Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

robindch

Bobby Jones wrote: »

[...] two wombats sodomising each other do not legitimise homosexuality in humans.

I think somebody needs a hug this morning!

PopePalpatine

obplayer wrote: »

I really really hope, and actually confidently believe, that your attitudes are not normal. Not by a long long way.

If they were, I'd hazard a guess he'd join Youth Defence on their Russian-style "safaris".

WoolyJumper

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Which is what the homosexual lobby want...tolerance and acceptance.

Sounds good to me

marienbad

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Not at all.

It's just strange that doctors are of the view that homosexual males' bodies are "destroyed" in later life, whereas the homosexual lobby (i.e. homosexuals and the liberal media) try to claim that everything's perfectly okay.

It is unnatural - The medical and physical consequences of decades of anal sex are evidence of that. The definition of what's natural is not simply occurring in nature, so two wombats sodomising each other do not legitimise homosexuality in humans.

Homosexual marriage is not the end of the world, but it is a further destruction of objective morality. Insipid stuff like abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, adoption by homosexuals should be opposed by society.

Tell us more about this objective morality ? , It seems to be obsessed with sexuality does it not ?

aloyisious

Bobby:If the issue of access to civil marriage is to be decided on by the sexual practices of couples, then I think it very suspect. Sexual stimulation and simulation practices are not limited to anal sex when it comes to homosexual couples and singles, and they definitely are not restricted to homosexuals. There's also frottage, rimming, blow-jobs used for sexual release by homosexuals, along with the standard ****, also practiced by heterosexual couples and singles (married or not).

The reasoning behind using the anal sex practice (health or otherwise) to deny people access-to, and equality in, civil marriage is very suspect. One might as well start using other health issues as reasons to deny civil marriage, or legal recognition by the state of religious marriages, to the citizenry.

Putting it another way, while homosexuals won't usually engage in heterosexual sex (thinking it strange and, God forbid, against their nature) we wouldn't propose that heterosexuals be denied access to civil marriage and refusal by the state to recognize their religious marriages on the basis that heterosexual sex is not natural.

iwantmydinner

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Not at all.

It's just strange that doctors are of the view that homosexual males' bodies are "destroyed" in later life, whereas the homosexual lobby (i.e. homosexuals and the liberal media) try to claim that everything's perfectly okay.

It is unnatural - The medical and physical consequences of decades of anal sex are evidence of that. The definition of what's natural is not simply occurring in nature, so two wombats sodomising each other do not legitimise homosexuality in humans.

Homosexual marriage is not the end of the world, but it is a further destruction of objective morality. Insipid stuff like abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, adoption by homosexuals should be opposed by society.

What about the havoc and destruction wreaked by pregnancy and childbirth on women's bodies? You should consider concern-trolling the pregnancy threads also.

alaimacerc

Bobby Jones wrote: »

The definition of what's natural is not simply occurring in nature [...]

Let's go to google on that one:

"nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
1.
existing in or caused by nature"

But please, do give us your more "correct" definition. Or at least, wax lyrical on the topic without troubling to provide any such.

Homosexual marriage is not the end of the world, but it is a further destruction of objective morality.

Objective morality, oh dear. Because obviously "objectivity" consists of thundering one's own subjective feels as loudly as possible and declaring them to be universal absolutes. Oh wait, no it doesn't...

Bobby Jones

There is a sinister agenda online and in the media. We're witnessing it here in this thread. The same people who agitated to have homosexuality decriminalised and who had GRID renamed as AIDS are seeking to destroy the very fabric of Irish society. Roll on May when real Ireland will have its say and the homosexual lobby will be driven back where it belongs...underground.

Zubeneschamali

Bobby Jones wrote: »

are seeking to destroy the very fabric of Irish society.

You think the gays are against fabric? No - just ugly fabric.

StudentDad

Bobby Jones wrote: »

There is a sinister agenda online and in the media. We're witnessing it here in this thread. The same people who agitated to have homosexuality decriminalised and who had GRID renamed as AIDS are seeking to destroy the very fabric of Irish society. Roll on May when real Ireland will have its say and the homosexual lobby will be driven back where it belongs...underground.

What is the fabric of Irish Society? Linen? Cotton? Polyester? I'm genuinely curious. Honest. Really I am. I'd love to see the fabric of Irish Society in action.

SD

pH

why are people engaging with an april reg 20 post troll?

shruikan2553

StudentDad wrote: »

What is the fabric of Irish Society? Linen? Cotton? Polyester? I'm genuinely curious. Honest. Really I am. I'd love to see the fabric of Irish Society in action.

SD

I prefer latex

*whip sound*

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I prefer latex

*whip sound*

There should be no fabric where a whip is involved, just bare skin.

obplayer

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Not at all.

It's just strange that doctors are of the view that homosexual males' bodies are "destroyed" in later life, whereas the homosexual lobby (i.e. homosexuals and the liberal media) try to claim that everything's perfectly okay.

It is unnatural - The medical and physical consequences of decades of anal sex are evidence of that. The definition of what's natural is not simply occurring in nature, so two wombats sodomising each other do not legitimise homosexuality in humans.

