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
12467…16

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    Sure oral and anal sex are unatural. As are condoms.

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



  • Options
    #93
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    MYOB wrote: »
    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...).

    Fair enough and that's wrong. It still isn't a reason to support (or oppose) gay adoption. I'm not trying to argue a side here. To be honest I'm still trying to keep my mind open to the idea. I am supportive of gay marriage and would like my concerns to be put to rest on the adoption issue. Unfortunately it probably can only happen by going forward with it and seeing the results.


  • Options
    #94
    FearDark
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,425 ✭✭✭FearDark


    Meller wrote: »
    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...

    Progression > Unantural


  • Options
    #95
    bronte
    Registered Users Posts: 11,331 ✭✭✭✭bronte


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.



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


    Like I said..there is no point trying to argue with you so...if you don't see it in that video then :confused:


  • Options
    #96
    Meller
    Registered Users Posts: 436 ✭✭Meller


    FearDark wrote: »
    Progression > Unantural

    Yes, and we have progressed beyond plain animal instinct and lust?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Fair enough and that's wrong. It still isn't a reason to support (or oppose) gay adoption. I'm not trying to argue a side here. To be honest I'm still trying to keep my mind open to the idea. I am supportive of gay marriage and would like my concerns to be put to rest on the adoption issue. Unfortunately it probably can only happen by going forward with it and seeing the results.

    You're aware that a single gay man has exact the same rights to and (extremely slim chance of) adopting as a single heterosexual man as is in Ireland? From memory, former Senator Colm O'Gorman has adopted kids.


  • Options
    #98
    The Gnome
    Registered Users Posts: 1,403 ✭✭✭The Gnome


    Of course it should be legal.

    More weddings = More Cake.

    Everbody loves cake.


  • Options
    #99
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    FearDark wrote: »
    Progression > Unantural

    Progression is in the eyes of the beholder. Arguably this could be also considered regressive considering that it was actively encouraged in antiquity, as were other forms of relationships which wouldn't be commonplace today. As I say it depends on who you are talking to, not everyone will see what you consider to be progressive to be actually so.


  • Options
    #100
    CianRyan
    Registered Users Posts: 14,721 ✭✭✭✭CianRyan


    Yes.
    Simple as.


  • Options
    #101
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    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.


    O Noes!!!! Not Gayz adoptin!!!11!!!!!

    If they can't find suitable hetero couples to adopt children, they should be placed with the Church. That'll work out great.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Soulja boy wrote: »
    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.

    Thats twice in this thread now you have called me stupid. There is no inconsistency at all - what is the inconsistency you are pointing out ?

    No abusive parents should be allowed near children who are to be adopted full stop. There is no inconsistency there whatsoever.

    The choices here are not abusive heterosexual or non abusive homosexual - the choices are parents who are either a ) heterosexual or b) homosexual.


  • Options
    #103
    El_Dangeroso
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Progression is in the eyes of the beholder. Arguably this could be also considered regressive considering that it was actively encouraged in antiquity, as were other forms of relationships which wouldn't be commonplace today. As I say it depends on who you are talking to, not everyone will see what you consider to be progressive to be actually so.


    I was wondering how long it would take someone to bring up the paedophile comparison. Good show but a little late to the party.


  • Options
    #104
    Meller
    Registered Users Posts: 436 ✭✭Meller


    Soulja boy wrote: »
    No we haven't

    Go stand outside any doctors that supply the morning after pill on thurday morning at any college or university lol.
    Also kudos for being the moron who equated homosexuality to lust and animal instinct. If a guy loves another guy that goes beyond lust.

    No, what l meant was that is surely not all that matters. Animals aren't picky about personality. We've progressed beyond depending on that alone, l didn't mean to say it ceased to exist.

    l agree that we have not been 'natural' for a long time, though l suppose that shows that progression is natural anyway. And unless one of these developments is harmful to somebody or something, then l don't see the problem. Homosexuality certainly isn't, it's beneficial to the earth more than anything.


  • Options
    #105
    Soulja boy
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Soulja boy


    Morlar wrote: »
    Thats twice in this thread now you have called me stupid. There is no inconsistency at all.

    No abusive parents should be allowed near children who are to be adopted full stop.

    The choices here are not abusive heterosexual or non abusive homosexual - the choices are parents who are either a ) heterosexual or b) homosexual.
    No, I said this DOES happen. abusive parents ARE allowed to keep kids because the system in place is archaic.
    A woman who lives up the road from me, who is an alcoholic who has tried to kill herself has had a kid DIE IN A FIRE because of neglect and she still has five more kids, the youngest under six years old, the state does nothing to intervene.
    Thats inconsistent.
    Turn a blind eye to this, but deny people who would be good parents.


  • Options
    #106
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    MYOB wrote: »
    You're aware that a single gay man has exact the same rights to and (extremely slim chance of) adopting as a single heterosexual man as is in Ireland? From memory, former Senator Colm O'Gorman has adopted kids.

    I wasn't but it makes sense to me in that a single person adoption would not be the norm (for want of a much MUCH better word) regardless of their sexuality. I would put the two possibilities along the same level as a homosexual couple.
    Yikes, it's a bad thing when you're uncomfortable with your own beliefs :(
    Again it's nothing against the people themselves in this hypothetical situation but the kids which where there is any uncertainty in my mind to the chance of a negative effect because of the situation they were brought up in I would lean very much on the side of caution.
    Again I feel the need to qualify it by saying that it's not a matter of letting any hetro couple adapt either. They would need to quell fears of not raising the kids well themselves.


