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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

David Quinn and Gay Marriage

1…89111314…51

Comments

  • #302
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    koth wrote: »
    How exactly does allowing two people of the same sex to make a life-long commitment to each other make a mockery of marriage?

    Two people who love each other who only want to be happy. What have you guys got against happiness?


  • #303
    Cybercelesta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭Cybercelesta


    I love my dog, he makes me happy, it's usually a lifetime commitment, but I wouldn't marry him!!! :D


  • #304
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    gimmebroadband wrote: »
    But God does!

    Even that's not true. As I also said, civil, non-religious marriages can and do happen. God has no part in those marriages. Are they all legal charades?

    And marriages were happening before the word of God was ever written. One of your own sources refer to it as a 6000 year old tradition. If God does have a monopoly on marriage, then He was a little late in making his claim.
    gimmebroadband wrote: »
    Because it makes a mockery out of REAL marriage and reduces it to a commodity!

    Avoiding the obvious examples of heteroxsexual marriages that last less than a week (hello Britney!), how does same sex marriage make a mockery of other types of marriages?

    I would have thought that divorce would be a larger factor in making a mockery, are you actively campaigning to have that overturned?


  • #305
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 36,171 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Cybercelesta wrote: »
    I love my dog, he makes me happy, it's usually a lifetime commitment, but I wouldn't marry him!!! :D

    Okay, how about two people who are of the same species and are not related to each other? Why should they not be allowed to get married, if it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church?


  • #306
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Cybercelesta wrote: »
    I love my dog, he makes me happy, it's usually a lifetime commitment, but I wouldn't marry him!!! :D

    I hate to break it to you, but he doesn't want to marry you either. :D


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Cybercelesta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭Cybercelesta


    Marriages can fail for one reason or another, and Catholics agree that a divorce is necessary in conjuction with a church annulment for the legal distribution of property, so why would we campaign against it???


  • #308
    Cybercelesta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭Cybercelesta


    Barrington wrote: »
    Okay, how about two people who are of the same species and are not related to each other? Why should they not be allowed to get married, if it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church?

    I am personally against it for obvious reasons, nothing to do with religon!!


  • #309
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Two people who love each other who only want to be happy. What have you guys got against happiness?

    It is funny how some Christians can see a bit of God's plan for how to live in others worshipping different gods (against the 1st commandment btw), but when it comes to two homosexuals in love who want to make a State recognized commitment to each other they can't (homosexual relations are against God's commandments but no more so than worshipping other gods).

    It is really difficult to escape the conclusion that this resistance to secular recognition of homosexual marriage is more to do with personal bigotry than any serious religious objection.

    And that is very sad :(


  • #310
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,097 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Cybercelesta wrote: »
    Marriages can fail for one reason or another, and Catholics agree that a divorce is necessary in conjuction with a church annulment for the legal distribution of property, so why would we campaign against it???

    because it contradicts part of the wedding ceremony. The "what God has joined, let no man divide" part.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #311
    Cybercelesta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭Cybercelesta


    koth wrote: »
    because it contradicts part of the wedding ceremony. The "what God has joined, let no man divide" part.

    It the CC the marriage isn't valid if there was a pre-existing impediment!!! Outside of that 'what God has joined' is still in force! There will always be sinners who don't live by it!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    mehfesto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,277 ✭✭✭mehfesto


    gimmebroadband wrote: »
    Monty never said homesexuality is condemnded, homosexual acts is!

    Romans 1:25-27
    1 Timothy 1:8-10

    http://www.catholicbible101.com/homosexuality.htm

    Fair enough. I've just browsed over them.

    1 Timothy 1:8-10.
    Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

    It's not exactly a damning report on homosexuality, I must say. It's basically just a list of people who are 'not nice'. While I agree murderers aren't really good, liars - and let us bear in mind it says just liars, not 'big liars, not little white liars', if we're going to read it literally' - are as evil.

    Who here hasn't told even a white lie?

    Romans is more forceful arguably and states that the act was 'shameful'. Although the next line after reads:
    When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

    Even god lived and let live with people who didn't believe in him, it would seem.


    Overall, I can see why some Christians may be against gay intercourse, but why gay marriage?


  • #313
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    koth wrote: »
    because it contradicts part of the wedding ceremony. The "what God has joined, let no man divide" part.

