Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gay Marriage

Options
2456789

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Its been a stable arrangement for many hundreds of years. Before that it was a very unstable arrangement. Now you want the return of instabilty? What purpose would that serve?


    I've heard many arguments against gay marriage, but this would appear to be a new one. Please explain your argument, if you'd be as good.


  • Options
    #33
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,024 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Its been a stable arrangement for many hundreds of years. Before that it was a very unstable arrangement. Now you want the return of instabilty? What purpose would that serve?
    Actually ironically it is the complete opposite. Marriage as an institution is in many ways dying and collapsing but gay people wanting to get married will actually in a sense stabilise and strengthen it as an institution.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #34
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    mango salsa wrote: »
    Actually ironically it is the complete opposite. Marriage as an institution is in many ways dying and collapsing but gay people wanting to get married will actually in a sense stabilise and strengthen it as an institution.

    Whats dying?

    Marriage is alive and well. Book yourself a hotel in June and see how you get on. No need for your superpowers there.


  • Options
    #35
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,024 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Whats dying?

    Marriage is alive and well. Book yourself a hotel in June and see how you get on. No need for your superpowers there.
    The numbeers of people getting married are falling. The number of divorces are increasing. In many countries. I can dig out numerous articles and reports if you want.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #36
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Whats dying?

    Marriage is alive and well.
    And gay people marrying will harm that how?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    And gay people marrying will harm that how?

    Is that what I said?


  • Options
    #38
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    It really is quite simple, the right to marry is a basic human and civil right in my book, and who other people marry should not be my business or the business of the state.
    At a time when marriage rates are declining, and the numbers of children being born outside of marriage is constantly rising, the argument that the "institution" of Marriage would be damaged by gays getting married is facile. How could the "institution" of marriage be anything but strengthened if more people who are willing and ready to make a lifelong commitment to each other are allowed to partake in it.


  • Options
    #39
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Is that what I said?
    You said that it would lead to the "return of instability" for marriage. You failed to explain how. You haven't explained much of anything, in fact.

    So maybe you could spell it out for me: how will allowing gay people to marry have any negative impact whatsoever on heterosexual marriage?


  • Options
    #40
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You said that it would lead to the "return of instability" for marriage. You failed to explain how. You haven't explained much of anything, in fact.

    So maybe you could spell it out for me: how will allowing gay people to marry have any negative impact whatsoever on heterosexual marriage?

    I answered a post. Care to explain how the introduction of marriage equality will strengthen marriage? History has shown this not to be the case.


  • Options
    #41
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I answered a post. Care to explain how the introduction of marriage equality will strengthen marriage? History has shown this not to be the case.
    Whoah, back up. I haven't claimed that marriage equality will strengthen marriage. I don't care whether or not it will "strengthen marriage", whatever that even means.

    You've expressed opposition to the idea that gay people should be extended the same rights as straight people. I'm asking you to explain why, not to continue to evade the question.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Whoah, back up. I haven't claimed that marriage equality will strengthen marriage. I don't care whether or not it will "strengthen marriage", whatever that even means.

    You've expressed opposition to the idea that gay people should be extended the same rights as straight people. I'm asking you to explain why, not to continue to evade the question.

    Yes you did.

    Also where EXACTLY did I suggest people be denied any rights?

    If your going to keep twisting peoples words, misquoting them and sh1tstirring you're going on my ignore list.


  • Options
    #43
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,866 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I answered a post. Care to explain how the introduction of marriage equality will strengthen marriage? History has shown this not to be the case.

    [citation needed]


  • Options
    #44
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,024 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I answered a post. Care to explain how the introduction of marriage equality will strengthen marriage? History has shown this not to be the case.

    What does that mean?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #45
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I answered a post. Care to explain how the introduction of marriage equality will strengthen marriage? History has shown this not to be the case.


    You didn't answer this question:
    How is it unstable to let two people of the same sex marry?

    In response to this post of yours:
    Its been a stable arrangement for many hundreds of years. Before that it was a very unstable arrangement. Now you want the return of instabilty? What purpose would that serve?

    Just repeating "History has shown this not to be the case" doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #46
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Whats dying?

