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

philologos

SayWhaaat wrote: »

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.

This argument, was never intended to be personal. There is good reason to suggest that children raised with both a mother and a father are better off than children that are raised in alternative family structures. I could cite study after study, but I doubt it would change your mind.

SayWhaaat wrote: »

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.

This isn't the reason. The reason I've given is clear. Your potential parenting alone isn't what comes into it. The lack of a female rolemodel is the issue. I'm sure you could be an excellent parent. Nonetheless, it is still better for a child to be raised with both a mother and a father.

That's not intended to be personal, that's just merely stating it as it is.

SayWhaaat wrote: »

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.

This again, isn't what is being said. What is being said is simply this.

On average, it is best for a child to be raised with a mother, and a father.

That's it! Nothing about slandering any individual, or any particular situation. Perhaps that is the problem with having to use statistics in an argument.

SayWhaaat wrote: »

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.

I'm 21

SayWhaaat wrote: »

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

Nobody is saying that they do. Indeed, I'm pretty sure most of the people arguing against gay marriage would agree with you. It is difficult. Indeed, I'd even say that most people who oppose gay marriage, don't oppose civil partnership, or any rights of formalising a relationship. I could be wrong however.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

There is good reason to suggest that children raised with both a mother and a father are better off than children that are raised in alternative family structures. I could cite study after study, but I doubt it would change your mind.

Go on then but before you start, please make sure the study is relevant to the discussion at hand. Ensure it is comparing the performances of straight parents to gay ones. Please DO NOT include studies that merely outline what benefit having both a mother and fatherly role has on the upbringing of a child. Also any studies which investigate if these roles can filled by other people e.g Aunt, Uncle, Person of supposedly wrong sex etc. would be nice.

Also, may I ask, if we can demonstrate the case to you that the person who fills the mother or father roles is immaterial would you change your mind?

Chuchoter

Through the process of a very ****ty coming out process I've learnt that outwardly everyone is very PC and accepting, but thats only when its caricatures of gay people like on Ugly Betty. When it comes down to treating gays and lesbians as real people with real lives, the Irish people as a whole are just as prejudiced as the 'older generation' we're convinced makes up a very small percentage of the population. It will be a cold day in hell before Ireland allows gay marriage, and I'm very bitter about that.

Nailz

I want it to be passed because it's only right that it should and would be a rare stint of justice in Ireland, but I just think it won't because our politicians are here to serve God.

philologos

Malty T - Such studies are also highly relevant when we are talking about family structures that exclude either male or female rolemodels.

Nailz

Was this study undertaken by the Church???

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T - Such studies are also highly relevant when we are talking about family structures that exclude either male or female rolemodels.

What? I'm afraid to say I don't follow. Can you elaborate a bit more on what point you are trying to make.:o

Plebs

Malty_T wrote: »

... I can see no reason why incestuous couples should not be allowed marry.

At least you're being honest in extrapolating extreme liberalism to it's logical conclusion. I'll give you that.

jill_valentine

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?

You're right, nature does know best.

No marriages for anybody everyone, it's unnatural.

Turtwig

Min wrote: »

you argue we should dismiss what nature tells us?

Yep we most definitely should. As a way of increasing chances of fertility in some species the female usually bites off the head of the male she is copulating with. The part of the male that inhibits the overflow of sperm is in the brain. Munching off the head relaxes this control and the sperm just pours in, increasing sexual performance and the females chances of become pregnant. I really don't think humans ought to follow this example.

Dan's Browns book (can't remember off hand which) alluded to a sexual rite whereby the females throat is slit is allow the male to achieve the maximum possible orgasm.

jill_valentine

Nature gave us that freaky fish that swims up your urethra.

In conclusion, Nature can f*ck off.

Stark

These kids don't seem to be too put out by being brought up by LGBT parents: http://www.tv3.ie/videos.php?video=24564&locID=1.65.74&page=20

bronte

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?

That you believe this is disgusting to me.

Ronin247

MagicMarker wrote: »

This is probably the most retarded post I've ever read, and I've been in the christianity forum!