    Even more so, it goes against the writings of the Bible, specifically Mark 10:

    Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

    2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

    3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

    4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

    5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”


    So not only is divorce forbidden, those who remarry are breaking one of the Ten Commandments. So the question goes back to this: if those who are against same sex civil marriage are doing so because of what the Bible says, why aren't they equally as fervent when it comes to removing the legal mechanisms for the dissolution of marriage?


  • #314
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 36,171 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Cybercelesta wrote: »
    I am personally against it for obvious reasons, nothing to do with religon!!

    Well firstly, I said two people of the same species, not of the same sex. Though I get your drift.

    Secondly, if your reasons are nothing to do with religion, then what are your reasons? Leaving aside things like adopting children and the like, why should two members of the same sex, whether they be males or females, not be allowed to marry, if religion is not an issue?


  • #315
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is primarily what it is, and that is not illegal.

    Im some countries it is. But because language is used to think that does not mean language is philosophy. It is primarily a tool for philosophy but people use it for a secondary reason too - communication. We probably coundn't enforce a ban on thinking but we could enforce a ban on speaking or writing.
    This nonsense about financial regulation as a way of limiting greed (which its not)

    Okay then so tell me what is the main objection against short selling?

    http://www.frankpartnoy.com/_/Home.html
    Professor Frank Partnoy is the George E. Barrett Professor of Law and Finance and is the director of the Center on Corporate and Securities Law at the University of San Diego.He is one of the world’s leading experts on the complexities of modern finance and financial market regulation.
    ...
    His recent books include Infectious Greed: How Deceit and Risk Corrupted the Financial Markets,
    which in turn is a form of idolatry (which its not) is just you stuck to answer a fairly basic question. Greed is not illegal, neither is worshipping money.

    Nor is pride illegal. But it is the cause of many bad thinks in the world and the Church would promote policies and laws to oppose pride causing such bad things just as it would oppose greed causing other bad things.
    You know that there exists sins that Christians do not attempt to regulate using Earthly laws. Western societies do not ban other religions despite them breaking the 1st Commandment.

    The church would hope other religions would eventually accept their view. The church do not force this view on others. They would also support legislation which supports their world view and oppose legislation which in their view works against their view. All this is entirely reasonable.
    Except when the negative is legal, then they wish to ban it. I've already said this, that Christian groups where homosexual marriage is legal

    The church would not regard a homosexual union as "marriage". They dont even regard a heterosexual union as sacramentally marriage.
    have called for it to be banned and where it looks like it will be legal such in Ireland have called for laws to make it illegal to make laws allow it.

    You are jumping the gun. One can't make something illegal if it is undefined. The point is homosexual marriage does not exist in Irish law. In the Church view it can't . But if the law was changed the church would then ask for such a law to be repealed. But it has not got to that yet and if uit did how could a repeal happen if people just voted for it? Which begs the question why has such a choice not been pout to the pepole by referendum?

    The only answer so for is "It isn't important enough for Fine Gael as they have political reform on top of their agenda" Labour it seems have nothing to say on it either. And the opposition don't propose any legislation on it.
    Which is going to happen. Your frankly ridiculous argument is that once it does Christians won't object since they don't ban the negative?

    If the majority of people just voted for something the church opposed you are asserting the Church would immediately move a referendum to oppose it? In fact the opposite happened with divorce!


  • #316
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    It is funny how some Christians can see a bit of God's plan for how to live in others worshipping different gods (against the 1st commandment btw), but when it comes to two homosexuals in love who want to make a State recognized commitment to each other they can't (homosexual relations are against God's commandments but no more so than worshipping other gods).

    It is really difficult to escape the conclusion that this resistance to secular recognition of homosexual marriage is more to do with personal bigotry than any serious religious objection.

    And that is very sad :(

    Are you claiming i am a bigot?
    Quite clearly I have stated if people want civil unions and the law is passed then so be it.
    I have also pointed out Gay Senator's who oppose it being called "marriage"


  • #317
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 36,171 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    I have also pointed out Gay Senator's who oppose it being called "marriage"

    So? What about all the other people who do want it to be called marriage?


  • #318
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    ISAW wrote: »
    Which begs the question why has such a choice not been pout to the pepole by referendum?

