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

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

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

Indeed. That is if the father is not violent, or abusive. Otherwise the State needs to provide adequate care for that child.

Plebs wrote: »

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.

First cousins already can marry.

Sam Vimes

Plebs wrote: »

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.

Um, genetic defects.......

Plebs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Um, genetic defects.......

Surely they can facilitate the sexual gratification of each other by utilising modern technology? As a liberal, you wouldn't deny them that right? Sure if they did get pregnant, they could always go get an abortion.

MagicMarker

Plebs wrote: »

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.

Yes, lets compare homosexuality to incest, that's an intelligent and well thought out argument.

:rolleyes:

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Um, genetic defects.......

I thought using the inability to have kids argument was ridiculed when it is used against homosexual couplings. Sure not everyone who gets married wants to have kids etc.

Links234

I said

Links234 wrote: »

it's a stupid double standard, and you are just hiding your homophobia and bigotry behind a straw man argument about 'biological equality'.

and I still mean it. the arguments against gay marriage are nothing but homophobic rhetoric, the same "it's not natural" argument dressed up a little, but still the same rhetoric

if this is "name calling" then fine

Min

Links234 wrote: »

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?

I am not using homophobe rhetoric, it is you just choosing to think that I am, just like you think I am a 'she'.

Making presumptions about people is wrong.

I don't have a problem with homosexual people, I don't have a problem with limits being put on something like marriage, it doesn't make me a homophobe.

Turtwig

Plebs wrote: »

Sure they can facilitate the sexual gratification of each other by utilising modern technology.

Poor effort.

I think you totally understood what Sam meant by genetic defects. Put simply the more diversity there is in one's genes the better the chance there is of that person having a healthy life.

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed. That is if the father is not violent, or abusive. Otherwise the State needs to provide adequate care for that child.

So a child should be put in care even though they have a loving parent?

What the fúck are you on man?

Teferi

I've said it before but that doesn't matter. If you don't want a gay marriage, then don't get one. But refusing people the right is downright silly behaviour.

prinz

Malty_T wrote: »

I think you totally understood what Sam meant by genetic defects. Put simply the more diversity there is in one's genes the better the chance there is of that person having a healthy life.

I think Sam put his foot in it this time tbh. If the ability to have perfectly healthy kids is what we are basing marriage on then homosexual couples don't meet the requirements.

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

So a child should be put in care even though they have a loving parent?

What the fúck are you on man?

Other relatives would also no doubt be a factor. Perhaps a limited case could be made for the other partner having the right to adopt, following the biological father and extended family.

Sam Vimes

Plebs wrote: »

Surely they can facilitate the sexual gratification of each other by utilising modern technology? As a liberal, you wouldn't deny them that right? Sure if they did get pregnant, they could always go get an abortion.

prinz wrote: »

I thought using the inability to have kids argument was ridiculed when it is used against homosexual couplings. Sure not everyone who gets married wants to have kids etc.

People within the same family aren't unable to have kids, they're able to have kids but the chances of genetic defects are greatly increased. I really don't think allowing people to have sex knowing that their offspring (intentional or not) will most likely have severe defects on the basis that they can abort it is a good idea, and I doubt either of you do either

Min

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html - the secular argument against gay marriage.

What benefits to the state does gay marriage bring? I mean financially given they want similar rights to traditional marriage.

Turtwig

prinz wrote: »

I think Sam put his foot in it this time tbh. If the ability to have perfectly healthy kids is what we are basing marriage on then homosexual couples don't meet the requirements.

I was referring solely to their physical properties nothing to do with psychological development. The physical properties side is nothing to do with parent's being homosexual, as the homosexual parents obviously can't conceive the child.

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

Other relatives would also no doubt be a factor. Perhaps a limited case could be made for the other partner having the right to adopt, following the biological father and extended family.

<br />

So a 15 year old, who has been raised by someone since they're a baby, has to go into care/possible distant relative all because they're remaining parent is a homosexual?

Oh, but it's okay, we'll let the homo try and adopt instead.:rolleyes:

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People within the same family aren't unable to have kids, they're able to have kids but the chances of genetic defects are greatly increased. I really don't think allowing people to have sex knowing that their offspring (intentional or not) will most likely have severe defects on the basis that they can abort it is a good idea, and I doubt either of you do either

Are you really saying the kids issue is a good argument towards restricting the right to marriage?

Turtwig

Min wrote: »

What benefits to the state does gay marriage bring? I mean financially given they want similar rights to traditional marriage.

More taxes?

prinz

Malty_T wrote: »

I was referring solely to their physical properties nothing to do with psychological development. The physical properties side is nothing to do with parent's being homosexual, as the homosexual parents obviously can't conceive the child.

But an incestuous coupling could have a surrogate....or sperm donation or adopt. Shouldn't we allow them to get married then? What about a homosexual incestuous couple..

Min

Malty_T wrote: »

More taxes?

How is it more taxes?

