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

Sam Vimes

Min wrote: »

I think nature knows best, otherwise it wouldn't allow us to be here.

Isn't is nature that allows evolution but you argue we should dismiss what nature tells us?

Evolution is a blind and unintelligent process that has led to the extinction of about 99% of species that have ever existed. To pick one of a billion possible examples, it has made us walk upright in a way that mammalian spines were never meant to which leads to back problems in so many people. Nature has led to human beings but it's not an questionable authority that always gets everything right

And that's the reason why I asked if you ever go to a hospital or if you support correcting birth defects. Also I'd wonder if you live in a cave and only make use of what nature provides for you. Clearly you don't so it appears that you have no problem questioning nature's wisdom when it suits you and only appeal to its authority when somebody wants equal rights that blind and unintelligent nature has not deigned to give them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Appeal to nature is a type of appeal to emotion consisting of a claim that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial. In this type of fallacy, nature is often implied as an ideal or desired state of being, a state of how things were, should be, or are: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition. It is closely related to the naturalistic fallacy, and is the opposite of the moralistic fallacy.

Also Min, are you opposed to heterosexual couples adopting? I was adopted because my mother was unable to have children. Should she have bowed to the authority of nature and not adopted me?

bronte

Min wrote: »

b) Reading this thread there isn't much sense in gay marriage.

Two people are in Love and want to marry.

There's your "Sense". :rolleyes:

Lemegeton

not a chance. the church still has far too much influence in this country.

coffee_cake

Min wrote: »

Nature allows us to be here despite the diseases, it doesn't allow TB, or other diseases to wipe us all out.

It's wiped out countless species.

It does tell us what combination it sees as being best for unions and offspring, but humans know best it seems, we should go against the natural order of things.

We do that every single day.

I think one would find in nature that kind of adoption too is unnatural, just like two of the same sex having a biological child is...

One also finds in nature, in certain species, baby animals dying if their parents do. Or the young being eaten in hard times, or gang rape?
That's natural, do you want to emulate that too?

So in effect there is no discrimination against homosexuals,

Right... except there is and taking specific examples of natural occurrences doesn't change that

Pace2008

In nature, if an animal needs a **** or a piss it’s likely to do it where it stands. Animals will fight each other over the right to mate, and they’ll copulate for all the world to see.

I don’t understand why people laud “natural” animal behavior as an acceptable standard for how humans should act.

Min

bronte wrote: »

Two people are in Love and want to marry.

There's your "Sense". :rolleyes:

That doesn't justify gay marriage. It is like someone saying they love their pet, they wish they could marry they pet, should one be allowed to marry their pet?
Is putting a limit on who or what sex can get married discrimination?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Evolution is a blind and unintelligent process that has led to the extinction of about 99% of species that have ever existed. To pick one of a billion possible examples, it has made us walk upright in a way that mammalian spines were never meant to which leads to back problems in so many people. Nature has led to human beings but it's not an questionable authority that always gets everything right

And that's the reason why I asked if you ever go to a hospital or if you support correcting birth defects. Also I'd wonder if you live in a cave and only make use of what nature provides for you. Clearly you don't so it appears that you have no problem questioning nature's wisdom when it suits you and only appealing to its authority when somebody wants equal rights that blind and unintelligent nature has not deigned to give them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature


Also Min, are you opposed to heterosexual couples adopting? I was adopted because my mother was unable to have children. Should she have bowed to the authority of nature and not adopted me?

Animals that walk on four legs and can get foot problems just like humans can back problems, does that mean there is something inherently wrong with the design - no.
My house is made of stuff that nature has provided, it has all come from Earth has provided, my house is natural.

Your wiki link has being cited with the following:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

• It does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve it by citing reliable sources. Tagged since April 2009.
• Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since May 2010.
• Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since May 2010.

I have no problem with heterosexual couples adopting, it offers a balance, the grey - the mixture of black and white.

bluewolf wrote: »

It's wiped out countless species.


We do that every single day.


One also finds in nature, in certain species, baby animals dying if their parents do. Or the young being eaten in hard times, or gang rape?
That's natural, do you want to emulate that too?


Right... except there is and taking specific examples of natural occurrences doesn't change that

What animal species has disease entirely wiped out?

You say we do that everyday, tell me what we all do that is against nature?

I think you will find gang rape happens in the human population, cannibalism is well documented, however is it discrimination against the people who like that to say it shouldn't be allowed?
I would answer no, this is all about what should be allowed or not allowed. If you are disallowing something in nature you are not necessarily going against nature, if you are actively doing something which is not natural in nature then you are directly going against nature.

It is a perceived discrimination, nothing more, nothing less.

Min

Pace2008 wrote: »

In nature, if an animal needs a **** or a piss it’s likely to do it where it stands. Animals will fight each other over the right to mate, and they’ll copulate for all the world to see.

I don’t understand why people laud “natural” animal behavior as an acceptable standard for how humans should act.

