Should gay marriage be legal in Ireland?

KeyLimePie

Jakkass wrote: »

Go to the Christianity forum if you want to discuss theology. I'd like you to answer my question. What is so different between the general argument for gay marriage, and one for incestual marriage?

Tell me this sir. Why do YOU personally don't believe in gay marriage ?

philologos

MYOB wrote: »

You're allowed dismiss someone for failing to do their job, something you're nicely ignoring. If someone's religion prevents them from being able to do a job, they can't get that job. End of.

That isn't end of. The law says that you cannot fire someone merely for their religious beliefs. It's discriminatory. Please cite the article where it says that you are allowed to discriminate for ones faith in the Equality Act (1998) please?

MYOB wrote: »

Eh, no, they would. Go to court seeking compensation for being fired for failing to do your job, on a racially/religious discrimination defined line and not only would you not get a cent the media would have a field day on you.

No you can't be fired for being a Christian at work. That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

MYOB wrote: »

Again, you don't state whether you think it would be acceptable for someone to do this.

I think people should have religious freedom, and should have the right to appeal to any authority they want if they feel they are discriminated against. I mightn't share their beliefs but I think that is open to them. That's my final line on it.

L1011

sdonn wrote: »

Anything that puts a child at any risk in terms of their development both with other kids and with family etc, in my view shouldn't be allowed.

So disabled people shouldn't be allowed marry/have children? I went to school with a kid who got terrible slagging for his father being in a wheelchair and my sister went to school with the daughter of two blind parents who got much the same. If protecting a child from abuse from peers is so crucially important, surely we need to make sure that every eventuality is covered....

philologos

KeyLimePie wrote: »

Tell me this sir. Why do YOU personally don't believe in gay marriage ?

Could you just answer my question? I've dealt with the reasons why I disagree with it on this thread already. Mainly due to the affects it could have on children, and the effects it could have on people of faith.

KeyLimePie

sdonn wrote: »

Anything that puts a child at any risk in terms of their development both with other kids and with family etc, in my view shouldn't be allowed.

But how about mary down the road with 3 children by 3 different fathers who have all done a runner shouldn't be allowed keep them ?

Or how about saoirse, a well respected lawyer who's husband died ? Should she be allowed to keep her 5 month year old child ?

What you're basically saying is NO parents are better than gay parents

KeyLimePie

Jakkass wrote: »

Could you just answer my question? I've dealt with the reasons why I disagree with it on this thread already. Mainly due to the affects it could have on children, and the effects it could have on people of faith.

I'm not gonna humor you by arguing that point. As a gay person I feel personally insulted to be compared to incest.

philologos

MYOB wrote: »

I'd like you to answer mine before you go running off demanding others to answer yours.

I can't relate to other peoples religious experiences. I can only deal with my own.

You're asking me to presuppose the following:

1) I'm not a Christian.
2) My religion causes me to oppose inter-racial marriage.
3) Should I go to appeal my case to the Labour Court due to this.

I'm not in that position, and Christianity definitely goes against that opinion. That is why I cannot answer your question.

KeyLimePie

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't relate to other peoples religious experiences. I can only deal with my own.

You're asking me to presuppose the following:

1) I'm not a Christian.
2) My religion causes me to oppose inter-racial marriage.
3) Should I go to appeal my case to the Labour Court due to this.

I'm not in that position, and Christianity definitely goes against that opinion. That is why I cannot answer your question.

*is a he.

rainbow kirby

Jakkass wrote: »

effects it could have on people of faith.

Why should your relationship with your invisible friend be put on a pedestal, and more to the the point, why should this be used as a justification to treat people as 2nd class citizens and to say to them "No, your relationships are not as good as ours and never will be"?

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

No, it is religious discrimination to force people to be a part of a gay marriage ceremony when their religious conscience doesn't allow them to do so. Arrangements even exist in the UK where people who have disagreements of conscience do not have to sign civil partnerships or be involved in any form with tehm.

You're dodging the issue. You protest at being labelled a bigot and yet refuse to address the key questions about how that is so. Would it be ok if a religious person refused to support black people marrying for religious reasons? If not, then why is it only ok to discriminate against queers?

Religious or non-religious doesn't matter when dealing with non-believers. For them to have a religious marriage they should believe in God first. If they don't it is entirely normal that they would attain a marriage through other means. However it is wrong to collaborate in sin in Christianity anyway. Secular marriage isn't a sin, homosexual activity is.

Let's not beat around the bush here, the Bible states that sodomy is a sin and if you condemn anything else about it, you're just making stuff up. So if a gay couple wanted to get married and did not commit sodomy there'd be no collaborating in sin, right?

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't relate to other peoples religious experiences. I can only deal with my own.

You're asking me to presuppose the following:

1) I'm not a Christian.
2) My religion causes me to oppose inter-racial marriage.
3) Should I go to appeal my case to the Labour Court due to this.

