Do you think that gay marriage would get passed in Ireland?

MagicMarker

Ronin247 wrote: »

Did you read that before you posted it? A gay man and a gay woman make a heterosexual couple how exactly ?

One word

Marriage

Look it up

the legal relationship between a husband and wife

So you're saying a gay man and a gay women should not be allowed marry?

I looked up marriage, it doesn't say anything about a HETEROSEXUAL man and HETEROSEXUAL woman. So are you just making shít up now?

Annasopra

i_love_toast wrote: »

it depends if owner EU says to little puppy Ireland "you must pass gay marriage" then ireland will jump over fire to pass it.....

to be honest id love to see it passed but i would say if it was, it would be civil partnership and not religious weddings as such

Civil Partnership is now law

philologos

i_love_toast wrote: »

to be honest id love to see it passed but i would say if it was, it would be civil partnership and not religious weddings as such

I see no reason why faiths who do not have an issue with civil partnerships wouldn't offer blessing ceremonies. I think what is key is, that no faith which disagrees with the concept should be forced to perform them.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now try to do what you keep telling others they should do and look at things from a different perspective. Imagine how gay people feel when you compare their loving relationships to incest and bestiality, describe their love as "disgusting" and say that they should never be allowed adopt children because it would harm them. Now you don't seem like such a nice person do you?

I'd imagine they'd feel much like a consensual couple in an incestuous relationship reading your comments. We all draw a line somewhere.

Plebs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm lovely I am.

Evidently, you're not. You've got a lot of proving to do. An apology wouldn't go astray either. I notice quite a few people have put you on their ignore list already. Sure where there's smoke there's fire...

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now try to do what you keep telling others they should do and look at things from a different perspective. Imagine how gay people feel when you compare their loving relationships to incest and bestiality, describe their love as "disgusting" and say that they should never be allowed adopt children because it would harm them.

Now you're being dishonest as well as nasty. I was making the point that if you're going to allow "marriage" between two homosexual persons, equality dictates that you should allow consenting brothers/sisters, first cousins, mothers/sons to marry. And, not surprisingly, quite a few of posters on this thread agree that this should be the case. But you've yet to answer my question. So, do you think that two brothers should be allowed to marry? It was the dictionary definition that someone quoted where sodomy included things such as homosexual acts and bestiality. I don't have a problem with dictionary definitions, do you? Could you please point out where I "compared" (please explain what you mean by this verb) homosexual behaviour between two humans with that of bestiality? Or maybe it's just more empty rhetoric on your part?

Marriage is not defined as a romantic relationship between two persons that may or may not last, depending on the promiscuity levels. True marriage is a life-long commitment between man and woman. The State may end up facilitating in some way the liberals, egalitarians, single parents, unmarried co-habiters, homosexuals and gay rights activists, but this synthesis of the family unit raises more problems than solutions. Therefore, the status quo should resist these elements in society both overtly and covertly so as to ensure that the next generation inherit a society that they have benefited so much from.

For example -- and please answer me on this -- should an adoption agency be forced to accommodate a teenager with a homosexual couple, even though the child feels uncomfortable living in such an environment? Is this true "equality"? Or should the adoption agency reserve it's right to decide where is the most suitable environment to place a vulnerable teenager? Or, would you have the adoption agency forcibly shut down by a team of illiberal liberals? lol.

bodice ripper

gay people are going to form families with or without your say so. the important thing is that the state not descriminate against their children by refusing acknowledge their families.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

I'd imagine they'd feel much like a consensual couple in an incestuous relationship reading your comments. We all draw a line somewhere.

That the children of incestuous relationships have a much greater risk of genetic defects is a fact, not something to get insulted about. I can't really think of any reason to stop incestuous relationships where there is no chance of a child being produced (e.g. homosexual incestuous relationships)

philologos

prinz wrote: »

I'd imagine they'd feel much like a consensual couple in an incestuous relationship reading your comments. We all draw a line somewhere.

