Is gay marriage a threat to humanity?

FoxT

TLDR - sorry guys havent read the backstory but want to get this off my chest...
From a mathematical POV, Gay marriage cannot possibly be a threat to humanity, b/c gays cannot reproduce.

From a societal POV, Gays offer an alternative culture/lifestyle/valueset that can only serve to enhance the human experience for all who choose to look at it with an open mind. Potentially, everybody has something to learn from everybody else.

I am not gay, but I respect gay people, I think that in many ways they demonstrate a level of bravery & passion for life that is admirable. (This trait is not exclusive to gays, of course)

For a long time I resisted the idea of gay people being given the opportunity to adopt/foster/rear children, because I felt strongly that children ideally should have both a 'mother' and a 'father' figure. Now I think that, all other things being equal, they are unlikely to be any worse than hetero parents - and in fact may be better in some ways.

Good luck to us all, I say. We all have a duty to find our own best moral path through life, and we should not accept the teachings of others (even Mr Ratzinger) without question.

Adamas

Millicent wrote: »

Vixen Chaser, I'm going to put something to you and I want you to really consider it:

I do not believe in marriage. At all. Have a long-term boyfriend (I'm female), who I will never marry or even have the desire to. I think it's an archaic practice and I see no benefit to my life from it.

Do you think I should impose that view on others and tell heterosexual couples that they should not be able to marry because I personally don't believe in it?

To marry someone is to conjoin or combine your assets, be what they may, and once it's mutual and you share the bed and the bills, the ups and downs, the thrills and the spills, that's marriage.

People don't seem to understand that it's not the priest who 'marries' the couple, as he's only a witness, which is a practice in practically all cultures, religious or not. The couple marry each other, from the original root meaning of to combine suitably or agreeably.

Millicent

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Great. But I don't respect your views if they're being continually forced down people's throats and people are denied their rights because of it.

Exactly. It's that saying, "Your rights end at the tip of my nose". If more people kept this as their mantra, the world would be a much happier, more peaceful place, IMO.

grindle

vixen chaser wrote: »

I would like to get married myself, but I would fear the high failure rates of marriage, so not sure if I ever will get married.

But, according to Paul of 'The Bible' fame, marriage is the cure for sexual immorality...

So you'll have to, or you may condemn yourself to a life of fondling penguins with a cactus up your ass.

Links234

vixen chaser wrote: »

would you marry a hetro woman?, if not, marriage shoudn't be an option for you. I mean you chose to become a woman, but I accept that you were born that way and can't help it.Good ffor you though,seriously

lol :pac:

FoxT

Millicent wrote: »

Sorry, I have to pull you up on this. A civil partnership is not the same as a marriage.

You are absoultely correct.

It is a very undesirable state of affairs, though - ie it is undesirable that CPs dont have the same legal & hereditary etc rights as marriages do.

Millicent

Adamas wrote: »

To marry someone is to conjoin or combine your assets, be what they may, and once it's mutual and you share the bed and the bills, the ups and downs, the thrills and the spills, that's marriage.

People don't seem to understand that it's not the priest who 'marries' the couple, as he's only a witness, which is a practice in practically all cultures, religious or not. The couple marry each other, from the original root meaning of to combine suitably or agreeably.

Wait, I'm not sure--are you agreeing or disagreeing with my view? :pac:

wonderfulname

Millicent wrote: »

Sorry, I have to pull you up on this. A civil partnership is not the same as a marriage.

But funnily enough what lmaopml is referring to is actually marriage, and is referred to as such, it is civil marriage, which is all anyone wants as a right.

lmaopml

Millicent wrote: »

Sorry, I have to pull you up on this. A civil partnership is not the same as a marriage.

No need to pull me up on it Millicent; I agree that a civil partnership is not the same as marriage..? that's what I said..

wonderfulname

lmaopml wrote: »

No need to pull me up on it Millicent; I agree that a civil partnership is not the same as marriage..? that's what I said..

I believe Millicent means that it is not equal to marriage, the same rights are not conferred and it is not given the same weight in Irish law.

Pacifist Pigeon

lmaopml wrote: »

Sorry no, I disagree. I am not out to brainwash or distract anybody or guide the innocents into intellectual fraud or indeed for them to abandon their reason or free will to choose anything. Choosing God, doesn't necessitate abandoning self.

I think it's intellectual fraud to think this is the case.

So, please inform me about the history of marriage? and I will tell you about the Christian definition, that reaches way back from Christ through polygamy etc. etc. etc. to Genesis with one man and one woman that are called to vow themselves as one before God.