Homosexual marriage is not the end of the world, but it is a further destruction of objective morality. Insipid stuff like abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, adoption by homosexuals should be opposed by society.

Then what is the definition of what is natural?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

obplayer wrote: »

Then what is the definition of what is natural?

Could argue monogamy.

All a it pointless, because just because something is natural doesn;t mean it's good. Wearing clothes is unnatural, but who's going to walk around naked in winter?

Doctor Jimbob

pH wrote: »

why are people engaging with an april reg 20 post troll?

Boredom?

Doctor Jimbob

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Could argue monogamy.

All a it pointless, because just because something is natural doesn;t mean it's good. Wearing clothes is unnatural, but who's going to walk around naked in winter?

Posting on boards is unnatural, you don't see otters traipsing about with smartphones.

pH

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Boredom?

Oh well them ...

Homosexuals are very very evil and should not be allowed marry cos of the unnatural sodomy and stuff.

Knock yerselfs out

Bannasidhe

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, so I haven't been around for a while (getting your own business off the ground is a freaking nightmare) but in the meantime I've condensed my posts here on marriage equality into a few blog posts:


Dissecting the Arguments 1 - Logic

Dissecting the Arguments 2 - Religious arguments

Dissecting the Arguments 3 - Parenting

Mandate for Marriage & Bad Religious Arguments


With the election coming up really fast, some of us will be out there campaigning so just in case these posts turn out to be helpful to anyone in some small way I thought that I would share.

EDIT: Kudos to Bannasidhe, pH and others for posting some really helpful info.

Thanks for this oldrnwisr. Superb piece of work.

May I share a link to this to various friends who are in the front line of the campaign as they could really use such a concise, clear, and valuable resource?

robindch

Bobby Jones wrote: »

There is a sinister agenda online and in the media. We're witnessing it here in this thread. The same people who agitated to have homosexuality decriminalised [...] are seeking to destroy the very fabric of Irish society.

The fabric of Irish society? But THE LORD demands that fabric is woven not from threads of different kinds, but from one:

Leviticus 19:19 wrote:

You shall keep my statutes [...] You shall not [...] wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.

Whoopsie.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

The fabric of Irish society? But THE LORD demands that fabric is woven not from threads of different kinds, but from one:Whoopsie.

Latex is a fabric worn by many members of Irish society.
Latex is unnatural.
Will it be torn asunder or not?

Shrap

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Will it be torn asunder or not?

I would have thought difficult to tear it asunder, considering it's nature is so stretchy. Quite a good fabric for society really although its fetish wear applications probably wouldn't go down too well with the more conservative among us, even if it does do a good job holding up their knickers.

marienbad

If we are talking about natural/unnatural , monogamy is unnatural .

alaimacerc

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Posting on boards is unnatural, you don't see otters traipsing about with smartphones.

Though that would be adorable if they did. (Apologies if that was a little too camp-sounding.)

Bannasidhe

Latest anti-whateveryouarehavingyourself leaflet to raise it's nonsensical head in Cork.



Apparently 1 in 3 children born in the western world every year are aborted. Ohhh Myyyyyy... that's... *censored*ness of the highest order.

SpaceTime

I'm delighted to see the Catholic Bishops of Ireland are doing their bit for separation of Chuch and State:

I see they've reiterated their threat to refuse to allow priests to sign civil documents at marriages.

I assume they'll be willing to deregister as solminisers (people qualified to officiate at a wedding) then?

All this will do is massively increase the % of non religious weddings.

Also, it could well see a big fall off in donations and income. I know three catholic households where they're stopping donations as a result of this as they see it as bullying.

Dades

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Latest anti-whateveryouarehavingyourself leaflet to raise it's nonsensical head in Cork.

Shouldn't that child be in a car seat?

robindch

^^^ I'd like to meet this Joy whom catholics "have 24/7".

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Shouldn't that child be in a car seat?

Good to see the woman in the back, where she belongs.

Penn

"Practising Catholics have Joy 24/7 because they avoid... Divorce & Remarriage"

Yeah, ask a wife and husband who no longer love each other how much joy they feel sleeping alone in different rooms while trying to play 'Happy Family' for the sake of their children, knowing they'll have to continue doing so for the next rest of their lives because they wish to avoid divorce and remarriage.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

Good to see the woman in the back, where she belongs.

Who is in the driving seat , Jesus?

Delirium

RCC could be shooting themselves in the foot as people might forego a church wedding entirely if they can't also sign the civil documents post ceremony.

Bishops’ threat over non-signing of civil wedding forms

Ireland’s Catholic bishops spokesman has said the church may no longer perform the civil aspects of weddings if marriage is extended to same-sex couples.

The move would mean the tens of thousands of couples who get married in Catholic churches each year would have to go elsewhere to have their marriage legally recognised by the State.

At present, the signing of the Marriage Registration Form – a civil document required by the State in order to recognise a marriage – takes place after the wedding Mass.

If the church carries through on its threat to bring the practice to an end, it will mean that couples will not officially be married by the church ceremony.