Incestuous relationships are legal up from first cousin onwards already, with up to a 40% likelihood of genetic abnormalities according to C4 Dispatches yesterday. There's probably a good case for legislation there.

Plebs

bodice ripper wrote: »

gay people are going to form families with or without your say so. the important thing is that the state not descriminate against their children by refusing acknowledge their families.

Using innocent children as pawns in a war against the State over equality is below the belt. Two men prancing around with their buggy in a public demonstration of "how far we've come as a society" is very sad. Not just for the parents, but for the child and the community who are left to accommodate these people as best they can. People who are on a mission to re-engineer society against the grain, by force if necessary, will be opposed at every stage.

Plebs

Jakkass wrote: »

Incestuous relationships are legal up from first cousin onwards already, with up to a 40% likelihood of genetic abnormalities according to C4 Dispatches yesterday. There's probably a good case for legislation there.

Not really, because we live in a technological age where the reproductive system can be tinkered to facilitate whatever titillations we desire.

And what gives you the assumption that all romantic relationships necessarily have a sexual component?

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That the children of incestuous relationships have a much greater risk of genetic defects is a fact, not something to get insulted about. I can't really think of any reason to stop incestuous relationships where there is no chance of a child being produced (e.g. homosexual incestuous relationships)

So you do agree legislating on marriage over the issue of possible future offspring is acceptable?

bodice ripper

Plebs wrote: »

Using innocent children as pawns in a war against the State over equality is below the belt. Two men prancing around with their buggy in a public demonstration of "how far we've come as a society" is very sad. Not just for the parents, but for the child and the community who are left to accommodate these people as best they can. People who are on a mission to re-engineer society against the grain, by force if necessary, will be opposed at every stage.

that's all you, baby.

gay people will have kids for the same reason that straight people will - they want to. if there is one thing we can be sure of, its that you cannot stop people having kids. Its good to know those kids can count on someone like you to tell them it would have been better if they weren't born.

christina_x

cooltown wrote: »

Do you think gay marriage would get passed in Ireland?
I think that many of the posters here would have no problem with it but when I think of the older generation. I sadly can say I don't think it would!

I think your right! I would definately vote to have it passed, but even if i look to my mothers generation (shes in her 50's) I'd be very doubtful if it would actually be passed. She would never treat a homosexual person any differently but she does believe that there is something psychologically wrong with them and on soaps with characters like sied and christian in eastenders she turns away. And if she ever hears of any of my gay friends with their new bf, shes "awh.. awh tell me no more, its just wrong" :rolleyes:

bodice ripper

(double post, oops)

sasser

christina_x wrote: »

I think your right! I would definately vote to have it passed, but even if i look to my mothers generation (shes in her 50's) I'd be very doubtful if it would actually be passed. She would never treat a homosexual person any differently but she does believe that there is something psychologically wrong with them and on soaps with characters like sied and christian in eastenders she turns away. And if she ever hears of any of my gay friends with their new bf, shes "awh.. awh tell me no more, its just wrong" :rolleyes:

My parents are in their 70's, and both would vote to pass gay marriage in a heartbeat. No all the "older" generation have closed minds. I do think Ireland will have gay marriage, and I don't think it is as far off as some seem to think.

Plebs

bodice ripper wrote: »

...it would have been better if they weren't born.

Oh look, another dishonest homosexual rights activist. Sam Vimes will be on now shortly to help you out.

philologos

Plebs wrote: »

And what gives you the assumption that all romantic relationships necessarily have a sexual component?

It doesn't really matter if certain individuals in a marriage won't have sexual relations, but more often than not it will happen. The State has to factor in the possibility of what could happen in all cases to be an effective legislator.

It's the same reason why family and marriage go together and must be considered together. Not all married people will have a family, but the possibility is open that they will. Indeed this is likely.

Plebs wrote: »

Oh look, another dishonest homosexual rights activist. Sam Vimes will be on now shortly to help you out.

Please don't risk having the thread locked by the mods. We can and should have a calm and proper discussion on this!

