Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Delirium

Paris Hong wrote: »

I want to say same-sex partner can exist, but should not be legal.

why?

lazygal

Paris Hong wrote: »

I want to say same-sex partner can exist, but should not be legal.

Why shouldn't same sex partnerships be legal? It can't be related to children as the issue of children is not a factor when heterosexual couples marry.

MrPudding

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Do you want a history lesson? Google the subject or read a book.

Phil, clearly, compared to us, you are an intellectual powerhouse. With this great power you have comes great responsibility. You see things that us lessor unfortunates can't. This gift you have is not without cost. Many times in you orife you will see the obvious while those around you bask in the warm comforting glow of ignorance.

As the holder of such a wonderful gift you have the responsibility of guiding and helping those that are intellectually less fortunate than you. So, as a favour to humanity, can you please explain why marriage equality will bring the world back to the dark ages and also why marriage equality is wrong? I am asking you this for a very genuine reason. I, as well as most of the people in this thread, genuinely cannot see the problem that you seem to think exists and is obvious. This is not denial, nor is it willful ignorance. Many of us have read widely on the subject. I wrote a jurisprudence dissertation on the subject of same-sex marriage from a Rawlsian perspective, and read dozens of cases, journal articles and books as part of my research. With all this reading I still did not find evidence of this great danger you speak of. Please, instead of simply repeating that the danger is there tell us what it is.

Vivisectus

I do not think we have really been able to define some clear-cut unique benefits to one-man one-woman marriages. But for the sake of argument let us assume that we have, and that this unique benefit consists of the optimum conditions for the successful rearing of children, as you stated. We then have to show that allowing gay people to marry would diminish or hinder this in any way.

What impact do you see gay marriage to have on these optimum child-rearing conditions of yours?

Bumping this question because I don't think I ever got an answer?

Vivisectus

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Society is the bigger picture. Marriage has a basic role. Why you want to destroy marriage is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps you will enlighten me?

And please don't sidestep the answer.

Why do you hate equality Phil? Please don't side-step the answer.

But in all seriousness, this seems to be another common argument in the anti-marriage equality camp. it runs more or less like this:

1: Marriage is an important part of our social structure
2: Changing the way we define marriage threatens marriage.

ergo, changing the way we legally define marriage threatens society.

However, no-one in the anti-camp (haha) have managed to demonstrate how gay marriage would impact heterosexual marriages in any way.

Apart from this, we have changed the definition of marriage many times, to such a degree that few people today would be able to fulfill the roles expected of them in a marriage from even a mere 100 years ago. Divorce and gender equality are two excellent examples of this. Incidentally, people who opposed those changes used the exact same argument to try to stop it from happening.

And yes indeed: those changes DID change society. For the better, I believe. My daughters can expect to be treated as equals before the law if they decide to marry (for the most part), and should the relationship not be good for them then they can choose to leave.

aloyisious

@Phill Ewinn..

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Christian marriage?

Marriage is older than Christianity.

Also, you need to look at history to see how many times gay marriage has risen and fallen in different societies, places, ages etc.

As I said before. This particular revolution will go the way of the others.

Also, whats your objection to civil partnership if civil unions are non secular. Isn't this what you want, ultimately?

If you are so certain that this particular revolution - equal access to civil marriage (should it come to pass) - will go the way of the others, then why are you so determined to stop it having it's day in the sun and history? After all, there's no denying the fact that marriage has survived the test of time, humanity and history and remained intact in all it's forms.

Re your question as to why we want to destroy marriage, we DO NOT WANT to destroy marriage, we SEEK ACCESS to the civil marriage version of it. Your question is misleading, an attempt to lead people up a false path. We want to wed into marriage. Re civil partnership, it is NOT the same as civil marriage, it is lesser in civil rights.

Re civil unions, they are secular, not non secular or non-secular... (secular, not connected with religious or spiritual matters)

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSecularity&ei=LUbrU6qCHonB7AatuoGgCw&usg=AFQjCNE5WYlEaVDmjR2b1iCukDUAM4aJJg

PopePalpatine

I must repeat what I said a few pages ago: where's oldrnwisr when you need him to hand Phill's own arse to him on a plate?

Phill sneered about us on the pro-marriage equality wanting to "give two fingers to de chuuurch." Nope, it's just two fingers to bigotry.

NuMarvel

A good piece from yesterday's Indo on "non traditional" families in Ireland: http://www.independent.ie/life/family/parenting/two-mums-two-dads-one-mum-meet-irelands-modern-families-30499529.html.

It's a shame it wasn't more in-depth, but it's good to see the diverse range of families in Ireland getting some coverage.

marienbad

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Steady on?

Also can you please just answer the question.