Great news tbh.

wonderfulname

It's like an extra reason to vote yes, the church might remove itself from another state affair.

SpaceTime

I see this turning into a priestly revolt too. There are plenty of priests who aren't likely to fall into line on this both because they're just a lot more liberal and because they know which way the wind is blowing and like having an income!

It's a lot harder to implement such things when you're actually facing parishioners and the real world.

Try telling your average bridezilla that you're threatening smooth running of her magical, special day!!!! You'd want to be a very, very brave priest and to ensure you weren't standing near anything heavy or sharp!
Possibly best to do it by phone, from another country!

I can see a lot of people deciding to go with a hotel wedding to avoid any strike action.

oldrnwisr

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Thanks for this oldrnwisr. Superb piece of work.

May I share a link to this to various friends who are in the front line of the campaign as they could really use such a concise, clear, and valuable resource?

Thank you for the comments Bannasidhe. It means a lot and I appreciate it.

By all means, share away. My intention in penning those blog posts was to gather together all the bits of arguments and links that I had posted on here over the years so that they could be used as a resource if anybody needed/wanted them.

magicbastarder

the RCC are really just going to piss people off with that move. it'd be an act of amazing petulance.

Penn

They keep saying "may". They "may" do it.

They won't. It's a threat, but they won't follow through with it.

PopePalpatine

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Latest anti-whateveryouarehavingyourself leaflet to raise it's nonsensical head in Cork.



Apparently 1 in 3 children born in the western world every year are aborted. Ohhh Myyyyyy... that's... *censored*ness of the highest order.

I wonder how many of the ultramontanists on t'udder forum would swallow this hook, line and sinker.

shruikan2553

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Latest anti-whateveryouarehavingyourself leaflet to raise it's nonsensical head in Cork.

[IMG]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10338324_10204138434316193_7585680669374796235_n.jpg?oh=ac05bf623cadaf785cef73a7c76b4b5f&oe=55985403&__gda__=1436923157_327e6316d03cfe50783e831b5e718d79[/MG] Apparently 1 in 3 children born in the western world every year are aborted. Ohhh Myyyyyy... that's... *censored*ness of the highest order.[/img]

I had to read that a few times. It's like it was created by a child with ADHD who got into Microsoft paint

Bannasidhe

silverharp wrote: »

Who is in the driving seat , Jesus?

Are you suggesting that might not be a right hand drive car but a left hand drive car???? :eek:

Surely not.

:pac:

Doctor Jimbob

JIFFCAB!

Just rolls off the tongue.

silverharp

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you suggesting that might not be a right hand drive car but a left hand drive car???? :eek:

Surely not.

:pac:

if the pic was ripped off an American Website....they might be Protestants , in fairness nobody in cork has teeth that good :pac:

oldrnwisr

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you suggesting that might not be a right hand drive car but a left hand drive car???? :eek:

Surely not.

:pac:

Well, yes it's a left hand drive car. It tends to be in Canada. As with most of these leaflets the image has been plucked from iStockPhoto.



The photo was taken by a professional photographer based in Toronto.

What is interesting is that its use in the leaflet is in contravention of iStockphoto's terms of use, specifically:

"(a) Prohibited Uses. You may not:

1. If any Content featuring a model or property is used in connection with a subject that would be unflattering or unduly controversial to a reasonable person, you must accompany each such use with a statement adjacent to the Content that indicates that: (i) the Content is being used for illustrative purposes only; and (ii) any person depicted in the Content, if any, is a model, unless the Content itself clearly and undisputedly reflects the model or person in such potentially sensitive subject matter in which case the Content may be used or displayed in a manner that portrays the model or person in the same context and to the same degree depicted in the Content itself;"

silverharp

It could be fake , there is a Catholic bookshop at no 9 with that name. The leaflet has no 19 .

SpaceTime

It has number I9 wherever that is.

JIFF CAB?! sounds like some kind of catchy name for a compressed file format.

fisgon

We're not actually contemplating the idea that this is real are we?

I mean, I know a lot of this uber catholic publications are beyond parody, but this surely cannot be real. "Catholics are best"? "One in three children born are aborted"? Has to be a wind-up.

fisgon

SW wrote: »

RCC could be shooting themselves in the foot as people might forego a church wedding entirely if they can't also sign the civil documents post ceremony.

Bishops’ threat over non-signing of civil wedding forms

This is simply a tantrum. Big babies throwing their mitres out of the pram.

alaimacerc

SW wrote: »

RCC could be shooting themselves in the foot as people might forego a church wedding entirely if they can't also sign the civil documents post ceremony.

Bishops’ threat over non-signing of civil wedding forms

Bluff.

Call, and raise them "why isn't the state proposing to do this in any case"? State registrars for state registrations! Render unto Caesar!

shruikan2553

fisgon wrote: »

We're not actually contemplating the idea that this is real are we?

I mean, I know a lot of this uber catholic publications are beyond parody, but this surely cannot be real. "Catholics are best"? "One in three children born are aborted"? Has to be a wind-up.

After living on this world for over 20 years I have learnt a very important thing to keep in mind when dealing with others. Never underestimate the levels of stupidity people can reach.