Daith

Plebs wrote: »

Using innocent children as pawns in a war against the State over equality is below the belt. Two men prancing around with their buggy in a public demonstration of "how far we've come as a society" is very sad.

Yeah gay men prance and will only want to have children to stick two fingers (or whatever they're used to *wink**wink*) at the State.

I'd imagine the lesbians would be stomping around in their doc marterns?

Sam Vimes

Plebs wrote: »

Evidently, you're not. You've got a lot of proving to do. An apology wouldn't go astray either. I notice quite a few people have put you on their ignore list already. Sure where there's smoke there's fire...

As far as I know one person has me on his ignore list and that's a whole other matter entirely. I will apologise to you when you apologise for comparing gay people's love to incest and bestiality, calling it disgusting and suggesting that they should not be allowed raise children because it would harm them.

In fact I don't think I will. What exactly do you think I should apologise for? Giving a list of some of the appalling acts carried out by Yahweh and his followers and some of the more outlandish christian beliefs? Do you dispute that each of the things that I listed are in the bible and a part of the christian faith?

Plebs wrote: »

Now you're being dishonest as well as nasty. I was making the point that if you're going to allow "marriage" between two homosexual persons, equality dictates that you should allow consenting brothers/sisters, first cousins, mothers/sons to marry. And, not surprisingly, quite a few of posters on this thread agree that this should be the case. But you've yet to answer my question. So, do you think that two brothers should be allowed to marry? It was the dictionary definition that someone quoted where sodomy included things such as homosexual acts and bestiality. I don't have a problem with dictionary definitions, do you? Could you please point out where I "compared" (please explain what you mean by this verb) homosexual behaviour between two humans with that of bestiality? Or maybe it's just more empty rhetoric on your part?

No I don't have a problem with incestuous relationships as long as the possibility of producing children in precluded because of the increased risk of genetic defects. I would in fact be more in favour of homosexual incestuous relationships than heterosexual ones for this reason.

Also, equality doesn't "dictate" that everyone should be allowed do whatever they want no matter who is harmed. Incestuous relationships present a high risk of genetically defective offspring. For this reason it should be restricted. Beastiality involves abusing an animal that is incapable of giving consent. For this reason it should be restricted. But "because I think what they do in their bedrooms is yucky" is not a reason to legally prevent people adopting children. This does not make them bad parents. And "because my old book of supernatural stories says it's an abomination right next to the bit where it condones slavery" is not a reason either, right up until the day that you prove the existence of the being described in said book

Plebs wrote: »

Marriage is not defined as a romantic relationship between two persons that may or may not last, depending on the promiscuity levels. True marriage is a life-long commitment between man and woman. The State may end up facilitating in some way the liberals, egalitarians, single parents, unmarried co-habiters, homosexuals and gay rights activists, but this synthesis of the family unit raises more problems than solutions. Therefore, the status quo should resist these elements in society both overtly and covertly so as to ensure that the next generation inherit a society that they have benefited so much from.

you want to see what biblical marriage is do you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

Marriage has been constantly redefined throughout the ages. What you call "true marriage" is actually the current understanding of marriage among some christian churches in some parts of the world. As recently as 1995 in this country the definition of marriage did not include the possibility of divorce but it does now.

Plebs wrote: »

For example -- and please answer me on this -- should an adoption agency be forced to accommodate a teenager with a homosexual couple, even though the child feels uncomfortable living in such an environment? Is this true "equality"? Or should the adoption agency reserve it's right to decide where is the most suitable environment to place a vulnerable teenager? Or, would you have the adoption agency forcibly shut down by a team of illiberal liberals? lol.

If a teenager feels uncomfortable moving in with a particular family for any reason their views should be listened to

rainbow kirby

sasser wrote: »

My parents are in their 70's, and both would vote to pass gay marriage in a heartbeat. No all the "older" generation have closed minds.