I'm not in that position, and Christianity definitely goes against that opinion. That is why I cannot answer your question.

The question I asked was whether you thought it would be acceptable for a registrar to refuse to marry a mixed racial marriage or a mixed religion marriage on their personal religious grounds. How on earth this presuppose your not christian, or that YOUR religion causes you to oppose inter-racial marriage. And where did you get the Labour Court from this?

Could you answer the question rather than dodging it, please.

havana

So the effect of two random, same sex people getting married on someone of faith holds more weight than the effects of discrimination, inequality and prejudice?

thelordofcheese

Jakkass wrote: »

Could you just answer my question? I've dealt with the reasons why I disagree with it on this thread already. Mainly due to the affects it could have on children, and the effects it could have on people of faith.

wow, that's the worst thing i've read on this board in a long time.
and i mean that

Your opinions are bad and you should feel bad.

KnifeWRENCH

Jakkass wrote: »

Could you just answer my question? I've dealt with the reasons why I disagree with it on this thread already. Mainly due to the affects it could have on children, and the effects it could have on people of faith.

Oh of course, people of faith will be hugely effected by this. God and other assorted deities love all of us children and they want us to live in a community of love and joy. Clearly a homosexual couple declaring their love and committing to each other for the rest of their lives would ruin everything!

philologos

MYOB: You're asking me a question I cannot even relate to. I support that persons right to appeal their decision. I personally do not believe that interracial couples shouldn't marry. Other people might. Luckily it isn't my job to assess what exactly is deemed to be discrimination.

The Orb

Historically marriage as an institution was about the union of a man and a woman,the marriage offered protection for the woman and any children of the union, everyone knows this. Of course times have moved on, but the basis for marriage has not really changed. Yes there are many diverse types of family "unit" these days but many of them are not desirable. If marriage is to be extended to include any type of union it will effectively render useless the very meaning and basis of marriage, it will cease to have any meaning. The only proper marriage is one between a man and a woman. That isn't a homophobic, anti-social, inhumane old-fashioned assertion, it's common sense.

andrew

KeyLimePie wrote: »

But how about mary down the road with 3 children by 3 different fathers who have all done a runner shouldn't be allowed keep them ?

Or how about saoirse, a well respected lawyer who's husband died ? Should she be allowed to keep her 5 month year old child ?

What you're basically saying is NO parents are better than gay parents

Well, if the govt. could prevent Mary from doing that then why shouldn't they? Obviously they can't...but if there was a machine which made sure people only went into stable hetero families, why shouldn't they use it.

Historically marriage as an institution was about the union of a man and a woman,the marriage offered protection for the woman and any children of the union, everyone knows this. Of course times have moved on, but the basis for marriage has not really changed. Yes there are many diverse types of family "unit" these days but many of them are not desirable. If marriage is to be extended to include any type of union it will effectively render useless the very meaning and basis of marriage, it will cease to have any meaning. The only proper marriage is one Historically marriage as an institution was about the union of a man and a woman,the marriage offered protection for the woman and any children of the union, everyone knows this. Of course times have moved on, but the basis for marriage has not really changed. Yes there are many diverse types of family "unit" these days but many of them are not desirable. If marriage is to be extended to include any type of union it will effectively render useless the very meaning and basis of marriage, it will cease to have any meaning. The only proper marriage is one between a man and a woman. That isn't a homophobic, anti-social, inhumane old-fashioned assertion, it's common sense.between a man and a woman. That isn't a homophobic, anti-social, inhumane old-fashioned assertion, it's common sense.

Actually what you said there amounts to one giant filthy big assertion.

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

MYOB: You're asking me a question I cannot even relate to. I support that persons right to appeal their decision. I personally do not believe that interracial couples shouldn't marry. Other people might. Luckily it isn't my job to assess what exactly is deemed to be discrimination.

I'm not asking you a question that needs relating to! You're dodging this question entirely and only one thing can be drawn from that.

However, you've partially answered it there - you support the right of someone to refuse to perform an interracial marriage.

Now, can you answer another question: What affect would me marrying another man, in a ceremony officiated by someone who didn't disagree with it on religious grounds, have on you?

anonymous_joe

Didn't Jesus love everybody?

Why can't Christians?

If two people love each other let them get married.

philologos

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Oh of course, people of faith will be hugely effected by this. God and other assorted deities love all of us children and they want us to live in a community of love and joy. Clearly a homosexual couple declaring their love and committing to each other for the rest of their lives would ruin everything!

Especially if you're one of these guys. Poor things....and they try so hard to spread the love by preaching lovely messages and Bible passages to us.

Yes, well done. You are able to pick a group of 70 people from 2 billion. Do you realise that is basically the same thing as me citing someone who is a member of NAMBLA as your typical homosexual?

