppose gay marriage but yet can maintain a respect despite disagreement.
    bronte wrote: »
    If you can't see it, there is absolutely no point in trying to convince you otherwise. :)

    It wasn't a jot condascending, so what is there to see?


  • Options
    #87
    Holsten
    Registered Users Posts: 4,971 ✭✭✭Holsten


    Yes, yes they should.


  • Options
    #88
    Soulja boy
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Soulja boy


    Morlar wrote: »
    The choices available for children to be adopted are NOT

    1) abusive heterosexual parents
    & b) non abusive homosexual parents.

    Likewise the choices from the other side of the argument are not 1) sexually abusive homosexual parents and b) non sexually abusive heterosexual parents.

    The choices available are non abusive/sexual or otherwise parents which are a) heterosexual or b ) homosexual - those would be the choices and my view is that non abusive heterosexual parents are more beneficial to a child than non abusive homosexual parents.

    Obviously its not the only option stupid, I was just pointing out an inconsistency in how things are done. Fixing the adoption system should not be part of allowing homesexual fostering. Rather that homosexual fostering should be considered in fixing the horrible system currently in place as part of all the other issues.


  • Options
    #89
    Meller
    Registered Users Posts: 436 ✭✭Meller


    The argument 'it's unnatural' just seems to be some some cover-up for 'I'm really brainwashed and think it's wrong just because it's wrong'. If it's unnatural, get off your unnatural computer, stop driving your unnatural cars, stop flying in your unnatural planes...


  • Options
    #90
    Sharpshooter
    Registered Users Posts: 31,859 ✭✭✭✭Sharpshooter


    Morlar wrote: »
    Gay adoption is the part I would object to & that is why I voted no.
    Sharpshooter wrote: »
    Just as a matter of interest can I ask why?:pac:
    Morlar wrote: »
    No.

    But if you must be tiresome -a ) = common sense.


    There is no way the gay lobby groups internationally and in Ireland would suddenly call a halt at gay marriage.

    It would obviously be a stepping stone. Gay adoption would immediately be even more likely to skip to the top of their agenda (which it is already a part of btw) with gay marriage rights granted.

    Any body who seriously claims otherwise is either (as mentioned) being naiive or being disingenous.

    I asked because I was interested in your reason, certainly not to be tiresome as you put it.
    I actually think that was quite a rude reply to a genuine question.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    Tago Mago wrote: »
    I thought it was a joke first. Who is it aimed at, children?
    I thought so too, until it asked for people to vote at the end.
    bronte wrote: »
    I thought so too, If whoever made it can't treat their audience with a bit of respect, I don't know where they expect to get.
    Seriously! google the 'meat and you' vid from the simpsons ..VERRRY similar :P
    Except the Simpsons one was more convincing.

    "Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!"


Advertisement