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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Is gay marriage a threat to humanity?

1…1112141617…21

Comments

  • #392
    Pacifist Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Pacifist Pigeon


    vixen chaser wrote: »
    Maybe if some gays didn't act the peverted bitches , maybe people mightn't have such a problem with them

    said the infant, throwing the toy out of the cot.


  • #393
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,909 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    vixen chaser wrote: »
    Marraige should be for life between man and woman, who then may create a family of their own by reproducing. Gay's can't do that, simply because life wasn't created that way. full stop.

    Gay mice can. Well at least the lesbians* anyway.:cool:

    Not only that but their offspring live for 30% longer on average than mice of male/female parents. It'll only be a matter of time until it's available to humans and then we'll all wish we had two mothers, so we can live to 120.

    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/12/02-01.html


    *I know the mice probably weren't really lesbians.


  • #394
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    vixen chaser wrote: »
    Maybe if some gays didn't act the peverted bitches , maybe people mightn't have such a problem with them

    should i have a problem with heterosexual men due to the fact some have rape convictions???


  • #395
    vixen chaser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭vixen chaser


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

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

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

    That's your view, I respect it, I would like to get married myself, but I would fear the high failure rates of marriage, so not sure if I ever will get married. But Marriage has been in existance for donkeys years. Common law spouses just chose not to marry, maybe because of personal choice or diferrent circumstances etc, but there are many people who believe in marriage , and always prob will be, even though some are more concerned with the day out rather than a life with the person they love.


  • #396
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    grindle wrote: »
    The institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, or so says Wikipedia. Christianity co-opted marriage.

    Also not to get too off-topic - this idea that you can choose your own flavour of a religion that has it's rules set in stone is intellectual fraud committed against yourself and any gullible innocents that may be brainwashed by you or anyone like you.

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

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

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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    Leeg17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,127 ✭✭✭✭Leeg17


    vixen chaser wrote: »
    I know a few gays. and I have nothing against them
    vixen chaser wrote: »
    Maybe if some gays didn't act the peverted bitches , maybe people mightn't have such a problem with them

    Hmmm.... take a break for that comment


  • #398
    Millicent
    Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    vixen chaser wrote: »
    That's your view, I respect it, I would like to get married myself, but I would fear the high failure rates of marriage, so not sure if I ever will get married. But Marriage has been in existance for donkeys years. Common law spouses just chose not to marry, maybe because of personal choice or diferrent circumstances etc, but there are many people who believe in marriage , and always prob will be, even though some are more concerned with the day out rather than a life with the person they love.

    But do you think I should impose that choice on others, is what I'm asking?

    Or to phrase it another way, do you think gays should not be allowed to marry because you find it distasteful?


  • #399
    Millicent
    Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


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

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


  • #400
    Nyan Cat
    Registered Users Posts: 313 ✭✭Nyan Cat


    vixen chaser wrote: »
    grindle wrote: »
    Fixed Your Post, not Felt Your Penis, as you might've hoped.

    Maybe if some gays didn't act the peverted bitches , maybe people mightn't have such a problem with them

    I'm dumbfounded. Do I want to point and laugh at that sentence, facepalm, talk about perverts being in abundance, challange your definition of pervert or go make myself a cup of tea while I contemplate things?!

    An opinion is one thing.
    Statements like that are way past opinion!


  • #401
    Pacifist Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Pacifist Pigeon


    vixen chaser wrote: »
    That's your view, I respect it

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


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    FoxT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,204 ✭✭✭FoxT


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

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

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

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

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


  • #403
    Adamas
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 66 ✭✭Adamas


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

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

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

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

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


  • #404
    Millicent
    Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


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

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


  • #405
    grindle
    Registered Users Posts: 6,026 ✭✭✭grindle


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

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

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


  • #406
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


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

    lol :pac:


  • #407
    FoxT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,204 ✭✭✭FoxT


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

    You are absoultely correct.

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


  • #408
    Millicent
    Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


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

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

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


  • #409
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


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

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


  • #410
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


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

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


  • #411
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    Pacifist Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Pacifist Pigeon


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

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

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

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

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


  • #413
    Millicent
    Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    lmaopml wrote: »
    No need to pull me up on it Millicent; I agree that a civil partnership is not the same as marriage..? that's what I said..
    The 'State' can perform 'marriage' they do for very many people of various beliefs etc. they have simply failed to call it 'marriage' - they call it a civil partnership, which is exactly what it is. I have no problem at all with this.

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


  • #414
    grindle
    Registered Users Posts: 6,026 ✭✭✭grindle


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Choosing God, doesn't necessitate abandoning self.
    The self, as in your 'self', is dependent on cognition, and any god-based belief relies on the denial of what your cognitive processes tell you.

    Faith vs Reason.

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


  • #415
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


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

    Not quite wonderfulname!

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • #416
    Millicent
    Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


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

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

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

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


  • #417
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


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

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


  • #418
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


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

    The difference
    lmaopml wrote: »
    Catholic...Catholic...Catholics...Catholic...Catholic...Catholic...'Catholic'...
    What you appear to be calling marriage but isn't in this context


  • #419
    Millicent
    Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    lmaopml wrote: »
    What is the difference Millicent? I'm not fully up on it..

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

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

    Decent link here for more info.


  • #420
    Immaculate Pasta
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭Immaculate Pasta


    Gay marriage is so gay :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


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

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

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

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

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

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


Advertisement