I've already cited articles where people have been brought to court for refusing to take photographs at a gay marriage. I think that's a joke, and that peoples religious sensitivities and freedoms of religion are just as much a side of the coin as the LGBT rights element is.

GA361

Oh Jakkass . . . . . . . sometimes I really do wonder about you . . . . . .

havana

The Orb wrote: »

Historically marriage as an institution was about the union of a man and a woman,the marriage offered protection for the woman and any children of the union, everyone knows this. Of course times have moved on, but the basis for marriage has not really changed. Yes there are many diverse types of family "unit" these days but many of them are not desirable. If marriage is to be extended to include any type of union it will effectively render useless the very meaning and basis of marriage, it will cease to have any meaning. The only proper marriage is one between a man and a woman. That isn't a homophobic, anti-social, inhumane old-fashioned assertion, it's common sense.

Then maybe it's time the basis for marriage IS changed.

KeyLimePie

andrew wrote: »

Well, if the govt. could prevent Mary from doing that then why shouldn't they? Obviously they can't...but if there was a machine which made sure people only went into stable hetero families, why shouldn't they use it.

I didn't suggest that a woman rearing a child on her own was adversely affecting the child, I was making the point that two men having a child is the same as a single mother !

KeyLimePie

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, well done. You are able to pick a group of 70 people from 2 billion. Do you realise that is basically the same thing as me citing someone who is a member of NAMBLA as your typical homosexual?

I've already cited articles where people have been brought to court for refusing to take photographs at a gay marriage. I think that's a joke, and that peoples religious sensitivities and freedoms of religion are just as much a side of the coin as the LGBT rights element is.

It's not the fact that the people refused to take photos of a gay marriage, it's the fact that they SAID IT. It'd be the same if the photographer said that he won't take photos of two people cause they're black.

TheInquisitor

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Didn't Jesus love everybody?

Why can't Christians?

If two people love each other let them get married.

I'm an atheist and im still completely against gay marraige. As far as im concerned every mammal is here for one underlying reason, to pro create , so i don't think gay people should be allow marry or adopt kids.

sdanseo

MYOB wrote: »

So disabled people shouldn't be allowed marry/have children? I went to school with a kid who got terrible slagging for his father being in a wheelchair and my sister went to school with the daughter of two blind parents who got much the same. If protecting a child from abuse from peers is so crucially important, surely we need to make sure that every eventuality is covered....

KeyLimePie wrote: »

But how about mary down the road with 3 children by 3 different fathers who have all done a runner shouldn't be allowed keep them ?

Or how about saoirse, a well respected lawyer who's husband died ? Should she be allowed to keep her 5 month year old child ?

What you're basically saying is NO parents are better than gay parents

Fair points. I'm certainly not advocating that disabled people shouldn't be allowed have kids. I do think, however, that there is a lot of difference between a parent's disability which has an effect on kids, and a lifestyle choice which does the same. I'm not saying either that a kid with two "mothers" or "fathers" couldn't turn out perfectly fine. I just reckon there's increased potential for the **** to hit the fan, on full speed.

I still think though that the POTENTIAL combined adverse affects on a child far outweigh what's been suggested above. If anything because the kid can't choose whether or not they are against it...they could easily grow up to be sickened by their parents. This shouldn't happen even if allowed to...but human nature dictates that some people will naturally be avertive to the idea of gay marriage etc and could react incredibly badly when they're old enough to know what's going on.

philologos

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Didn't Jesus love everybody?

Why can't Christians?

If two people love each other let them get married.

People don't disagree with gay marriage because they hate anyone. I don't hate anyone, and indeed it is wrong to hate anyone in my religion. I disagree with the ethics of it, I do not hate the individuals, but I personally cannot support what is deemed to be immoral in my faith. That doesn't affect how we respond to one another as human beings in our daily walks of life it just means we disagree on a single issue

KnifeWRENCH

The Orb wrote: »

Historically marriage as an institution was about the union of a man and a woman,the marriage offered protection for the woman and any children of the union, everyone knows this. Of course times have moved on, but the basis for marriage has not really changed

So you think women need a husband for protection? Gee I'd better go warn my sister. She's still single; why, anything could happen to her! :eek:

The only proper marriage is one between a man and a woman. That isn't common sense, it's a homophobic, anti-social, inhumane old-fashioned assertion

FYP.

rainbow kirby

sdonn wrote: »

I do think, however, that there is a lot of difference between a parent's disability which has an effect on kids, and a lifestyle choice which does the same.

It's not a choice.

L1011

sdonn wrote: »

Fair points. I'm certainly not advocating that disabled people shouldn't be allowed have kids. I do think, however, that there is a lot of difference between a parent's disability which has an effect on kids, and a lifestyle choice which does the same.

I'm not even going to get in to this side argument - but its far from a lifestyle choice.