    Hasn't that question has been answered a number of times already?

    One last go - there's a case before the Supreme Court. Until that case is heard and a judgement is delivered, then planning for a referendum is pointless as nobody knows what the Supreme Court judges will say.


  • #319
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Barrington wrote: »
    So? What about all the other people who do want it to be called marriage?

    ALL the other people do NOT want it. a tiny minority want it. that is self evident by the tiny minority wo avail of gay unions elsewhere. But the point is about the majority passing it into law. Even some of those who avail of it do not want it called "marriage" and those who do not want it for themselves, but are prepared to accept people who do want it do not want it called "marriage". That does not mean any of them are bigots.


  • #320
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    In my honest opinion, religion or the state shouldn't dictate the personal lives of others. Religious devotion is a choice, your sexual orientation isn't.

    "Marriage" doesn't specifically derive from religion, nor is it a religious affair in the eyes of the law. I mean nearly every culture in the world today has marriage ingrained as part of their culture, but there is no universal definition of what marriage is. Marriage is therefore a cultural phenomena and culture is often subject to change.

    Sure you could say that in one culture, marriage would have been defined as the union between and man and a woman but that mightn't be so in another culture; there are example of same-sex marriages throughout ancient history.

    As marriage is a cultural phenomena, the state should not have a say on what the definition of marriage should be. Therefore the state should not have a right to dictate who a person wishes to get married to, no matter what their sex is.

    To be honest. I don't understand why this issue is being discussed in the Christianity forum. As religion is a choice, it should not have an impact on the personal lives of individuals unless those individuals wish to adhere to a particular religion's code of practice. In a similar way, religion should not impact on state legislation or the unalienable rights of the individual.

    In relation to married gay couples adopting. Studies have shown that having two parents of the same-sex doesn't impact on the development of the child. Therefore, I don't see why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. They should be treated as fairly as straight couples in the adoption process in the eyes of the law.

    Also, to does people who are fervently against gay marriage. You have every right not to recognise a gay couple who decide to get a civil marriage as being "married" (unless their is a legal premise that you must), but what right have you to dictate how the status of their relationship should be viewed in the eyes of the law. You don't. How does the fact that two gay people decide to get married impact on your marriage?


  • #321
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Hasn't that question has been answered a number of times already?

    No. where i came in is where Monty asked such a question. It hasn't been answered since then.
    One last go - there's a case before the Supreme Court. Until that case is heard and a judgement is delivered, then planning for a referendum is pointless as nobody knows what the Supreme Court judges will say.

    What case? any reference to it?

    Still begs the question

    1. Court decides "gay marriage" exists ~ so do we then have a referendum?
    2. Court decides gay marriage does not exist~ do we then have a referendum or just accept the "civil union" terminology?
    3. courts decides gay marriage is civil union and gay marriage does not exist. Do we then have a referendum?


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 36,171 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    Barrington wrote: »
    So? What about all the other people who do want it to be called marriage?

    ALL the other people do NOT want it. a tiny minority want it. that is self evident by the tiny minority wo avail of gay unions elsewhere. But the point is about the majority passing it into law. Even some of those who avail of it do not want it called "marriage" and those who do not want it for themselves, but are prepared to accept people who do want it do not want it called "marriage". That does not mean any of them are bigots.

    Sorry, I phrased that badly, I meant that you have shown some Gay Senators eho don't think it should be called marriage, and I'm sure lots of people agree with them. But what about the people who don't agree? Why are you valuing what some Gay Senators have said over potentially what others say?

    Neither of us can claim a majority or minority either way, without recent statistics.


  • #323
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    In my honest opinion, religion or the state shouldn't dictate the personal lives of others. Religious devotion is a choice, your sexual orientation isn't.

    What if you claim to be sexually oriented towards children and society says that is not normal and should not be allowed?
    "Marriage" doesn't specifically derive from religion, nor is it a religious affair in the eyes of the law.

    But it is in the eyes of a church Sacrement and church traditions are protected by the constitution as is what is traditionally understood by "family".
    I mean nearly every culture in the world today has marriage ingrained as part of their culture. Marriage is therefore a cultural phenomena and culture is often subject to change.

