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

Min

Plebs wrote: »

lol. Did you even read post #224?

Did you read post #168?

Bronte said love was a reason to allow it in post #153

Going by post #153, incest is fine if they love one another and want to marry.

We can all take things up wrong to suit opinions when I am sure Bronte didn't mean she supports an adult child marrying a parent whether it is hetero or homo...or the two people being children being allowed to marry if they wanted to.
When my post is said to compare same sex marriage with a person marrying their pet, they are doing the same thing. It was not comparing, it was just a general thing about love.

KeithAFC

I have no problems with it really. But iv always thought that we are here to breed and two men or women can't do that but what ever.

Plebs

Min wrote: »

Did you read post #168?

Bronte said love was a reason to allow it in post #153

Going by post #153, incest is fine if they love one another and want to marry.

We can all take things up wrong to suit opinions when I am sure Bronte didn't mean she supports an adult child marrying a parent whether it is hetero or homo...or the two people being children being allowed to marry if they wanted to.
When my post is said to compare same sex marriage with a person marrying their pet, they are doing the same thing. It was not comparing, it was just a general thing about love.

I can only conclude that you are engaging in obfuscation tactics (either that or there's some strange gas emanating from the river Nore). I suggest you come back to me when you have a point to make.

Turtwig

Plebs wrote: »

I can only conclude that you are engaging in obfuscation tactics (either that or there's some strange gas emanating from the river in Kilkenny). I suggest you come back to me when you have a point to make.

Hang on. Are the two of ye not on the same side?

Plebs

Malty_T wrote: »

Hang on. Are the two of ye not on the same side?

We are? Does a polarised debate make things easier for you?

Min

Plebs wrote: »

I can only conclude that you are engaging in obfuscation tactics. I suggest you come back to me when you have a point to make.

I can only suggest you take your own advice, goodnight.

Craebear

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.

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.

Plebs wrote: »

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 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.

And here ladies and gentlemen we can see the homophobe in it's only remaining habitat, slouched over a keyboard where people can't spit on it and it's outdated opinions.

whatdoicare

In my view, the Government is less and less supportive of "Normal" definitions of marriage, totally discouraging couples to marry, so, by that observation, I can't see them encouraging any other types of marriage.

Looks to me like the Government wants to get rid of all types of marriage and just have single parents instead!

That, plus the older generation seems to have more control over our voting system and will never allow anything that's different....different is scary! Ooooooo!

bronte

Min wrote: »

Did you read post #168?

Bronte said love was a reason to allow it in post #153

Going by post #153, incest is fine if they love one another and want to marry.

We can all take things up wrong to suit opinions when I am sure Bronte didn't mean she supports an adult child marrying a parent whether it is hetero or homo...or the two people being children being allowed to marry if they wanted to.
When my post is said to compare same sex marriage with a person marrying their pet, they are doing the same thing. It was not comparing, it was just a general thing about love.

Snore.

Love is a reason to allow two people to marry regardless of gender.

That is what I meant by that post.

Plebs

Craebear wrote: »

... in it's only remaining habitat, slouched over a keyboard where people can't spit on it and it's outdated opinions.

That's a particularly hate-filled post there newbie. Hate breeds hate and I won't be engaging in your name-calling ploy. I'm sorry you feel like this and I hope that one day you can free yourself from your entrenched views and bring yourself to see things from a different perspective. Open your mind.

Craebear

The KKK have a different perspective too and I'm sure you will have no problem with me having a go at them. When gay people are being beaten and killed daily for being born the way they are, they don't need people like you spreading your crap in what is supposed to be one of the safe areas in the world for them.

Comparing it to incest, and claiming it "a cultural phenomenom", seriously.

I should know better, I'm feeding the troll at this stage.

Plebs

Craebear wrote: »

The KKK have a different perspective too...

As good as Godwin's Law.