Similarly, so would my grandparents on both sides of the family, all in their late 60s - early 70s. Unfortunately, they seem to be relatively unusual among their generation and a lot of older people tend to be very negative about anything relating to LGBT rights.

bodice ripper

Plebs wrote: »

Oh look, another dishonest homosexual rights activist. Sam Vimes will be on now shortly to help you out.

I'm sorry, I am not reading your spat with Vimes.

I'm also sorry if I was unclear. its like this:

People have children. Even gay people.

It follows that there have been/are/will be children with gay families.

you argued that this was the wrong thing for the gay parents to do. if they did not do it, the children in question would not have been born.

eightyfish

Plebs wrote: »

People who are on a mission to re-engineer society against the grain, by force if necessary, will be opposed at every stage.

This has quiet echoes of the 'auld "homosexual agenda" about it.

Brendog

Instead of being "Man and Wife" ...
You'll be "Butt-Buddies"


Instead of being "Married"...
You'll be "Butt-Buddied"

and

Instead of being "The Bride and Groom"...
You'll be "Butt-Buddies"

Plebs

Jakkass wrote: »

It doesn't really matter if certain individuals in a marriage won't have sexual relations, but more often than not it will happen. The State has to factor in the possibility of what could happen in all cases to be an effective legislator.

It's the same reason why family and marriage go together and must be considered together. Not all married people will have a family, but the possibility is open that they will. Indeed this is likely.

Most homosexual activists don't talk about children. I'm glad you have the honesty to do so, as it is a very sensitive moral issue. You can rest assured that any referendum on changing the constitution to facilitate "marriage" between two homosexual persons will not mention the care of children as to do so would be akin to shooting yourself in the foot. Re-engineering the family unit so as to facilitate a minority's flawed ideology is not something I would like to see would therefore vote against any such moves to allow co-habiting homosexuals to "marry".

Plebs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If a teenager feels uncomfortable moving in with a particular family for any reason their views should be listened to

Surely that would be "discrimination"? lol.

Also, did the anti-religious bigot have a nice sleep?

philologos

Plebs wrote: »

Most homosexual activists don't talk about children. I'm glad you have the honesty to do so, as it is a very sensitive moral issue.

I'm not a "homosexual activist". I oppose same-sex marriage. That said, if the people vote for same-sex marriage, I will accept the verdict of the people.

Plebs wrote: »

You can rest assured that any referendum on changing the constitution to facilitate "marriage" between two homosexual persons will not mention the care of children as to do so would be akin to shooting yourself in the foot. Re-engineering the family unit so as to facilitate a minority's flawed ideology is not something I would like to see would therefore vote against any such moves to allow co-habiting homosexuals to "marry".

If the referendum does not. The campaign will bring up the subject.

I agree with you on family structures, but your posts have gone much further than the subject of marriage or no marriage. You have gone into quite a lot of detail about LGBT sexual acts, which are really irrelevant to marriage. People can clearly have sex without being married. Are you also arguing for the re-criminalisation of such acts?

Sam Vimes

Plebs wrote: »

Surely that would be "discrimination"? lol.

Also, did the anti-religious bigot have a nice sleep?

I think I might take Craebear's advice now.

Craebear wrote: »

Alright lets stop feeding the troll (I know I'm guilty but it's my first day posting thought I would treat myself)

Perhaps when you have something to contribute other than silly attempts to brand listening to a child's view about where they want to live as discrimination and insults based on the fact that I listed some christian beliefs I might continue

Plebs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I don't have a problem with incestuous relationships ...

lol. You need to rationalise your logical absurdities.

Sam Vimes

Plebs wrote: »

lol. You need to rationalise your logical absurdities.

Right so

Plebs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Perhaps when you have something to contribute other than silly attempts to brand listening to a child's view about where they want to live as discrimination and insults based on the fact that I listed some christian beliefs I might continue

You don't know what I believe in. You're trying to stereotype me so you can regurgitate your stock thoughts. Please don't stereotype me or try to tell me what I do or don't believe in.