    That have child sex in some places too. That does not mean because such cultures exist we should say "Ireland should be open to such change" as if it is progressive.
    Sure you could say that in one culture, marriage would have been defined as the union between and man and a woman but that mightn't be so in another culture; there are example of same-sex marriages throughout ancient history.

    Not really in almost every culture traditional families are a man a woman and children. Marriage is a man and a woman. And adults dont have sex wioth children. That is effectively universal.
    As marriage is a cultural phenomena, the state should not have a say on what the definition of marriage should be.

    Already dealt with above.
    Therefore the state should not have a right to dictate who person wishes to get married to, no matter what their sex is.

    No. that wont wash as a constitutional argument either.
    To be honest. I don't understand why this issue is being discussed in the Christianity forum. As religion is a choice, it should not have an impact on the personal lives of individuals unless those individuals wish to adhere to a particular religion's code of practice.

    so if you chose the "I like kiddies in a special way" religion then that should be legally respected?
    In a similar way, religion should not impact on state legislation or the unalienable rights of the individual.

    How can one have inalienable rights in the fiorst place if they are subject to people saying they think differently and the traditional law doers not apply to them?

    That is what "inalienable" means ~ you can't remove them or redefine them!
    In relation to married gay couples adopting. Studies have shown

    WHICH studies? By whom?
    You have every right not to recognise a gay couple who decide to get a civil marriage as being "married" (unless their is a legal premise that you must), but what right have you to dictate how the status of their relationship should be viewed in the eyes of the law.

    Well this is the whole point. IF the law says "gay marriage does not exist" then who are you to dictate that the law is wrong and the status is the same?
    You don't. How does the fact that two gay people decide to get married impact on your marriage?

    Someone else abusing a kid may not impact on my kids but that doesn't make it legal or mean I should accept such an act being legal does it?


  • #324
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    ISAW wrote: »
    ALL the other people do NOT want it. a tiny minority want it. that is self evident by the tiny minority wo avail of gay unions elsewhere. But the point is about the majority passing it into law. Even some of those who avail of it do not want it called "marriage" and those who do not want it for themselves, but are prepared to accept people who do want it do not want it called "marriage". That does not mean any of them are bigots.

    This is the thing. The electorate should not have the right to choose who people get married to, neither should the state, it should be a strictly personal matter. It is should not be up to the majority to define someone's relationship.

    Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario in which you wanted to marry the person you love. However, you can't get married to that person until there is an election. The majority have to vote in favour of your marriage in order to get married. Do you think that would be fair?


  • #325
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    This is the thing. The electorate should not have the right to choose who people get married to, neither should the state, it should be a strictly personal matter. It is should not be up to the majority to define someone's relationship.

    What you do in your own home is your own business. But when you ask the state to award rights to such behaviour or insist such rights are "inalienable" then you are certainly bringing such behavior under the protection and support of the state.
    Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario in which you wanted to marry the person you love. However, you can't get married to that person until there is an election. The majority have to vote in favour of your marriage in order to get married. Do you think that would be fair?

    But legal marriage already does require the approval odf the State! It isnt hypothetical. Anyone can enter into a relationship with anyone or with multiple partners. The point is when you start calling it "marriage" you are into legal definitions which relate to state support , property rights , inheritance etc.

    Nobody can do anything about someone having five partners but should that person die the spouse and children inherit and not the other four partners.


  • #326
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    ISAW wrote: »
    No. where i came in is where Monty asked such a question. It hasn't been answered since then.


    What case? any reference to it?

    I answered the question and referenced the case in Post #98, and post #285. Oldrnwisr also referred to it in post #125, when replying to you.


  • #327
    optogirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,052 ✭✭✭optogirl


    ISAW wrote: »



    Someone else abusing a kid may not impact on my kids but that doesn't make it legal or mean I should accept such an act being legal does it?


    Your comparing of a homosexual relationship between 2 consenting adults who love each other enough to want to get married and somebody who is sexually attracted to children and acts on that, displays your ignorance surrounding human sexuality.
    The discussion here is about consenting adults.


  • #328
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    ISAW wrote: »
    What if you claim to be sexually oriented towards children and society says that is not normal and should not be allowed?




    Someone else abusing a kid may not impact on my kids but that doesn't make it legal or mean I should accept such an act being legal does it?

    So this is what Monty means when he (or she) keeps mentioning sophistry...