Your sexual desires are like a religion for you. If you want to be a hate-filled zealot and refuse to engage in a balanced discussion on gay marriage, go elsewhere. There are plenty of propaganda websites that can accommodate you. Forcing your opinions on people won't work. The onus is on you and your peers to convince the status quo through rational arguments. You've spent a lot of money, invested a lot of time and made a lot of progress in stamping out homophobic hate, discrimination and physical violence. That's something all homosexual persons should be proud of.

Craebear

Gay marriage may happen in the future, right now we have to wait for a generation of a by gone era to die out before it can happen.

@ Plebs

Is it concern for the good of society that motivates you?


















It's not really now is it?

Plebs

Craebear wrote: »

Gay marriage may happen in the future, right now we have to wait for a generation of a by gone era to die out before it can happen.

Ah yes, the aul "in this day and age" meaningless rhetoric makes an appearance yet again. You know what they say about empty vessels.

I suspect you're under 30. Don't worry though, once people get on in life, they thend to adopt conservative views (both social and economic) and wish for these values to be passed on to the next generation: after all, why deny your children the traditions that you have benefited from? The hardcore long-haired university activists who took things a bit too seriously eventually slot quietly out of the popular activist party of the day and are absorbed into the Labour party where they don a cheap il-fitting suit and hope one day to get a council nomination. Meanwhile their peers who had the sense to settle down live in the more salubrious suburbs, drive nicer cars and don't bother themselves listening to a minority of the population harp on about Utopian visions of society's future, "equality", radical change and of course, crusties in power. No matter how much "NOISE" they make. Lyric FM and Six Nations rugby is a far more satisfying past-time.

p.s. When you take a leaf out of your own manifesto and develop some courtesy and respect, I might consider answering your troll-like leading questions. Then again, I'm considering just ignoring you.

Sam Vimes

Plebs wrote: »

Ah yes, the aul "in this day and age" meaningless rhetoric makes an appearance yet again. You know what they say about empty vessels.

I suspect you're under 30. Don't worry though, once people get on in life, they thend to adopt conservative views (both social and economic) and wish for these values to be passed on to the next generation: after all, why deny your children the traditions that you have benefited from? The hardcore long-haired university activists who took things a bit too seriously eventually slot quietly out of the popular activist party of the day and are absorbed into the Labour party where they don a cheap il-fitting suit and hope one day to get a council nomination. Meanwhile their peers who had the sense to settle down live in the more salubrious suburbs, drive nicer cars and don't bother themselves listening to a minority of the population harp on about Utopian visions of society's future, "equality", radical change and of course, crusties in power. No matter how much "NOISE" they make. Lyric FM and Six Nations rugby is a far more satisfying past-time.

p.s. When you take a leaf out of your own manifesto and develop some courtesy and respect, I might consider answering your troll-like leading questions. Then again, I'm considering just ignoring you.

So, just to be clear, the people who toe the line, move to the suburbs and go with the status quo so they can watch the rugby and drive a nice car are "open minded" and "view things from others perspectives" and the people who want "radical change", "utopian society" and "equality" are closed minded people with entrenched views. Is that correct?

Plebs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So, just to be clear, the people who toe the line, move to the suburbs and go with the status quo so they can watch the rugby and drive a nice car are "open minded" and "view things from others perspectives" and the people who want "radical change", "utopian society" and "equality" are closed minded people with entrenched views. Is that correct?

Radical lefties spouting Utopian visions for society are so far left, and the facists spouting Utopian visions for society are so far right, that they wrap around and meet each other in Never Never Land.

While that little side-show transfixes those unlucky enough to have been sucked in, the rest of us occupy the real world and go about our lives in a meaningful, moral and Godly fashion.

Sam Vimes

Plebs wrote: »

Radical lefties spouting Utopian visions for society are so far left, and the facists spouting Utopian visions for society are so far right, that they wrap around and meet each other in Never Never Land.

So anyone who thinks that having different genitalia doesn't automatically make people better parents is what you call a "radical leftie spouting Utopian visions for society"? Is that correct?