If marriage is for heterosexual couples only, what about a gay man and a gay woman marrying each other? Is that wrong?

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

Links234 wrote: »

But marriage isn't a penis, it's a partnership between two people, not something one person in that partnership possesses. what an utter fail of a comparison!

we should have marriage equality for all, and if that actually turns people against the issue of equal rights as you say then fine! we don't need allies who don't want to see real equality. I think marriage equality is important not just for gay and lesbian couples, but also transgender people who can frequently fall through the cracks

I think equality is important,it has nothing to do with marriage.I didnt make my point very well but why get hung up on the word marriage was what I was trying to say.

MagicMarker wrote: »

One word.

Equality.

Look it up.

One word

Marriage

Look it up


the legal relationship between a husband and wife

Jakkass wrote: »

...... I'd even say that most people who oppose gay marriage, don't oppose civil partnership, or any rights of formalising a relationship.......

I think Jakkass makes the point I was trying to make much more eloquently

Plebs

bronte wrote: »

That you believe this is disgusting to me.

Opinions that you find "disgusting" are nothing compared to the physical act of sodomy: an affliction that is rampant across the western world. Women as well as men.

bronte

Plebs wrote: »

Opinions that you find "disgusting" are nothing compared to the physical act of sodomy: an affliction that is rampant across the western world. Women as well as men.

Sodomy (pronounced /ˈsɒdəmi/) is a term used in the law to describe the act of "unnatural"[1] sex, which depending on jurisdiction can consist of oral sex or anal sex or any non-genital to genital congress, whether heterosexual, or homosexual, or with human or animal.

Do you know? I really can't agree. I imagine it's rather good actually.

Plebs

bronte wrote: »

Sodomy (pronounced /ˈsɒdəmi/) is a term used in the law to describe the act of "unnatural"[1] sex, which depending on jurisdiction can consist of oral sex or anal sex or any non-genital to genital congress, whether heterosexual, or homosexual, or with human or animal.

Gosh! Dictionaries aligning homosexual behaviours alongside sexual acts with animals. Whatever next. If anybody of mildly conservative opinion were to utter such a thing in the presence of a homosexual, "homophobe" shrills would be bandied about like there's no tomorrow.

Terry

Plebs wrote: »

Gosh! Dictionaries aligning homosexual behaviours alongside sexual acts with animals. Whatever next. If anybody of mildly conservative opinion were to utter such a thing in the presence of a homosexual, "homophobe" shrills would be bandied about like there's no tomorrow.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.urlesque.com/media/2010/02/boxxxyy.png

bronte

Plebs wrote: »

Gosh! Dictionaries aligning homosexual behaviours alongside sexual acts with animals. Whatever next.

Listen we're talking about two people who are in love having sex.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that nor is it anybodies business.

philologos

Plebs wrote: »

Gosh! Dictionaries aligning homosexual behaviours alongside sexual acts with animals. Whatever next.

Animals and insects according to research engage in homosexual behaviour as well as humans. The subject of whether the definition of marriage can be changed, can be argued without going in depth into sexual acts. The sexual acts aren't where the subject is most relevant. That's a moral / ethical issue that people will need to give consideration for themselves.

plein de force

Plebs wrote: »

Opinions that you find "disgusting" are nothing compared to the physical act of sodomy: an affliction that is rampant across the western world. Women as well as men.

TEH GAYZ R EATIN THA POO POO

please, don't be one of those people,
why do you care what two consesnting adults, whether straight or gay, do in bed, worry about your own sex life

Plebs

Jakkass wrote: »

Animals and insects according to research engage in homosexual behaviour as well as humans.

Incest occurs in the animal population too. My well-fed cat kills birds for fun.

Homosexual behaviour that occurs in the natural world is not nearly on the same scale as is prevalent in Western populations. Particularly since the 1960s. Homosexual acts between humans certainly did not evolve to the extent that we have today. It is a cultural phenomenon.