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

<br />

So a 15 year old, who has been raised by someone since they're a baby, has to go into care/possible distant relative all because they're remaining parent is a homosexual?

Oh, but it's okay, we'll let the homo try and adopt instead.:rolleyes:

Another option, which I have posted before, is that perhaps homosexual couples could form families, on the legal requirement that the childs biological mother / father, or another person from a gender different to those in the couple could have regular contact with the child (at least on a weekly basis for a few hours).

It is the deprivation of a child from having both figures involved in it's upbringing that I have an issue with.

Plebs

MagicMarker wrote: »

Yes, lets compare homosexuality to incest, that's an intelligent and well thought out argument.

:rolleyes:

If a fully grown man can marry his best friend, I don't see why a 30 year-old man can't marry his 28 year-old sister.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Are you really saying the kids issue is a good argument towards restricting the right to marriage?

I'm saying that a vastly increased risk of severely disabled kids is a good argument towards restricting the right to marriage. It's kind of different to an argument that people are automatically better parents if they're of different sexes

Terry

Blah blah ****ing blah.

Who really gives a **** what two consenting adults do in their spare time?
Do you really care if two men want to seal their butt****ing lifestyle in the eyes of the state?
Do you really care if two women want to make their scissoring lifestyle a permanent thing in the eyes of the state?

If you do care, and you are against it, then I would suggest that you get yourself a hobby. Or watch some lesbian porn.
Actually, make a hobby of watching lesbian porn (but only if you're over 17).

If you object on religious grounds, then I suggest you go to see a psychotherapist. If you really believe that an imaginary being does not want people of the same gender to be married, then you are a ****ing lunatic. Yes. All several billion of you around the world.

This angry and not at all thought out post has been brought to you courtesy of the **** outside with jackhammers and the like. I'm cranky because I can't have my afternoon nap.

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

Another option, which I have posted before, is that perhaps homosexual couples could form families, on the legal requirement that the childs biological mother / father, or another person from a gender different to those in the couple could have regular contact with the child (at least on a weekly basis for a few hours).

It is the deprivation of a child from having both figures involved in it's upbringing that I have an issue with.

But this happens anyway! There are millions of children being raised by single parents around the world, and it's been that way for centuries!

Turtwig

prinz wrote: »

But an incestuous coupling could have a surrogate....or sperm donation or adopt. Shouldn't we allow them to get married then? What about a homosexual incestuous couple..

Tbh, if there's no risk of genetic defects then I can see no reason why incestuous couples should not be allowed marry.

SayWhaaat

You know, as a 17 year old person coming to terms with his sexuality, I have to say a big thank you to the likes of Jakkass and Min. They opened up my eyes that when it comes to an arguement of actual STATS and facts vs moral bigotry, there can't be a winner.

I love the way my parenting comes into question. I would be an AMAZING parent. Just like mine were to me. I cant believe I read through thirteen pages describing myself and other people like me as unfit to raise children simply beacuse I would do it with another man.
It's not as if I have family and friends who were brought up in broken homes and by single parents. They're obviously brought up in a f*cked up environment and so cannot be "balanced". Oh wait, they're some of the most decent and genuine people I know.

I can imagine some of the posters who have continuously gone out of their way to write hollow arguements (without facts, just repeating their opinion over and over and over and over again). For some reason I'm seeing settled middled aged men crouched over the computer screen relaxed in the conformity of their "easy" lives.

Gay people do not have easy lives. I'm a teenager and I know this.

Oh and I especially loved the parts in this thread, a POLITICAL thread, that compared me wanting to marry someone I love to Beastiality, Incest etc. Not to mention saying people with birth defects can be fixed and are therefore more natural than me

So all in all, I hope some people are delighted with their silly little arguements, I'm going to continue living my life knowing some people don't want me marrying a person I want to spend the rest of my life with because in their opinion, nature deems me an unfit parent (despite some heterosexual animals EAT their f*cking young).

Thanks for opening a young lad's eyes

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

But this happens anyway! There are millions of children being raised by single parents around the world, and it's been that way for centuries!

The State should ensure as many children as possible are raised with a mother and a father and should favour marriage above and beyond all other family structures for this reason.

Single parenting is difficult because of the biological factor. At the same time, I would still say that it is better for a child to be raised with both mother and father than with only one. There are studies that go in depth on this.

At the same time, I understand how difficult it is to be a single parent.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

The State should ensure as many children as possible are raised with a mother and a father and should favour marriage above and beyond all other family structures for this reason.

Why? Why should the sole allowed structure be a father and mother? Many fathers and mothers stink it when it comes to parenting.

MagicMarker

Plebs wrote: »

If a fully grown man can marry his best friend, I don't see why a 30 year-old man can't marry his 28 year-old sister.

Firstly, you're not comparing like with like, you can convince yourself otherwise all you want.

Secondly, I don't care if a brother & sister want to marry. Who am I to stand in their way? I don't think they should procreate, but they can do that whether they're married or not.