  • Options
    #107
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Soulja boy wrote: »
    No, I said this DOES happen. abusive parents ARE allowed to keep kids because the system in place is archaic.
    A woman who lives up the road from me, who is an alcoholic who has tried to kill herself has had a kid DIE IN A FIRE because of neglect and she still has five more kids, the youngest under six years old, the state does nothing to intervene.
    Thats inconsistent.
    Turn a blind eye to this, but deny people who would be good parents.

    Who exactly on this thread or anywhere, who is opposed to gay adoption, has suggested society should turn a blind eye to child abuse ?


  • Options
    #108
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Soulja boy wrote: »
    Obviously its not the only option stupid


    Soulja boy infracted. Please attack the post and not the poster.


  • Options
    #109
    Goodshape
    Registered Users Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    galwayrush wrote: »
    Why marriage?:confused: Civil partnerships are recognised and legal, surely that's enough.:confused:
    Read this somewhere recently :

    Saying civil unions are same as marriage is like saying "Who cares if you have to sit in back of the bus? You'll still get where you're going!"


  • Options
    #110
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,372 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    Considering gays will pretty much always be in the minority in society, I'd like to know what the sociological reasons for not wanting gay marraige are. How would a minority of people somehow destroy traditional family values? Also, why shouldn't children be taught about homosexuality in school? First of all, it's not as if not teaching them about it will make gays not exist, or turn them gay, and second of all it'd probably go a long way to helping young people come out to their peers etc. Those seem to be the reasons put forward in the Prop 8 video. Also, why is it called a lifestyle 'choice,' it's not like one chooses to be gay.

    Regarding adoption, surely a child with homosexual parents is better off than a child with no parents at all?


  • Options
    #111
    cruiser178
    Registered Users Posts: 1,654 ✭✭✭cruiser178


    *opens door,f**ks off again*


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    andrew wrote: »
    a child with homosexual parents is better off than a child with no parents at all?

    Those are not the choices.


  • Options
    #113
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    cruiser178 wrote: »
    *opens door,f**ks off again*

    *switches off internet and switches over to tv.*


  • Options
    #114
    Soulja boy
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Soulja boy


    Morlar wrote: »
    Those are not the choices.
    Its always an option though when it does happen. The only reason its not followed on is because of some paper saying they cant.


  • Options
    #115
    Soulja boy
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Soulja boy


    Meller wrote: »
    No, what l meant was that is surely not all that matters. Animals aren't picky about personality. We've progressed beyond depending on that alone, l didn't mean to say it ceased to exist.

    l agree that we have not been 'natural' for a long time, though l suppose that shows that progression is natural anyway. And unless one of these developments is harmful to somebody or something, then l don't see the problem. Homosexuality certainly isn't, it's beneficial to the earth more than anything.

    I'm terribly sorry good man, I mixed you up with a poster with a similar name.


  • Options
    #116
    ronkmonster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,181 ✭✭✭ronkmonster


    yes


  • Options
    #117
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,372 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    Morlar wrote: »
    Those are not the choices.

    Actually yeah, you're right there. But the harms to the child aren't going to necessaraly be that great so as to make it a criteria for not letting them adopt adoption. Children raised in many different circumstances usually turn out grand

    On the other hand, I personally believe that they sould only be allowed to adopt if a suitable hetero couple can't be found. I think ideally a male and a female should raise a child, and since with adoption you're in the position of making the choice, it should go to a male and a female.


  • Options
    #118
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    No.


  • Options
    #119
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I just don't get why people would want other human beings not to be treated equally. It makes no sense to me. It does not affect my life whatsoever if two men or two women want marry each other. If it had a negative impact on other peoples lives then maybe on some level I would get it, but it doesn't, so I don't.

    :)


  • Options
    #120
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Meller wrote: »
    It's never anything new, but it still gives me a headache every single time I flick through one of these threads. Some... people... :confused:

    Can a survey be done? The only arguments I'm seeing are 'iz rong!', so surely 90% of people actually opposed to this still haven't come to terms with two plus two?
    "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is retarded".

    neddas wrote: »
    Unnatural? These penguins would differ:

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/gay-penguin-pair-adopt-abandoned-chick
    They were locked in a cage, with only other male penguins, almost like a 'prison'.

    ScienceNerd wrote: »
    Haha, check and mate
    Not really, penguins do have same-sex, but the most famous penguins to be a gay couple (the one the book was written about) broke up over a year ago, and are now seeing females.
    It was just a phase.
    neddas wrote: »
    Over 1,500 species of animals practice same sex coupling in the wild.

    Booya.
    Ducks have sex with dead ducks.
    Is necrophilia natural?

    Some species eat other organisms alive.
    Lions kill the children of the female in order to put her into heat.
    When people are refering to what's natural, they mean natural for humans.
    For instance, the percentage of the population who are homosexual varies from country to country, which seems to indicate that it is not an in-born phenomenon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    sub-x
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭sub-x


    YES...

    Isn't funny how the Catholic Church like to give us lectures about the moral high ground.Its about time the Catholic Church fecked right off with itself.

    This has nothing to do or a criticism on anybodies particular faith,this is against an out dated institution that still lives in the dark ages and is run by hypocrites and scumbags.


Advertisement