Plebs

plein de force wrote: »

TEH GAYZ R EATIN THA POO POO

please, don't be one of those people,
why do you care what two consesnting adults, whether straight or gay, do in bed, worry about your own sex life

Please don't hate me for standing by my convictions. Hate breeds hate and I won't be engaging in your "those people" stereotyping ploy. I'm sorry you feel like this and I hope that one day you can be open-minded enough to see things from a different perspective.

philologos

Plebs wrote: »

Incest occurs in the animal population too. My well-fed cat kills birds for fun.

I agree. I'm merely pointing out, that if homosexuality is to be expected in animal populations, it's to be expected in human populations. That is irrespective of whether people agree or disagree as to whether or not it is immoral or unethical.

The question of sexual acts also brings us into numerous other discussions, which are different to the marriage discussion such as:

1) Should the State enforce morality, or keep society stable and safe for all?
2) Can the State actually enforce what goes on in the bedroom to such a degree?

Plebs wrote: »

Homosexual behaviour that occurs in the natural world is not nearly on the same scale as is prevalent in Western populations. Particularly since the 1960s. Homosexual acts between humans certainly did not evolve to the extent that we have today. It is a cultural phenomenon.

Homosexual behaviour occurs within animal kind for different reasons than it occurs in human kind. (It increases fertility amongst beetles for example) I'm merely pointing out that it does exist.

Of course animals aren't a good basis for ones ethical actions. Having said that the argument for or against sodomy, is a separate topic as to whether or not one supports same-sex marriage or not.

plein de force

Plebs wrote: »

Please don't hate me for standing by my convictions. Hate breeds hate and I won't be engaging in your "those people" stereotyping ploy. I'm sorry you feel like this and I hope that one day you can be open-minded enough to see things from a different perspective.

ah yeah one day when i'm holding hands with someone of the same sex, getting married to a man i love with all my heart, i could start to see how my love and the physical way in which i express it, is disgusting.

you seem to be verging on the obsessive about other peoples sex lives, quite disturbing.

Terry

Plebs wrote: »

Please don't hate me for standing by my convictions. Hate breeds hate and I won't be engaging in your "those people" stereotyping ploy. I'm sorry you feel like this and I hope that one day you can be open-minded enough to see things from a different perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDn7jfzvcv4

jill_valentine

Plebs wrote: »

Please don't hate me for standing by my convictions. Hate breeds hate and I won't be engaging in your "those people" stereotyping ploy. I'm sorry you feel like this and I hope that one day you can be open-minded enough to see things from a different perspective.

Yes, it must be terrible to be so marginalised.

How desperate and hurt you must feel, to have your neighbours go so far out of their way to let you know they consider you inferior, to set you apart so callously.

How shamefully thoughtless, how needlessly cruel - it is of them to be so narrow-minded, to shut you out of "their" society, to insist you are abnormal, to actively intrude on your personal life though it has no bearing at all on theirs; to find ways to make your very identity feel immoral, and abnormal, and deficient. How dare they tell you that the person you are is somehow fundamentally repulsive, and insist the law reflect their own narrow world view.

Poor you. My heart bleeds.

Plebs

plein de force wrote: »

ah yeah one day when i'm holding hands with someone of the same sex, getting married to a man i love with all my heart, i could start to see how my love and the physical way in which i express it, is disgusting.

A lot of men have deep fraternal, life-long relationships. It occurs frequently in armies, religious orders, clubs, societies, etc. Platonic love is not something I'm unfamiliar with (cue suspicions of repressed homosexuality). Some argue that deep fraternal relationships and devotion between two males is one of the highest forms of human civilisation: a form that leads to all kinds of high-level thought. It's when it becomes sexual, a distortion occurs and the confusion arises. The high-level purpose of the relationship is discarded and the objective becomes something else entirely. Deep down we all have an instinct to propagate our genes through our reproductive systems: we can attempt to satisfy this urge through the synthesis of reproductive acts, but ultimately, it goes nowhere.

And I don't think either you or your friend are disgusting.

Min

bronte wrote: »

That you believe this is disgusting to me.

What disgusts me is you only used part of a paragraph so you put the whole quote out of context.

Plebs

Min wrote: »

What disgusts me is you only used part of a paragraph so you put the whole quote out of context.

lol. Did you even read post #224?