Animals tend to live in natural places, most do not live in concrete jungles where one can train their pet. However not all humans are properly toilet trained either.....
Have you ever heard of dogging, pornograpghy, sex shows...Spartacus, blood and sand :P

Sam Vimes

Min wrote: »

Animals that walk on four legs and can get foot problems just like humans can back problems, does that mean there is something inherently wrong with the design - no.

Um, yes it does. I can think of a hell of a lot of ways to improve the design of human beings and other animals. Even something as simple as wearing clothes gets around the fact that nature did not give us sufficient protection against the elements. We wear shoes to avoid a lot of the foot problems that animals have.

Min wrote: »

My house is made of stuff that nature has provided, it has all come from Earth has provided, my house is natural.

Your wiki link has being cited with the following:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

• It does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve it by citing reliable sources. Tagged since April 2009.
• Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since May 2010.
• Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since May 2010.

I have no problem with heterosexual couples adopting, it offers a balance, the grey - the mixture of black and white.

So something is natural (and therefore good apparently) as long as nature provides us with the materials and the ability to do it, e.g. to build a house, create a medicine, perform a surgery, etc etc etc.

Babies are natural

Human beings are natural

We have the ability to give a baby to two human beings who are unable to have their own children

You have no problem with us doing this if the people who are unable to have children have different genitalia

Why should this change if they have the same genitalia?

wonderfulname

Min wrote: »

Oh dear, do you even understand Leviticus?

Oh lighten up its a fairly standard joke, I've decided I'm allowed be blasphemous, your being about as considerate with my viewpoint, at least I bothered to read the bible, you come in here and refuse to even consider looking at literature that might just prove you wrong (i.e. the report you insist doesn't exist, its called downloading?). Also your point on the ICCL just shows your ignorance, say that with proof and conviction and i'll listen, I dont like vague whisps of statements, if you bother to read one little report properly with a nice open mind and still come to the same conclusion i promise i'll leave you alone, right now your argument lacks any substance, to be honest you aren't doing it any favours, your coming to conclusions purely based on your own logic without realising that generally, one piece of the puzzle is flawed.

You never know maybe if you research and come up with some water-tight reasoning you'll change all our minds, but right now that sure as heck ain't gonna happen.

Oh and that goes for the others making the same arguments too.

pluie

Jakkass wrote: »

You're missing the point. An argument against not permitting marriage to anyone and everyone is that heterosexual marriages provide children with a family with both a mother and a father. I.E - They have strong male and female rolemodels for the purposes of child development.


See above, you're missing the point.


More often than not it is better for a child to be raised with both a mother and a father. This is the reason why the State should favour this family structure (marriage) above all others.

It is better for a child, to have strong male and female rolemodels (mother and father) while growing up, than not to have both.

It's not just "cases". It's that it is better on average, for this to be the case. Of course there are some worse, but more often than not (majority of cases) a marriage (mother & father) will provide the best for a child.

1. You don't need male and female role models to be normal. I know people who have been raised by single parents and they're just like everybody else. Anyway, role models don't always have to be the parent. It can be a grandmother, uncle or family friend etc., but they're not necessary.

2. You say people who can't reproduce can have a family by adopting. I agree with this, but I apply it to everybody, not just straight people.

3. I know a gay couple that have always wanted to get married and adopt children. They pay their taxes, they work hard, they are as kind and loving as any straight person. Why should people in this country get to choose who has rights and who hasn't?

I'm just going to agree to disagree in advance because this will just keep going.

philologos

pluie wrote: »

1. You don't need male and female role models to be normal. I know people who have been raised by single parents and they're just like everybody else. Anyway, role models don't always have to be the parent. It can be a grandmother, uncle or family friend etc., but they're not necessary.

We're not talking about normality, or abnormality here. Although it probably is abnormal at present to have two parents of the same gender.

We are simply talking about arranging family structures in a way that they are the most beneficial for children.

pluie wrote: »

2. You say people who can't reproduce can have a family by adopting. I agree with this, but I apply it to everybody, not just straight people.

The reason I apply it to heterosexual marriages, is that heterosexual marriages are the only stable structure that can provide a child with both a mother and a father.

pluie wrote: »

3. I know a gay couple that have always wanted to get married and adopt children. They pay their taxes, they work hard, they are as kind and loving as any straight person. Why should people in this country get to choose who has rights and who hasn't?

I've explained that my reasoning surrounds children, and their rights. If it just involved a couple wishing to formalise their relationship, there would be no reason to go beyond civil partnership.

Stark

Min wrote: »

That doesn't justify gay marriage. It is like someone saying they love their pet, they wish they could marry they pet, should one be allowed to marry their pet?
Is putting a limit on who or what sex can get married discrimination?

An animal can't wilfully enter into a marriage. An adult human can.

Jakkass wrote:

We're not talking about normality, or abnormality here. Although it probably is abnormal at present to have two parents of the same gender.

We are simply talking about arranging family structures in a way that they are the most beneficial for children.

What about the countless gay couples already raising children? With current laws, if something happens to the biological parent, the child is in legal limbo despite there being a surviving partner with a home to take care of the child. Why should those children receive less protection than children with heterosexual parents?

philologos

Stark wrote: »

What about the countless gay couples already raising children? If the biological parent dies, should the child be removed from the home and the surviving partner because that's "better for the child"? The children in these cases need protection and the best protection is stability.