Phill, Believe me if I could answer your question I would , but I just don't see how allowing gay marriage will destroy marriage . I may disagree with your views but I believe you hold them sincerely, can you not accord the same to my views.

So can you explain in the light of you saying this

'' Also, you need to look at history to see how many times gay marriage has risen and fallen in different societies, places, ages etc.''

that marriage is still alive and well.

Bannasidhe

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I see I'm not going to get any kind of answer. So I should start by puttting words in peoples mouths. Are you tge type who blames someone else for all of your ills? Is it a far left anarchist dig at society? Will gay marriage be the two fingers you so desperately want to give de chuuurch?

Is it a combination of those?

I guess none of you have the backbone to express your view completely. Choose to hide in the crowd and attack anyone en-mass who disagrees with you.

Ask yourself what gay marriage will get you.

It'll get you nothing. That's the truth.

Gay marriage will 'get me' the same rights as my siblings to marry my partner.

Now - why not have the backbone to tell us how that will 'destroy' my siblings- or anyone else's- marriages (ignoring the fact that the right to divorce already 'destroyed' my siblings 'life-partnerships' ) ?

Bannasidhe

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Do you want a history lesson? Google the subject or read a book.

I have a free hour before the rugby starts so yes Phill - give me a history lesson.
I shall require you to cite your sources mind...


*gets popcorn*

freyners

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have a free hour before the rugby starts so yes Phill - give me a history lesson.
I shall require you to cite your sources mind...


*gets popcorn*

Bann your hero, forgot about the match:D

Vivisectus

Argumentum ad Googliam

when in doubt, claim that your point of view it is incredibly well supported by rock-solid and highly authoritative evidence somewhere on the internet. Do not actually link to the information, as this leaves you vulnerable: it could be that your source is actually some deranged crackpot who managed to get a wireless connection going in his una-bomber style shack somewhere in the Ozark mountains, or published by one of those wonderful Christian online universities that can get you a doctorate in theology in under 6 weeks, or written by someone who thinks Obama is actually wire-tapping her phone because she has found incontrovertible evidence that he is planning to take over the world by spraying us all with LSD from airplanes.

After all, the LAST thing you want is to have to discuss the actual merits of your sources and opinions: you just want to point out that The Internet Agrees With You, so you must be right.

If pressed, simply claim that while it is ridiculously ignorant that people have not looked up information that is so readily available, it is nevertheless way too much to ask you to provide even a hint to the location of this easily obtainable information.

Then splutter a bit about how it is not your job to educate people, or something.

krudler

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I see I'm not going to get any kind of answer. So I should start by puttting words in peoples mouths. Are you tge type who blames someone else for all of your ills? Is it a far left anarchist dig at society? Will gay marriage be the two fingers you so desperately want to give de chuuurch?

Is it a combination of those?

I guess none of you have the backbone to express your view completely. Choose to hide in the crowd and attack anyone en-mass who disagrees with you.

Ask yourself what gay marriage will get you.

It'll get you nothing. That's the truth.

Gay marriage will get me nothing, Im straight, it'll get me the ability to see some of my friends have the same rights I have, that's it.

Given your dishonesty in your posting I doubt you'll even respond to the simple question about how gay marriage is destroying marriage, it's been asked multiple times and you keep dodging the question like a child.

Brian Shanahan

aloyisious wrote: »

It's all fuzzy

Interestingly enough, I read in the first Science of Discworld book that c.1% of that fuzz from an untuned old cathode-ray television is background radiation in existence since the moment the universe came into being. So if your tv is old enough the most exciting thing on is, always, the Big Bang!

Brian Shanahan

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Society is the bigger picture. Marriage has a basic role. Why you want to destroy marriage is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps you will enlighten me?

So you're in favour of christian marriage and christian marriage only then?

Great, because according to christian definitions of marriage gays can marry each other. Problem solved.

Isn't it great that your objections are now invalid even under your own special pleadings, and that now you can focus on some other human rights that you feel need to be removed from certain sections of society?

Nodin

Still no notion has to how gay marriage will destroy society then?

PopePalpatine

Nodin wrote: »

Still no notion has to how gay marriage will destroy society then?

I wonder if Phill was saying the same about the legalisation of homosexuality in 1992.

shruikan2553

Nodin wrote: »

Still no notion has to how gay marriage will destroy society then?

My bet is still on Atlantis being an example of what happens when its allowed. Maybe society has already been destroyed? We have divorce after all and changed the definition of marriage. I would think allowing people to end their marriage has more of a negative affect on it than letting more people join in.

obplayer

Cabaal wrote: »

If your going to claim something and somebody asks you for evidence its only right that you provide supporting evidence.

Thats how a mature adult discussion works,

Of course if your just going to refuse to provide evidence then we can see your acting like a child and you just like to make baseless claims that you refuse to back up.