The 'State' can perform 'marriage' they do for very many people of various beliefs etc. they have simply failed to call it 'marriage' - they call it a civil partnership, which is exactly what it is. I have no problem at all with this.

Why should Christian culture take precedent over other cultures/beliefs in this state? If we are supposed to be a secular state, then surely the definition of marriage should be expanded to facility all other cultures, traditions and beliefs. Why should it be "marriage" for Christians and "civil partnership" for the rest. That's not secular - that's biased. Let the Church believe what it will about about marriage, but when it comes to the state and how it facilitates the rest of it's citizenry, it ought to be a different story. We're not telling the church or it's followers what they should or should not believe or define marriage to be, so why should the Church and its follows tell the state and it's entire citizenry how marriage ought to be defined and restrict the rights of others while doing so?

Millicent

lmaopml wrote: »

No need to pull me up on it Millicent; I agree that a civil partnership is not the same as marriage..? that's what I said..

The 'State' can perform 'marriage' they do for very many people of various beliefs etc. they have simply failed to call it 'marriage' - they call it a civil partnership, which is exactly what it is. I have no problem at all with this.

As wonderfulname said, it's not the same as marriage. A heterosexual couple can get married without a religious ceremony in Ireland; a gay couple can only have a civil partnership which isn't the same in law as marriage.

grindle

lmaopml wrote: »

Choosing God, doesn't necessitate abandoning self.

The self, as in your 'self', is dependent on cognition, and any god-based belief relies on the denial of what your cognitive processes tell you.

Faith vs Reason.

Genesis, by the way, is not an historical document. It's a fable.

lmaopml

wonderfulname wrote: »

But funnily enough what lmaopml is referring to is actually marriage, and is referred to as such, it is civil marriage, which is all anyone wants as a right.

Not quite wonderfulname!

This brings to mind 'A Rose by any other name' -

Still, I think it's important for us to distinguish both the family and the 'loving' civil partnership that is a matter for the state to decide - and not least it's citizens. I guess 'marriage' has many meanings to many people, that's ok - but marraige and family and children are the building blocks of society in many ways too, to erode it is on par with those who seek justice and fairness but give out about sw recipients who are going through hard times at their expense.

The only thing that I wish to add really is that I have no hatred for anybody, and I think the current 'Pope' is misrepresented by the op, so too am I as a Catholic on very many threads that discuss the freedom of individuals in society to choose for themselves - I'm simply a member of this society thankyou - who happens to be Catholic.

Despite this, I still think it's important that I have a contribution too if that's ok, insofar as shaping laws are concerned and referenda - Catholics, despite the current strange turn of neighbour against neighbour are not as volatile as one would be led to believe by people who presume through ignorance that being Catholic means hating people of all sorts that do wrong and are sinners etc. - being Catholic means welcoming everybody no matter whom and recognising the beam in our own eye that takes a lifetime of removal -

Despite the bar that is set, none of us reach it perfectly but we are called to if we claim to be Catholic.

Basically, what I am saying is that everybody is welcome, no matter whom - but as a 'Catholic' Irish person, I think it's important to understand what that means, and also what it does not mean, and to discern it and not be either nominally such, or either be fanatical so much that we think the church is ever going to be full up with perfect individuals - it isn't. That's it's beauty in many ways.

Millicent

lmaopml, as I said earlier in the thread, you seem to be a really good person and a great Christian. However, there are Catholics who give others a bad name when it comes to things like this, the Alive! crowd being some of the most vocal.

I was a Catholic and a strong one for many years and knew many, many other serious Catholics and it would not be misrepresenting them at all to say that they would not agree with gay marriage being legal as it would be against their religious beliefs.

It wasn't the kind of Catholic I was or the person I am now, but I know many Catholics who were happy to deny others' rights because they believed that they were against God's will.

ETA: Their opinions to me were not valid as they did not support other people's rights. It's that "Your rights end at the tip of my nose" thing I was talking about earlier. Their right to their religion does not supersede a gay couple's right to be married.

lmaopml

Millicent wrote: »

As wonderfulname said, it's not the same as marriage. A heterosexual couple can get married without a religious ceremony in Ireland; a gay couple can only have a civil partnership which isn't the same in law as marriage.

What is the difference Millicent? I'm not fully up on it..

wonderfulname

lmaopml wrote: »

Not quite wonderfulname!

Sorry, you've been misinformed.

lmaopml wrote: »

Still, I think it's important for us to distinguish both the family and the 'loving' civil partnership that is a matter for the state to decide - and not least it's citizens. I guess 'marriage' has many meanings to many people, that's ok - but marraige and family and children are the building blocks of society in many ways too, to erode it is on par with those who seek justice and fairness but give out about sw recipients who are going through hard times at their expense.

Marriage
Civil Partnership

The difference

lmaopml wrote: »

Catholic...Catholic...Catholics...Catholic...Catholic...Catholic...'Catholic'...

What you appear to be calling marriage but isn't in this context

Millicent

lmaopml wrote: »

What is the difference Millicent? I'm not fully up on it..

There's a few, but the worst is the effects it has on the children of a civil partnership. There's no provisions for adoption, guardianship or rights to a non-biological child in it.

Inheritance, separation entitlements and domestic violence issues are also not covered as well under civil partnership.

Decent link here for more info.

Immaculate Pasta

Gay marriage is so gay :cool:

lmaopml

Millicent wrote: »

lmaopml, as I said earlier in the thread, you seem to be a really good person and a great Christian. However, there are Catholics who give others a bad name when it comes to things like this, the Alive! crowd being some of the most vocal.

I was a Catholic and a strong one for many years and knew many, many other serious Catholics and it would not be misrepresenting them at all to say that they would not agree with gay marriage being legal as it would be against their religious beliefs.

It wasn't the kind of Catholic I was or the person I am now, but I know many Catholics who were happy to deny others' rights because they believed that they were against God's will.

ETA: Their opinions to be were not valid as they did not support other people's rights. It's that "Your rights end at the tip of my nose" thing I was talking about earlier. Their right to their religion does not supersede a gay couple's right to be married.

Ok, but why did you abandon your faith? Most Catholics live under the law, and try to shape it too as citizens in a democracy? Why abandon faith because of other faithful? It's surely no surprise that the Church is made up of a family of all sorts? That's is it's great beauty too, that it is made up of non perfect people just like me and you no?

I don't believe that the Catholic church promotes anybodies rights as ending at the tip of our noses - we're spread vastly across the globe, and in truth and fairness most of us fight for the sake of charity and love to fellow man, and recognise free choice, despite trying our best to call people towards God which is our calling. I think it's being unfair to normal folk - that they only see the tip of their nose when we are dealing with very many things for a long time that are beneath them with hard work, sweat and love.

Bullchomper

So the pope protects priests who sodomised young boys but if consenting older adults want to engage in the act and do it out of love it's a threat to humanity - interesting.

Pacifist Pigeon

lmaopml wrote: »

Not quite wonderfulname!

This brings to mind 'A Rose by any other name' -

Still, I think it's important for us to distinguish both the family and the 'loving' civil partnership that is a matter for the state to decide - and not least it's citizens. I guess 'marriage' has many meanings to many people, that's ok - but marraige and family and children are the building blocks of society in many ways too, to erode it is on par with those who seek justice and fairness but give out about sw recipients who are going through hard times at their expense.

No-one here is trying to destroy the concept of families being the building blocks of society. The idea of the family is the cornerstone of society, both as an economic unit and for raising future generations. I think most of us here can accept this fact. However, in relation to the family unit itself, we are trying to expand on what is considered a family. Not only do we want marriage equality, but also family equality. Why can't cohabiting same-sex parents/guardians and their children (whether adopted, from a surrogate mother or whatever medical science leads us to in the future) be considered a family?

Not allowing same-sex marriage or adoption is in fact eroding away at the concept of families being the building blocks society and encourages separation and alienation of individuals from the family unit, based on their sexual orientation and gender. Think of all the potential families that will be lost if same-sex marriages and adoptions are not allowed! Marriage equality is pro-family.

Millicent

lmaopml wrote: »

Ok, but why did you abandon your faith? Most Catholics live under the law, and try to shape it too as citizens in a democracy? Why abandon faith because of other faithful? It's surely no surprise that the Church is made up of a family of all sorts? That's is it's great beauty too, that it is made up of non perfect people just like me and you no?

I don't believe that the Catholic church promotes anybodies rights as ending at the tip of our noses - we're spread vastly across the globe, and in truth and fairness most of us fight for the sake of charity and love to fellow man, and recognise free choice, despite trying our best to call people towards God which is our calling. I think it's being unfair to normal folk - that they only see the tip of their nose when we are dealing with very many things for a long time that are beneath them with hard work, sweat and love.

It stopped being relevant in my life, especially their attitude to women. Not enough nice Catholics like you either.