What about the other biological parent?

By the by, such situations are why I think the State needs to adequately restrict adoption and sperm donation.

Stark

So your argument is that the child should be taken away from the parent who has raised them and given to a sperm donor who they have never met and who probably doesn't even want the child. All because of your prejudices against the parent who raised them.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

What about the other biological parent?

By the by, such situations are why I think the State needs to adequately restrict adoption and sperm donation.

Say for example we have a mother who comes out later in life, who lives with her child and her partner since the child is very young. Father isn't in the picture, estranged pretty much from the birth onwards through choice. Mother dies. Should child be taken away from the partner?

Links234

Min wrote: »

It is a poor argument for you if you have to resort to schoolyard name calling.

calling you out as a homophobe isn't schoolyard name calling.
not when you say crap like this:

Min wrote: »

It is like someone saying they love their pet, they wish they could marry they pet, should one be allowed to marry their pet?

comparing gay marriage to people marrying animals is a pretty pathetic argument and extremely insulting

Min

Links234 wrote: »

calling you out as a homophobe isn't schoolyard name calling.
not when you say crap like this:



comparing gay marriage to people marrying animals is a pretty pathetic argument and extremely insulting

It is schoolyard name calling, you had to use a post that was after your bout of name calling, not one previous to it, that was due to your lack of an argument.

Using part of a paragraph also removes the context in which something was said, it was in reply to love being a reason to allow to it. It was not simply comparing gay marriage to people marrying their pets, it was marriage in a wider sphere, the full paragraph was: That doesn't justify gay marriage. It is like someone saying they love their pet, they wish they could marry their pet, should one be allowed to marry their pet?
Is putting a limit on who or what sex can get married discrimination?

You can try and justify name calling but it doesn't make your argument for gay marriage any stronger.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

Say for example we have a mother who comes out later in life, who lives with her child and her partner since the child is very young. Father isn't in the picture, estranged pretty much from the birth onwards through choice. Mother dies. Should child be taken away from the partner?

There could be grounds for a temporary agreement to provide such redress to such children, while restricting further adoption and sperm donation.

That said, I think it's really ill advised to put a child in such a situation if you know what the legal situation is.

Links234

what name did I call you?

Sam Vimes

Min wrote: »

Is putting a limit on who or what sex can get married discrimination?

Depends on the limit. Do you think the limit that used to exist preventing inter-racial marriages was discrimination?

edit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/interracial-couple-denied_n_322784.html

You might recognise some of the arguments presented by the judge. They're mostly the same ones used against gay marriage

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

There could be grounds for a temporary agreement to provide such redress to such children, while restricting further adoption and sperm donation.

What?

That said, I think it's really ill advised to put a child in such a situation if you know what the legal situation is.

again, what?

prinz

Links234 wrote: »

what name did I call you?

Ahem..

Links234 wrote: »

calling you out as a homophobe isn't schoolyard name calling.

Links234

prinz wrote: »

Ahem..

it's an adjective, not a name. if she doesn't like being called out as such, maybe she should stop using homophobic rhetoric as the basis for her arguments?

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

What?

Allow the other partner to adopt in that situation for 18 years (for example the limit being children who are 0 years old at the time this happens, on for 18 years up to 18 years old). Then introduce legislation legally preventing such situations from arising.

Such problems actually arise when family structures are eroded further.

bluewolf wrote: »

again, what?

It's a foolish and ill advised idea, to put a child in that situation, knowing the legal reality at present.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

Allow the other partner to adopt in that situation for X amount of years. Then introduce legislation legally preventing such situations from arising.

Wha? Legally preventing accidental pregnancy or legally preventing parents coming out? Or legally preventing accidental deaths?

It's a foolish and ill advised idea, to put a child in that situation, knowing the legal reality at present.

Accidents happen, and you can't choose who you fall in love with!

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

Wha? Legally preventing accidental pregnancy or legally preventing parents coming out? Or legally preventing accidental deaths?

The situation of a parent coming out is vastly different, because legally that child should be in contact with their biological father. Likewise true of accidental pregnancy.

Sperm donation, and adoption are different due to the request of anonymity often made.

prinz

Links234 wrote: »

it's an adjective, not a name....

Homophobe is a noun.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

The situation of a parent coming out is vastly different,

It's what I specified earlier

because legally that child should be in contact with their biological father.

Maybe they should, but often aren't, and happy that way



edit: so if they're in contact with the father, they should go to him despite the partner raising them?

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

The situation of a parent coming out is vastly different, because legally that child should be in contact with their biological father. Likewise true of accidental pregnancy.

Sperm donation, and adoption are different due to the request of anonymity often made.

Even if they were in contact, what if he's a drunk ex con? Who should keep the child then?

Plebs

If we're going to allow homosexual persons to "marry" under the banner of "equality", then it's hypocritical not to allow first cousins or sisters/brothers/mothers/fathers the right to marry.