Plebs wrote: »

While that little side-show transfixes those unlucky enough to have been sucked in, the rest of us occupy the real world and go about our lives in a meaningful, moral and Godly fashion.

I find it funny that you say you're living in the real world in the same sentence that you mention the magic sky fairy.

Plebs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I find it funny that you say you're living in the real world and then mention the magic sky fairy in the same sentence.

Now. now. If you don't show courtesy and respect, then I won't play your little game.

Craebear

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

Plebs

whatdoicare wrote: »

In my view, the Government is less and less supportive of "Normal" definitions of marriage, totally discouraging couples to marry, so, by that observation, I can't see them encouraging any other types of marriage.

This is true and is definitely an area that needs to be addressed. Couples remaining single for years and years so as to gain better social welfare benefits has gone beyond a joke.

Sam Vimes

Plebs wrote: »

Now. now. If you don't show courtesy and respect, then I won't play your little game.

"Radical lefties spouting Utopian visions for society are so far left, and the facists spouting Utopian visions for society are so far right, that they wrap around and meet each other in Never Never Land"

is not courtesy and respect. And all I'm saying is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, ie people who believe in an invisible man who is all powerful but has nothing better to do with his time than send bears to kill children, turn people into pillars of salt, kill thousands of people because the king performed a census, help people in battle in return for the sacrifice of their children, lay out the rules of slavery, ban people from eating shellfish and collecting sticks on a Saturday, tell people what they should and shouldn't do in the privacy of their bedrooms, tell women that they should not have authority over men and of course sacrifice himself to himself to save us from the punishment that he was going to give us for the crime of not living up to a standard that he set and which he made it impossible for us to live up to......shouldn't really be talking about radical ideas off in Never land. At least never land is supposed to be inside this universe

Plebs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

"Radical lefties spouting Utopian visions for society are so far left, and the facists spouting Utopian visions for society are so far right, that they wrap around and meet each other in Never Never Land"

Countering someone's political views is fair game AFAIC. I don't like political radicalists or far left wingers. If you want to crack jokes about people's religion, you should take your insulting opinions elsewhere. I've heard Christian-bashing is a national past-time in the coffee shops of Saudi Arabia.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

is not courtesy and respect. And all I'm saying is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, ie people who believe in an invisible man who is all powerful but has nothing better to do with his time than send bears to kill children, turn people into pillars of salt, kill thousands of people because the king performed a census, help people in battle in return for the sacrifice of their children, ban people from eating shellfish and collecting sticks on a Saturday and of course sacrifice himself to himself to save us from the punishment that he was going to give us for the crime of not living up to a standard that he set and which he made it impossible for us to live up to......shouldn't really be talking about radical ideas of in Never land. At least never land is supposed to be inside this universe

You don't even know what I believe in, yet you feel you have all the ammo you need to go off on a meaningless, intellectually shallow, polemic rant. But maybe you wrote this because it somehow makes you feel better about yourself? I suggest you isolate your warped and ignorant views to a separate area of cyber-space. Or maybe read a book (other than Dawkins and Hitchens) so as to open your mind just a little and see the world from a different perspective.

Sam Vimes

Plebs wrote: »

Countering someone's political views is fair game AFAIC. I don't like political radicalists or far left wingers.

Countering someone's political views is fine. What you did was insult them. you didn't really clarify btw, would you consider anyone who supports gay marriage as "a far left winger"?

Plebs wrote: »

If you want to crack jokes about people's religion, you should take your insulting opinions elsewhere. I've heard Christian-bashing is a national past-time in the coffee shops of Saudi Arabia.

You don't even know what I believe in, yet you feel you have all the ammo you need to go off on a meaningless, intellectually shallow, polemic rant. I suggest you isolate your warped and ignorant views to a separate area of cyber-space. Or maybe read a book (other than Dawkins and Hitchens) so as to open your mind just a little.