Not all Catholics are like you and I'm sorry to say that. I know many, many wonderful Catholics but I was pretty heavily involved in the Catholic church from childhood and there are plenty of Catholics more than happy to limit the rights of others, who don't recognise free choice, under the banner of religious belief.

The saying doesn't mean that people "only see the tip of their nose when we are dealing with very many things for a long time that are beneath them with hard work, sweat and love", by the way. It means that your rights end when they infringe on mine -- i.e. those who believe that their right to believe that homosexuality is wrong as a religious belief means that they can tell others that they may not marry.

talkinyite

I actually don't get it. Do gays want to change the definition of marriage?

Millicent

talkinyite wrote: »

I actually don't get it. Do gays want to change the definition of marriage?

No. They want to be allowed to marry.

Nodin

vixen chaser wrote: »

if you want to down the religious route, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.........

No such people. Evolution and all that.

vixen chaser wrote: »

just not natural .........

We've already dealt with that.

vixen chaser wrote:

As for the point I am making, once a person gets married, then a family is created, your spouse becomes your family. That should remain a family for ever.

Why should you impose such a massive thing on anyone else?

vixen chaser wrote:

Maybe if some gays didn't act the peverted bitches

Taking my advice on admitting you just don't like gays....

Pacifist Pigeon

Immaculate Pasta wrote: »

Gay marriage is so gay :cool:

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

talkinyite

Millicent wrote: »

No. They want to be allowed to marry.

Whats the difference between civil partnerships and marriage apart from the name and recognition by the church?

Millicent

talkinyite wrote: »

Whats the difference between civil partnerships and marriage apart from the name and recognition by the church?

I posted a link to another poster a page back--it's a good and fair read. There's a wealth of differences, especially surrounding children of gay couples. Inheritance, domestic violence protection and separation entitlements are also not dealt with very well or at all, depending on the issue.

grindle

talkinyite wrote: »

Whats the difference between civil partnerships and marriage apart from the name and recognition by the church?

Legal entitlements. Less of them.

Pacifist Pigeon

talkinyite wrote: »

Whats the difference between civil partnerships and marriage apart from the name and recognition by the church?

Please, please. Read the entire thread. I doubt people here will be willing to repeat themselves several over for people like you who aren't keeping up with the debate.

grindle

Stained Class wrote: »

Haven't read thru the thread.

Too long, too boring & gone too foolish with eegits with no experiance with parenthood & the way life works.

EVERY CHILD IS ENTITLED TO A PROPER & CAPABLE MOTHER & FATHER.

Without this basic start in life, it's very hard to see how any child can succeed in life.

Some do, but the vast majority FAIL.

Exit thread...........

Wow. Hadn't thought of it like that. /thread

Millicent

Stained Class wrote: »

Haven't read thru the thread.

Too long, too boring & gone too foolish with eegits with no experiance with parenthood & the way life works.

EVERY CHILD IS ENTITLED TO A PROPER & CAPABLE MOTHER & FATHER.

Without this basic start in life, it's very hard to see how any child can succeed in life.

Some do, but the vast majority FAIL.

Exit thread...........

Ah, a swoop and poop post. Perhaps you should try to read the thread before deciding that your opinion is so important and new that we should all just listen to it and accept it.

Pacifist Pigeon

Stained Class wrote: »

Haven't read thru the thread.

Too long, too boring & gone too foolish with eegits with no experiance with parenthood & the way life works.

EVERY CHILD IS ENTITLED TO A PROPER & CAPABLE MOTHER & FATHER.

Without this basic start in life, it's very hard to see how any child can succeed in life.

Some do, but the vast majority FAIL.

Exit thread...........

Ah, yes, I'm a foolish eejit for believing in marriage and family equality. Give me a change to experience parenthood and to teach my children how to be rational objective thinking members of society. You would wish to deny me my rights, the same rights that you yourself so closely cherish. Do onto others as you would have them do unto you.

talkinyite

Ah right so it's to do mainly with adoption then. I've no opinion on that sort of thing, perhaps people are waiting for statistics on children raised by gays to be analysed before giving them similar rights as couples who have kids naturally...

Nyan Cat

I'm starting to wonder if the majority who are so vehemently opposed to equality in marriage and adoption are slightly worried we might do a better job at it!
I say that in jest. And yet it could have an inkling of truth.

grindle

Nyan Cat wrote: »

...it could have an inkling of truth.

Great point.

Know what I've never come across (pardon the pun)?

A gay scumbag. The type that genuinely threatens humanity by foisting abrasive outspoken ignorance on society.