Its pretty sad really, I'd have a more adult discussion with my 11 year old niece

I'd have a more intelligent discussion with my three week old kitten....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91566091&postcount=9050

NuMarvel

obplayer wrote: »

I'd have a more intelligent discussion with my three week old kitten....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91566091&postcount=9050

Firstly...


B: Mum does NOT look amused.

Phill Ewinn

obplayer wrote: »

I'd have a more intelligent discussion with my three week old kitten....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91566091&postcount=9050

A kitten might understand you.


In seriousness. This has all been great.

I guess all the world can now see the amount of hatred you people spout and promote. I have always said that boards is the new stormfront. And this thread is more conclusive proof of that.

Carry on spilling your bile directly after this post. It's what brings you all together.

krudler

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

A kitten might understand you.


In seriousness. This has all been great.

I guess all the world can now see the amount of hatred you people spout and promote. I have always said that boards is the new stormfront. And this thread is more conclusive proof of that.

Carry on spilling your bile directly after this post. It's what brings you all together.

You STILL haven't answered the question about how marriage is being destroyed. Just more nonsense and dodging the point, complete troll behaviour.

edit: nevermind just spotted old phill closed his account, that's commitment to dodging a simple question I'll give him that much :pac:

Pherekydes

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

A kitten might understand you.


In seriousness. This has all been great.

I guess all the world can now see the amount of hatred you people spout and promote. I have always said that boards is the new stormfront. And this thread is more conclusive proof of that.

Carry on spilling your bile directly after this post. It's what brings you all together.

Closed account!

No fúcking loss. That guy was starting to do my head in.

PopePalpatine

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

A kitten might understand you.


In seriousness. This has all been great.

I guess all the world can now see the amount of hatred you people spout and promote. I have always said that boards is the new stormfront. And this thread is more conclusive proof of that.

Carry on spilling your bile directly after this post. It's what brings you all together.

Delirium

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

A kitten might understand you.


In seriousness. This has all been great.

I guess all the world can now see the amount of hatred you people spout and promote. I have always said that boards is the new stormfront. And this thread is more conclusive proof of that.

Carry on spilling your bile directly after this post. It's what brings you all together.

Thanks for the giggle. You don't do hyberbole by half-measures :pac:

People suggesting that same-sex couples are worthy of equal status are somehow "spilling bile". Considering your irrational dislike of same-sex couples, I'd consider that a compliment.

NuMarvel

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

A kitten might understand you.


In seriousness. This has all been great.

I guess all the world can now see the amount of hatred you people spout and promote. I have always said that boards is the new stormfront. And this thread is more conclusive proof of that.

Carry on spilling your bile directly after this post. It's what brings you all together.

And the award for Best Melodramatic Exit goes to...

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

A kitten might (............)brings you all together.

Dear me.


Why is it so many of these folk make statements that they can't/won't explain?

shruikan2553

Maybe Phill was the Indian burial ground in the simpsons that would rather destroy itself than live with them.

PopePalpatine

SW wrote: »

Thanks for the giggle. You don't do hyberbole by half-measures :pac:

People suggesting that same-sex couples are worthy of equal status are somehow "spilling bile". Considering your irrational dislike of same-sex couples, I'd consider that a compliment.

I swear I remember Phill lashing out in an AH thread about Nearly Dead! Alive!

obplayer

Pherekydes wrote: »

Closed account!

No fúcking loss. That guy was starting to do my head in.

Game set and match to the rational crew!

krudler

shruikan2553

krudler wrote: »

One of the usuals will be around soon. Hoping they mention children or society. Dont think we heard those for awhile.

Corkfeen

So we're the stormfront that wishes for equality? I always thought that was the antithesis of them. Suu very confused now.

Brian Shanahan

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I guess all the world can now see the amount of hatred you people spout and promote. I have always said that boards is the new stormfront. And this thread is more conclusive proof of that.

I know your account is closed, good riddance to bad rubbish, frankly, but this is utterly ridiculous. You are far closer to stormfront in mentality and method than anyone you've been trying to stir up for the last however long you've been posting in this thread.

The fact that immediately after posting this inflammatory libel you closed your account proves that you knew you were lying through your teeth as you typed those words and wanted to smear the rest of us with them without having to face the consequences of using such words.

As I said above good riddance to you.

aloyisious

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I must repeat what I said a few pages ago: where's oldrnwisr when you need him to hand Phill's own arse to him on a plate

Probably being wiser than me and ignoring some-one who's replies were non-secular and nonsensical.

Paris Hong

SW wrote: »

why?

If gay marriage was legalized, so, it is open to everyone. Will the people follow this trend? Especialy the impact on the teenagers. I think it will affect social stability.