    Marriage is alive and well. Book yourself a hotel in June and see how you get on. No need for your superpowers there.


    If you'd be good enough to get back to me
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88439557&postcount=32


  • Options
    #47
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    K-9 wrote: »
    You didn't answer this question:



    In response to this post of yours:



    Just repeating "History has shown this not to be the case" doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

    You're afraid of what?

    I responded to this post. Which was incorrect on many levels and by your own standards 'doesn't cut it'.
    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    It's just that that point is misplaced. The preservation of marriage? Divorce rates are extremely high and many obviously don't hold marriage in any sacred way anymore.

    Tell me how is preventing gay people from marrying is 'preserving marriage'? If you're going at from a traditional point of view it's nothing more than a monetary contract with no love involved at all.

    Marriage has evolved a lot over the last 100 years, it's continuing to do so. Saying you're against it for traditional purposes and the 'preservation of marriage' is utter nonsense. You're argument against it is going to have to be far better than that because so you're keeping your opinions for irrational, ill thought out reasons.

    But keep up the misdirection and mudslinging. Sure, by page 50 we might start a reasoned denate on the opening statement I made.

    Until then I'll bow out and let you guys misquote, lie and argue amonst yourselves.


  • Options
    #48
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,024 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    You're afraid of what?

    I responded to this post. Which was incorrect on many levels and by your own standards 'doesn't cut it'.

    But keep up the misdirection and mudslinging. Sure, by page 50 we might start a reasoned denate on the opening statement I made.

    Until then I'll bow out and let you guys misquote, lie and argue amonst yourselves.

    You're not answering any questions - just making vague statements with nothing absolutely nothing to back up your statements.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #49
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    You're afraid of what?

    I responded to this post. Which was incorrect on many levels and by your own standards 'doesn't cut it'.



    But keep up the misdirection and mudslinging. Sure, by page 50 we might start a reasoned denate on the opening statement I made.

    Until then I'll bow out and let you guys misquote, lie and argue amonst yourselves.


    Why can't you explain your position? You posted

    "Its been a stable arrangement for many hundreds of years. Before that it was a very unstable arrangement. Now you want the return of instabilty? What purpose would that serve?"

    and I asked you if you would explain what you meant, as its a new line of argument to me, at least.


  • Options
    #50
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    It's very clear he has no argument at all and is just being irrational.

    *awaits post telling me I'm wrong just to divert further from the questions directed at him*


  • Options
    #51
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    You're afraid of what?

    I responded to this post. Which was incorrect on many levels and by your own standards 'doesn't cut it'.



    But keep up the misdirection and mudslinging. Sure, by page 50 we might start a reasoned denate on the opening statement I made.

    Until then I'll bow out and let you guys misquote, lie and argue amonst yourselves.

    It doesn't seem you are interested in expounding upon your statements when requested so it probably is best we leave it at that.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    It's very clear he has no argument at all and is just being irrational.

    *awaits post telling me I'm wrong just to divert further from the questions directed at him*


    To be honest, the only time I've heard "instability" raised was during the divorce referendum. I can see why it was dragged up then, but it's beyond me how gay marriage can be purported to cause it.


  • Options
    #53
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I answered a post. Care to explain how the introduction of marriage equality will strengthen marriage? History has shown this not to be the case.

    When has history done this?
    Marriage rates are on the decline at a time when rates of co-habitation and the numbers of children being born outside of marriage are on the increase.
    How does allowing couples to marry,who are ready and willing to make a life long commitment , weaken marriage?:confused:


  • Options
    #54
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    mango salsa wrote: »
    You're not answering any questions - just making vague statements with nothing absolutely nothing to back up your statements.

    Mango, nobody is backing up their statements. Thats a theme of these threads. General noise making, misdirection. Anything to avoid talking about the stuff in my opening statement.

    I'd be glad to talk to you. I appreciate how important this is to you. When you're surrounded by the usual shower yapping at me I find that its difficult to filter out the noise.


  • Options
    #55
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Mango, nobody is backing up their statements. Thats a theme of these threads. General noise making, misdirection. Anything to avoid talking about the stuff in my opening statement.