Nyan Cat

talkinyite wrote: »

Ah right so it's to do mainly with adoption then. I've no opinion on that sort of thing, perhaps people are waiting for statistics on children raised by gays to be analysed before giving them similar rights as couples who have kids naturally...

That's only a part if it though and if they legalised marriage that doesn't mean they'd be legalising adoption.
The differences are huge though. Legally a civil partner has very little power. Let's say you ended up in hospital, is your partner considered next of Kin? That's a problem

Millicent

talkinyite wrote: »

Ah right so it's to do mainly with adoption then. I've no opinion on that sort of thing, perhaps people are waiting for statistics on children raised by gays to be analysed before giving them similar rights as couples who have kids naturally...

But the fact are that, whatever reports people might be waiting on, there are children in same-sex families RIGHT NOW who aren't entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple family would.

Millicent

@Links--have you seen this?

Might be a good kick in the arse for government on transgendered rights. Here's hoping anyway.

Pacifist Pigeon

talkinyite wrote: »

Ah right so it's to do mainly with adoption then. I've no opinion on that sort of thing, perhaps people are waiting for statistics on children raised by gays to be analysed before giving them similar rights as couples who have kids naturally...

Statistics are available and studies have been done. Read the following post containing many links to academic papers, reports, statistics and studies (courtesy of oldrnwisr):

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74220714&postcount=348

The only thing stopping family and marriage equality is ignorance and bigotry.

talkinyite

Millicent wrote: »

But the fact are that, whatever reports people might be waiting on, there are children in same-sex families RIGHT NOW that aren't entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple family would.

Such as?

wonderfulname

talkinyite wrote: »

Whats the difference between civil partnerships and marriage apart from the name and recognition by the church?

I linked both of these up there ^^ somewhere, and marriage is not recognised by the church, not civil marriage anyway, which is all that this is about.

talkinyite wrote: »

Ah right so it's to do mainly with adoption then. I've no opinion on that sort of thing, perhaps people are waiting for statistics on children raised by gays to be analysed before giving them similar rights as couples who have kids naturally...

The statistics are there, the kids are all right.

There is more to it than just adoption, it's by far the most important matter, but there are actually 169 differences in total between the two (again, up there ^^)

The real reason there isn't gay marriage is bloody politics, the majority of people support it already and there are no negatives in it.

Millicent

talkinyite wrote: »

Such as?

Here's Marriage Equality.ie's take on it:

Civil partnership

-does not permit children to have a legally recognised relationship with their parents - only the biological one. This causes all sorts of practical problems for hundreds of families with schools and hospitals as well as around guardianship, access and custody. In the worst case, it could mean that a child is taken away from a parent and put into care on the death of the biological parent.

-defines the home of civil partners as a "shared home", rather than a "family home" , as is the case for married couples. This has implications for the protection of dependent children living in this home and also means a lack of protection for civil partners who are deserted.

Also:

The children of lesbian and gay parents are in legal limbo in Ireland. Even the new Civil Partnership Act totally ignores them and their rights. Under the Act, there is no provision for adoption or guardianship of children who are being parented by same-sex couples. In addition, there are no provisions for custody, access, or maintenance payments for children.

Furthermore, a child's de facto parent may not be treated as next of kin in a hospital or school situation, because they are not recognised as a legal parent - they are effectively strangers in law.

(Full webpage here)

They also have an Excel spreadsheet with 100 differences on it, not just regarding children. Link here.

ETA: Longer article on civil partnership and the family here.

cmat

can a child grow up with two women as a mom or dad be normal
NO

Links234

Millicent wrote: »

@Links--have you seen this?

Might be a good kick in the arse for government on transgendered rights. Here's hoping anyway.

I have. Dunno if it'll be a kick up the arse or not though. trans people are in an extremely tough spot marriage wise. It'll take full marriage equality across the board before trans people will have just some rights.

Millicent

Links234 wrote: »

I have. Dunno if it'll be a kick up the arse or not though. trans people are in an extremely tough spot marriage wise. It'll take full marriage equality across the board before trans people will have just some rights.

The sooner the better transgender issues are legislated for too. That (hopefully again) will have an impact.

Links234

cmat wrote: »

can a child grow up with two women as a mom or dad be normal
NO

YES.

rainbow kirby

cmat wrote: »

can a child grow up with two women as a mom or dad be normal
NO

Plenty already have, and will continue to do so.

Millicent

cmat wrote: »

can a child grow up with two women as a mom or dad be normal
NO

Have a look at the YouTube video someone posted a couple of pages back. A better son you could not ask for and he had two mothers.