Absolam

Paris Hong wrote: »

If gay marriage was legalized, so, it is open to everyone. Will the people follow this trend? Especialy the impact on the teenagers. I think it will affect social stability.

What trend?
What impact on teenagers?
How will it affect social stability?

obplayer

Paris Hong wrote: »

If gay marriage was legalized, so, it is open to everyone. Will the people follow this trend? Especialy the impact on the teenagers. I think it will affect social stability.

So people are desperate to be gay? Beats me, don't see why I would want a life of being subjected to varying degrees of prejudice up to and including violence.

obplayer

Just came across this, if you watch it at all then watch it through please, it's not long. If it has already been posted then my apologies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uheCdI51pIU&list=PL8F8CC2F89F5A0072&index=77

krudler

Paris Hong wrote: »

If gay marriage was legalized, so, it is open to everyone. Will the people follow this trend? Especialy the impact on the teenagers. I think it will affect social stability.

I heard gays use marijuana tablets to turn teens gay

Paris Hong

Absolam wrote: »

What trend?
What impact on teenagers?
How will it affect social stability?

The trend is that the Gay can get married in public. Gay couples are unable to have their own children, I think it have the impact on nature of the growth and evolution rule . This is why there have male and female.

Absolam

Paris Hong wrote: »

The trend is that the Gay can get married in public.

Then haven't you answered your own question? If gay marriage was legalised, surely then gay people would 'follow the trend' and get married in public, as that would be the point of legalising gay marriage?

Paris Hong wrote: »

Gay couples are unable to have their own children, I think it have the impact on nature of the growth and evolution rule . This is why there have male and female.

That doesn't explain what impact it has on teenagers, or how it affects social stability?
It does beg the questions though;
What is the growth and evolutionary rule, and how does gay couples not having their own children (presumably only from that specific pairing, since they are otherwise quite capable) impact it?
I think we all know (to a greater or lesser degree) why we have male and female, but that does not seem to be any impediment to gay marriage?

krudler

Paris Hong wrote: »

The trend is that the Gay can get married in public. Gay couples are unable to have their own children, I think it have the impact on nature of the growth and evolution rule . This is why there have male and female.

Evolution? what?

Nodin

Paris Hong wrote: »

The trend is that the Gay can get married in public. Gay couples are unable to have their own children, I think it have the impact on nature of the growth and evolution rule . This is why there have male and female.

A certain percentage of people are born with a primary focus on their own gender, ie predominantly homosexual in orientation. These are the people who want to be able to marry persons of their own gender. If they cannot do so, they will not suddenly decided to marry the opposite gender and fire out a load of kids.

Secondly "gay" marriage will not make non-gay people gay, for reasons I hope I don't have to explain.

NuMarvel

Paris Hong wrote: »

The trend is that the Gay can get married in public. Gay couples are unable to have their own children, I think it have the impact on nature of the growth and evolution rule . This is why there have male and female.

We've covered this numerous times already. Being able to procreate together is not a requirement to marry. Plenty of heterosexual couples are unable to have their own children, yet they can still marry.

Vivisectus

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

A kitten might understand you.


In seriousness. This has all been great.

I guess all the world can now see the amount of hatred you people spout and promote. I have always said that boards is the new stormfront. And this thread is more conclusive proof of that.

Carry on spilling your bile directly after this post. It's what brings you all together.

What a wonderful example of how privileged majorities have a tendency to interpret a challenge of the validity of their privileged position as persecution.

Somehow even asking them to explain what they mean exactly is tantamount to fascism!

Vivisectus

Paris Hong wrote: »

If gay marriage was legalized, so, it is open to everyone. Will the people follow this trend? Especialy the impact on the teenagers. I think it will affect social stability.

Well, MAYBE there are indeed hundreds of thousands of closet gays out there, just waiting for an opportunity like this to jump out of the closet and gaying up your entire country. And MAYBE teenagers will catch gayness of all these gays gaying up the place gayly, like some sort of gay influenza. Is all that is keeping a gay epidemic at bay the ban on marriage? We will have to see and await events with baited breath.

Most countries that have allowed gay marriage just seem to report a surge in outrageous wedding parties, and not much else.

nozzferrahhtoo

Paris Hong wrote: »

Gay couples are unable to have their own children, I think it have the impact on nature of the growth and evolution rule.

I am not convinced that evolution works even remotely like you appear to think it does. You might want to do a 101 course on that. However if you have any questions on the subject I am one of those actually qualified to answer.

Vivisectus

Is anyone in a position to recap all proffered reasons not to allow gay marriage so far?

Because as far as I can tell they are:

- Unspecified negative impacts on society as a whole.
- Unspecified negative impacts on heterosexual marriages.
- Unspecified negative impacts on our ability to reproduce and raise children.

Maybe people with objections can actually specify the risks they see, and substantiate why they feel these risks are significant?