    I'd be glad to talk to you. I appreciate how important this is to you. When you're surrounded by the usual shower yapping at me I find that its difficult to filter out the noise.
    You're doing absolutely nothing but noise making yourself if you won't answer the questions being directed at you. It's obvious you're not able to back then up, you're dumping them hoping they'll stick and make a point, but it's really only coming off as highly irrational on your part and you're losing credibility.


  • Options
    #56
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    You're doing absolutely nothing but noise making yourself if you won't answer the questions being directed at you. It's obvious you're not able to back then up, you're dumping them hoping they'll stick and make a point, but it's really only coming off as highly irrational on your part and you're losing credibility.

    I'm highly irrational?

    Let me get this straight. Here you are trying to derail a thread and attack me for having a different view on this subject than you.

    Putting you on ignore might solve that.


  • Options
    #57
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm highly irrational?

    Let me get this straight. Here you are trying to derail a thread and attack me for having a different view on this subject than you.

    Putting you on ignore might solve that.

    As predicted by me earlier, you're flying off the handle claiming I'm "attacking" you as a cover so you won't have to answer the questions.

    You made a vague point and won't elaborate on it. Why not?


  • Options
    #58
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,024 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Mango, nobody is backing up their statements. Thats a theme of these threads. General noise making, misdirection. Anything to avoid talking about the stuff in my opening statement.

    I'd be glad to talk to you. I appreciate how important this is to you. When you're surrounded by the usual shower yapping at me I find that its difficult to filter out the noise.
    Talk then.

    Back up your points. Answer questions.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #59
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Anything to avoid talking about the stuff in my opening statement.

    Ok, lets look at that opening statement for a moment.
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    All this "denied their rights" commentary is wearing thin. No one wants to deny people rights. What people do want is the preservation of a structure so important to society, marriage.

    I fail to see why people can be so conflicted. No all gay people want gay marriage.

    Theres two issues.

    A. The issue of rights for homosexuals, transsexuals and polygamists.
    B. The special value that people put on "traditional" marriage.

    The two issues do not need to conflict.

    Granting marriage rights to same sex couples is not a zero sum game, same sex couples getting married does not take marriages away from others, it's not like there is a limited number of marriage certificates being handed around and it's hardly the case that by John and Barry down the road getting married, some other heterosexual couple on the other side of town are denied theirs. So there should be no conflict, you can have your "traditional" marriage, whatever that might mean to you, and other people can have their marriage and everyone should in theory be happy. But the people who are making an issue of it, who are causing a conflict, are the people who already have their rights to marry.

    There we are, your opening statement is addressed, you might want to get around to backing up some of your other claims so ;)


  • Options
    #60
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Links234 wrote: »
    Ok, lets look at that opening statement for a moment.



    Granting marriage rights to same sex couples is not a zero sum game, same sex couples getting married does not take marriages away from others, it's not like there is a limited number of marriage certificates being handed around and it's hardly the case that by John and Barry down the road getting married, some other heterosexual couple on the other side of town are denied theirs. So there should be no conflict, you can have your "traditional" marriage, whatever that might mean to you, and other people can have their marriage and everyone should in theory be happy. But the people who are making an issue of it, who are causing a conflict, are the people who already have their rights to marry.

    There we are, your opening statement is addressed, you might want to get around to backing up some of your other claims so ;)


    Should? Would? Where is the are and is in this statement?

    I pointed out that you're asking some people to make a choice. You've asked of them two things. Civil rights and the right to marry.

    You have linked those two issues to each other. Not me. You.

    I can't see why you would do that. They're two seperate issues. If both horses don't win that race you walk home with nothing. It makes no sense.

    Traditional marriage is held in high regard. Thats the "is" statement. What "should" be is another matter.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I haven't claimed that marriage equality will strengthen marriage.
    Yes you did.
    No, I most certainly did not.
    Also where EXACTLY did I suggest people be denied any rights?
    Either you don't believe that gay people should have the right to marry each other, or you've very carelessly managed to create that impression while refusing to actually engage in the discussion. If you believe that gay people shouldn't be denied the right to marry the people they love, maybe you should actually make that clear instead of getting all huffy and indignant at the very idea that you have any problem with gay marriage.


Advertisement