You referred to "going about our lives in a meaningful, moral and Godly fashion". If the god you refer to is not the christian god then I wholeheartedly apologise but if it is the christian god then I should point out that my source for the description of those appalling acts is not Dawkins or Hitchens, it's the bible. Perhaps you should read it

Plebs wrote: »

But maybe you wrote this because it somehow makes you feel better about yourself?

I wrote it to show you that when viewed objectively the beliefs of a christian are far more outlandish and "off in never land" than those of the most radical hippy or fascist. Ya know, in the hopes you would open your mind a little

Plebs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Countering someone's political views is fine. What you did was insult them

Stones and glasshouses my dear boy...

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You referred to "going about our lives in a meaningful, moral and Godly fashion". If the god you refer to is not the christian god then I wholeheartedly apologise but if it is the christian god then I should point out that my source for the description of those appalling acts is not Dawkins or Hitchens, it's the bible. Perhaps you should read it

What have the things you so eloquently described (I didn't realise I you were such a gifted theological critic) got to do with gay marriage? Religious chip on your shoulder perchance? Unhealthy fascination? Certainly seems that way.

Then again perhaps Dawkins and Hitchens can cobble together some humorous faux intellectual catch-phrases that enable you to gloss over your existence whilst poking fun at those who believe in a higher being. Seeing as you are continuing on your unrepentant tone, I thought I'd be a little bit cheeky myself. :P

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wrote it to show you that when viewed objectively the beliefs are a christian are far more outlandish than those of the most radical hippy or fascist. Ya know, in the hopes you would open your mind a little

To be fair, frivolous political goals such green policy and half a percent change in the tax rate are pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Then again, forcing anonymous teenagers to be put into the care of a homosexual foster home in the name of the "Equality" god is a serious matter. Especially as it's not insignificant for the individual child. Hence the need to counter and oppose (both overtly and covertly) certain political viewpoints that can harm innocent children.

Sam Vimes

Plebs wrote: »

What have the things you so eloquently described (I didn't realise I you were such a gifted theological critic) got to do with gay marriage? Religious chip on your shoulder perchance? Unhealthy fascination? Certainly seems that way.

Um, I refer to the part of my post that you quoted immediately after you wrote the above

Plebs wrote: »

To be fair, frivolous political goals (such as forcing anonymous teenagers to be put into the care of a homosexual foster home in the name of the "Equality" god) are pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Not insignificant for the individual child though.

Nor is it insignificant to the foster/adoptive parents. you are right to say that it's insignificant to everyone else but for some reason some people feel the need to get involved and try to stop it

Plebs wrote: »

Then again perhaps Dawkins and Hitchens can cobble together some humorous faux intellectual catch-phrases that enable you to gloss over your existence whilst poking fun at those who believe in a higher being. Seeing as you are continuing on your unrepentant tone, I thought I'd be a little bit cheeky myself. :P

If you want to think I'm just regurgitating Dawkins and Hitchens that is your prerogative. I suppose if someone can convince themselves that a Jewish guy rose from the dead 2000 years ago based on nothing more than a story in a book then ignoring my points because you've convinced yourself I'm just repeating what I've heard from others (as if that would make the points any less valid if it was true) shouldn't be too difficult

Plebs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I suppose if someone can convince themselves that a Jewish guy rose from the dead 2000 years ago based on nothing more than a story in a book then ignoring my points because you've convinced yourself I'm just repeating what I've heard from others (as if that would make the points any less valid if it was true) shouldn't be too difficult

You're really not a nice person, are you?

Good night. Zzz.

Sam Vimes

Plebs wrote: »

Hence the need to counter and oppose (both overtly and covertly) certain political viewpoints that can harm innocent children.

In what way does it harm innocent children? Can a homosexual not be a good parent in your eyes?

Do you think that homosexuality is contagious?

Sam Vimes

Plebs wrote: »

You're really not a nice person, are you?

I'm lovely I am.

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_love_toast

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

jill_valentine

If it takes the EU to drag our legal system out of somebody's deluded fantasy version of the 1950s, I can live with it.