  • #329
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    ISAW wrote: »
    What if you claim to be sexually oriented towards children and society says that is not normal and should not be allowed?

    Are you seriously trying to compare pedophilia with homosexuality? I actually view that as quite offensive. Clearly pedophilia should be prevented because of the simple fact that it impacts on the development of the children (the victim) and the child isn't mature enough to willfully consent.
    ISAW wrote: »
    But it is in the eyes of a church Sacrement and church traditions are protected by the constitution as is what is traditionally understood by "family".

    Marriage is many things in the eyes of many cultures, religions and traditions. Why should one religion dictate what marriage should be for everyone, including those who don't adhere to the practices of that particular religion?
    ISAW wrote: »
    That have child sex in some places too. That does not mean because such cultures exist we should say "Ireland should be open to such change" as if it is progressive.

    Again, I view your comparison between pedophilia and homosexuality as quite offensive. Clearly you don't understand the nature of homosexuality. Two consenting adults of the same-sex engaging in a relationship aren't impacting on the lives of others any more than two straight consenting adults engaging in a similar relationship are.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Not really in almost every culture traditional families are a man a woman children. Marriage is a man and a woman. And adults dont have sex wioth children. That is effectively universal.

    Not in every culture, it is not universal, and as I said culture is open to change and should not be dictated upon by the state.

    "And adults dont have sex wioth children"

    We are not talking about pedophilia, that is a different issue.

    Anthropologists have failed to come up with a single universal definition of marriage based specifically on the union between a man and a woman. There are many examples of same-sex marriages throughout history. Read the following wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
    ISAW wrote: »
    No. that wont wash as a constitutional argument either.

    Nowhere in the Irish constitution is the institution of married recognised as being specifically between a man and a woman. Similarly, the Irish constitution doesn't recognise the Family as being specifically one containing a man, a woman and their children. Therefore, you don't really need a referendum in order to bring about legislation to permit same-sex marriages. The following is what the Irish constitution says on marriage:
    The Family

    Article 41

    1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

    2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

    2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

    2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

    2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that ­

    i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,

    ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,

    iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and

    iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

    3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.
    http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf

    In fact, you could make a case that not permitting same-sex marriages is in breech of the constitution.
    ISAW wrote: »
    so if you chose the "I like kiddies in a special way" religion then that should be legally respected?

    I have tackled this issue already. I think your comparison is gravely offensive and if you compare homosexuality with pedophilia again in a subsequent post I will report you. I regard it as trolling; it is devoid of logic or fact. It doesn't contribute to your argument and it is offensive.
    ISAW wrote: »
    WHICH studies? By whom?

    A synopsis on some is available here:
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm
    ISAW wrote: »
    Well this is the whole point. IF the law says "gay marriage does not exist" then who are you to dictate that the law is wrong and the status is the same?

    My point is the state should not have the right to dictate the personal lives of individuals.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Someone else abusing a kid may not impact on my kids but that doesn't make it legal or mean I should accept such an act being legal does it?

    Yet again, you compare homosexuality with pedophilia. Do it again, I will report you.


  • #330
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    ISAW wrote: »
    What you do in your own home is your own business. But when you ask the state to award rights to such behaviour or insist such rights are "inalienable" then you are certainly bringing such behavior under the protection and support of the state.

    If I have a right to do something, such as love another man, in the comfort of my own home, then I would expect that I should be protected by the state if my right to love another man was being denied.
    ISAW wrote: »
    But legal marriage already does require the approval odf the State! It isnt hypothetical. Anyone can enter into a relationship with anyone or with multiple partners. The point is when you start calling it "marriage" you are into legal definitions which relate to state support , property rights , inheritance etc.

    You need the approval of the state, but you don't need the approval of the people.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I answered the question and referenced the case in Post #98, and post #285. Oldrnwisr also referred to it in post #125, when replying to you.

    Post 125 the point you made as above is about holding a referendum on something being decided upon by the courts.
    As I stated yes we will have to wait but we can still discuss what such a referendum might be pending the court decision.

    i.e. if the court decides Gay marriage is not legal under Irish Law then we can discuss what form civil legal partnerships might take in the absence of gay marriage.

    By the way I asked for a reference to the court case. Have you got one?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement