Is gay marriage a threat to humanity?

guitarzero · 02-03-2012 3:51am

Btw, is it so bad that our species were to become extinct? The world doesnt actually require us and we mostly rape it. Maybe its mother natures way of wiping us of her face.

LH Pathe · 02-03-2012 3:53am

Alright fück this lax shît. give em an inch and they will take it all. Tighten the noose so, clampdown. Shut this shît down. Zero rights, how's that to suit you.

wonderfulname · 02-03-2012 3:55am

LH Pathe wrote: »

Alright fück this lax shît. give em an inch and they will take it all. Tighten the noose so, clampdown. Shut this shît down. Zero rights, how's that to suit you.

You might want to put the keyboard away until you sober up a bit...

talkinyite · 02-03-2012 3:55am

guitarzero wrote: »

Btw, is it so bad that our species were to become extinct? The world doesnt actually require us and we mostly rape it. Maybe its mother natures way of wiping us of her face.

Go kill yourself then

ToddyDoody · 02-03-2012 3:59am

talkinyite wrote: »

Go kill yourself then

or accept that we're not gods, just human.. Animal, like any other but superior to other species- species that would do the exact same thing given half the chance?

guitarzero · 02-03-2012 4:03am

talkinyite wrote: »

Go kill yourself then

Nah, I'm gonna go the gay marriage way instead! Oh, btw... have a nice day!

talkinyite · 02-03-2012 4:15am

guitarzero wrote: »

Nah, I'm gonna go the gay marriage way instead! Oh, btw... have a nice day!

The ethnobotanist and philosopher Terrence Mckenna had a theory on determinism and evolution. It went something like this: Plants used animals to help them propagate by carrying their seeds around, animals used plants to feed, humans used both animals and plants to construct civilisation. Machines use humans to help propagate. His theory was that humans aren't destroying nature but doing natures work, that the planet is supposed to become more connected and machine like, that it's like a shield. If you think humans are a plague on the earth and every single action that you do has negative effects on the planet then go kill yourself... Thanks, you too.

Broads.ie · 02-03-2012 8:46am

talkinyite wrote: »

The ethnobotanist and philosopher Terrence Mckenna had a theory on determinism and evolution. It went something like this: Plants used animals to help them propagate by carrying their seeds around, animals used plants to feed, humans used both animals and plants to construct civilisation. Machines use humans to help propagate. His theory was that humans aren't destroying nature but doing natures work, that the planet is supposed to become more connected and machine like, that it's like a shield. If you think humans are a plague on the earth and every single action that you do has negative effects on the planet then go kill yourself... Thanks, you too.

Terrence McKenna was a fcuking nutcase, smashed off his face on mushrooms most of his life. That whole paragraph you wrote is a load of bolix. I was like you when I was in college and mad into drugs, around 19/20 years old.

OldNotWIse · 02-03-2012 10:28am

Nyan Cat wrote: »

I'm starting to wonder if the majority who are so vehemently opposed to equality in marriage and adoption are slightly worried we might do a better job at it!
I say that in jest. And yet it could have an inkling of truth.

Well it could have some element of truth to be honest. Look at all the hoops a gay couple have to jump through to be considered for adoption (not that I disagree, anyone being considered for adoption needs to prove their ability) but when you look at the cost, emotional rollercoaster, legalities etc involved two things become clear - they have to really WANT the child, and they have to PROVE they can do a class A job of rearing it. This is something that those who can reproduce, shall we say "whimsically" do not have to worry about. They can just have baby after baby after baby without proving to anyone that they either WANT it or can care for it.

OldNotWIse · 02-03-2012 10:31am

Rob Nulty wrote: »

But what happens when the child is bold and the teacher calls for his Mam and Dad? Does one of them dress up as a woman?

Why would one have to dress as a woman? Are you confusing homesexuality with transgenderism?

OldNotWIse · 02-03-2012 10:36am

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

To be honest, I don't believe in it. The way I see it, marridge is a religious thing.

QUOTE]

If marriage is a religious thing then I assume all men and women who marry in the eyes of God will attend mass regularly and avoid the use of contraceptions? (Ridiculous I know, but it highlights how silly it is when people use religion on an "a la carte" basis to suit their own agenda)

joseph brand · 02-03-2012 10:40am

LighterGuy wrote: »

I usually bite my tongue with these matters. But gay marriage is wrong. So wrong. It should never happen. Its against God.

As you guessed it, I am messing. lol. I support it. But lets see how many people get back to tear me a new one without seeing this hidden bit lol.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. Simple.

Well you got me.

OldNotWIse · 02-03-2012 10:41am

ixoy wrote: »

If you're going to quote Leviticus on this then I assume you're going to support all of Leviticus? Grand then - no issues with slavery?

You can't pick and choose moral arguments from this book...

Thank you, well said. I hate when people use the bible on an a la carte basis. It's so blatant that they are not religious, they are simply using religion as a platform for homophobia. If you are religious and follow Gods word and disagree with homosexuality fine (though I laugh when people say "I disagree with homosexuality" - it's a way of being and not an argument therefore it's physically impossible to "disagree" with it), but people who use the bible when it suits them drive me mad
:eek:

OldNotWIse · 02-03-2012 10:47am

Gay's can't do that,QUOTE]

sadly for you, they can hahaha

OldNotWIse · 02-03-2012 10:49am

oooops! Sorry to all those I replied to! Just realised how far back your original posts were

iguana · 02-03-2012 11:23am

cmat wrote: »

can a woman have sex with another woman and produce a child

Not through sex but we really aren't very far off science being able to accomplish this at all. There are already generation upon generation of small mammals that have been created with two mothers and no father and the success rates at accomplishing this are getting higher every year.

In very simplistic terms the ova of one female's egg is inserted into the other female's egg in place of sperm forming a zygote. The zygote is grown until it's an embryo and then implanted back into one of the mothers.

It will be a while before this can be done successfully for humans but the basics are in place and 20 to 30 years from now it may not be that unusual for lesbian couples to have the option of having a child together which is as genetically both of theirs as the child of any mother and father.

Doing it for males is more difficult as the science is much newer and at present mammals with two fathers must also have a mother but it's great news for future polyandrists.

talkinyite · 02-03-2012 11:35am

iguana wrote: »

Not through sex but we really aren't very far off science being able to accomplish this at all. There are already generation upon generation of small mammals that have been created with two mothers and no father and the success rates at accomplishing this are getting higher every year.

In very simplistic terms the ova of one female's egg is inserted into the other female's egg in place of sperm forming a zygote. The zygote is grown until it's an embryo and then implanted back into one of the mothers.

It will be a while before this can be done successfully for humans but the basics are in place and 20 to 30 years from now it may not be that unusual for lesbian couples to have the option of having a child together which is as genetically both of theirs as the child of any mother and father.

Doing it for males is more difficult as the science is much newer and at present mammals with two fathers must also have a mother but it's great news for future polyandrists.

Really? that's weird.

prinz · 02-03-2012 11:50am

Millicent wrote: »

It stopped being relevant in my life, especially their attitude to women..

Perhaps you were badly treated but there are countless women who don't feel abused by some 'attitude' to them. Perhaps we could all agree on stop judging each other?

talkinyite wrote: »

Really? that's weird.

It's the selfishness I mentioned earlier being manifested.

AngryBollix · 02-03-2012 11:52am

iguana · 02-03-2012 12:07pm

talkinyite wrote: »

Really? that's weird.

The only thing at all 'weird' about it is that the offspring of two mothers have a significantly longer lifespan then regular offspring. On average they live 30% longer.

prinz wrote: »

It's the selfishness I mentioned earlier being manifested.

Exactly what is selfish about it? Oh no, we have the potential to one day make some people very, very happy by finding a way to fulfil the dreams they never thought it possible to make real. What rat baßtards!:mad:

prinz · 02-03-2012 12:15pm

iguana wrote: »

Exactly what is selfish about it? Oh no, we have the potential to one day make some people very, very happy by finding a way to fulfil the dreams they never thought it possible to make real. What rat baßtards!:mad:

Just because we have the ability to do something as a race, doesn't mean we should go ahead and do it because it will "make somebody happy".

Maybe it would make me happy if my child could be half human half computer. Who knows what the lifespan could be. Well let's work on making that a reality shall we. Maybe somebody else just wants to clone themselves five times. Well if it makes them very, very happy off you go...

For every leap in technology/and leap in social terms there follows somebody with a new found dream which they desperately need fulfilled. Suddenly it stops becoming a dream and turns into a right. I am making a general statement by the way, not restricting it to mice zygotes. It's the world we live, 'because you're worth it', the car you have defines you as a person, buy the latest mobile phone because you need it and it's your right, we'll bring out another edition in six months and tell you the same thing but it doesn't matter, buy this perfume it will fulfill you, sleep around as much as you want if that's what you want,....... consquences? Responsibilites to ourselves and others? Nah. F*ck it. If it makes you happy go for it.

Millicent · 02-03-2012 12:21pm

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps you were badly treated but there are countless women who don't feel abused by some 'attitude' to them. Perhaps we could all agree on stop judging each other?

Who's judging? What part of "it stopped being relevant to my life" in polite answer to a direct question asking me why I left it is judging? I'm not sure what you read there but no need to chastise me for it.

talkinyite · 02-03-2012 12:24pm

iguana wrote: »

The only thing at all 'weird' about it is that the offspring of two mothers have a significantly longer lifespan then regular offspring. On average they live 30% longer.

I just think it's a generally weird concept. I'm not big into cloning and all that sort of stuff.

prinz · 02-03-2012 12:25pm

Millicent wrote: »

Who's judging? What part of "it stopped being relevant to my life" in polite answer to a direct question asking me why I left it is judging? I'm not sure what you read there but no need to chastise me for it.

Well saying the "Catholics attitude to women" as I see it is a judgement on the many, many women active in the Roman Catholic Church and insinuating they are happy to be mistreated etc.

hightower1 · 02-03-2012 12:32pm

prinz wrote: »

Just because we have the ability to do something as a race, doesn't mean we should go ahead and do it because it will "make somebody happy".

Maybe it would make me happy if my child could be half human half computer. Who knows what the lifespan could be. Well let's work on making that a reality shall we. Maybe somebody else just wants to clone themselves five times. Well if it makes them very, very happy off you go...

For every leap in technology/and leap in social terms there follows somebody with a new found dream which they desperately need fulfilled. Suddenly it stops becoming a dream and turns into a right. I am making a general statement by the way, not restricting it to mice zygotes. It's the world we live, 'because you're worth it', the car you have defines you as a person, buy the latest mobile phone because you need it and it's your right, we'll bring out another edition in six months and tell you the same thing but it doesn't matter, buy this perfume it will fulfill you, sleep around as much as you want if that's what you want,....... consquences? Responsibilites to ourselves and others? Nah. F*ck it. If it makes you happy go for it.

You raise a very interesting point there... where does the quest for personal fulfilment cross the line and contradict social responsibility?

Anyways, imo I have nothing against gay marrage I just think if you wanna play any religions game you have to play by their rules. if your religion doesnt allow gay marrige then sorry about ya, a civil partnership is your option. I wouldnt expect to be able to have a jewish weddnig if me or my partner wasnt jewish I dont scream discrimination about it. I would just have a civil marrage in that case. Is just the rules of their religion, If I dont like the rules I dont have to play.

Hell the way our population is going we could do with more gays tbh I just dont know if I could put up with the excess of skinny jeans and E4

efb · 02-03-2012 12:34pm

hightower1 wrote: »

You raise a very interesting point there... where does the quest for personal fulfilment cross the line and contradict social responsibility?

Anyways, imo I have nothing against gay marrage I just think if you wanna play any religions game you have to play by their rules. if your religion doesnt allow gay marrige then sorry about ya, a civil partnership is your option. I wouldnt expect to be able to have a jewish weddnig if me or my partner wasnt jewish I dont scream discrimination about it. I would just have a civil marrage in that case. Is just the rules of their religion, If I dont like the rules I dont have to play.

Hell the way our population is going we could do with more gays tbh I just dont know if I could put up with the excess of skinny jeans and E4

We do not want religious marraige we want equal civil marraige rights.

Civil Partnership in not the same as civil marraige!

Sonics2k · 02-03-2012 12:36pm

cmat wrote: »

can a child grow up with two women as a mom or dad be normal
NO

I did.

What's your point?

Millicent · 02-03-2012 12:40pm

prinz wrote: »

Well saying the "Catholics attitude to women" as I see it is a judgement on the many, many women active in the Roman Catholic Church and insinuating they are happy to be mistreated etc.

No. It means I was uncomfortable with their attitude that I could not be a priest, given that I was a woman, which, considering how devoted I was, I probably would have been. Their condemning of abortion even in the cases of rape bothered me. The church's attitude to divorce, even where a spouse is abused bugged me.

All of this doesn't work for *me* and I never said any woman who was still in the Catholic Church was "mistreated". But why ask me politely when you could jump to conclusions?

Bannasidhe · 02-03-2012 12:49pm

Millicent wrote: »

No. It means I was uncomfortable with their attitude that I could not be a priest, given that I was a woman, which, considering how devoted I was, I probably would have been. Their condemning of abortion even in the cases of rape bothered me. The church's attitude to divorce, even where a spouse is abused bugged me.

All of this doesn't work for *me* and I never said any woman who was still in the Catholic Church was "mistreated". But why ask me politely when you could jump to conclusions?

Jennifer Sleeman was bothered enough by how the RCC treats women to organise a Mass Boycott.

prinz · 02-03-2012 12:55pm

Millicent wrote: »

All of this doesn't work for *me* and I never said any woman who was still in the Catholic Church was "mistreated". But why ask me politely when you could jump to conclusions?

I didn't jump to conclusions, you referred to the Catholic Church's attitude to women, not your attitude to the Catholic Church, which now seems to have been the reason you left and that's fine. If you have a problem with what they teach and what they believe then that's your business. No problems. I have myself moved away from the RCC but I don't blame it on their attitude to me.. rather my opinion of what they teach.

..and one of these days I'll captain an All-Ireland winning camogie team. Damn GAA *shakes fist*

Bannasidhe · 02-03-2012 12:57pm

hightower1 wrote: »

You raise a very interesting point there... where does the quest for personal fulfilment cross the line and contradict social responsibility?

Anyways, imo I have nothing against gay marrage I just think if you wanna play any religions game you have to play by their rules. if your religion doesnt allow gay marrige then sorry about ya, a civil partnership is your option. I wouldnt expect to be able to have a jewish weddnig if me or my partner wasnt jewish I dont scream discrimination about it. I would just have a civil marrage in that case. Is just the rules of their religion, If I dont like the rules I dont have to play.

Hell the way our population is going we could do with more gays tbh I just dont know if I could put up with the excess of skinny jeans and E4

Why should I play by the rules set down by a religion I don't believe in?
I want Civil Partnership to confer exactly the same rights and responsibilities as a Civil Marriage - religion has nothing to do with it.

Why should my cousin be able to have a Civil Marriage with her male partner (second marriage for both of them) and automatically be granted a range of 'rights' as a couple that is denied to my OH and myself?

Why will my nephew be granted rights unavailable to my OH and myself when he and his girlfriend have a Civil Marriage in November that myself and my OH cannot avail of - yet we have been together for longer then this couple even know each other?

If the RCC doesn't want to perform gay marriages -that is their prerogative. It is not a reason for the Irish State to refuse to legislate for them.

prinz · 02-03-2012 1:02pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If the RCC doesn't want to perform gay marriages -that is their prerogative. It is not a reason for the Irish State to refuse to legislate for them.

Excellent point, which is why you have to wonder why the OP and so many others like it are so obsessed with the Pope. If people put as much effort into getting on to T.D.'s etc as they seem to into slagging off the RCC and expecting them to suddenly do a U-Turn, as if that would affect our national legisation either way, then they might actually achieve something.

iguana · 02-03-2012 1:06pm

prinz wrote: »

Just because we have the ability to do something as a race, doesn't mean we should go ahead and do it because it will "make somebody happy".

Maybe it would make me happy if my child could be half human half computer. Who knows what the lifespan could be. Well let's work on making that a reality shall we. Maybe somebody else just wants to clone themselves five times. Well if it makes them very, very happy off you go...

For every leap in technology/and leap in social terms there follows somebody with a new found dream which they desperately need fulfilled. Suddenly it stops becoming a dream and turns into a right. I am making a general statement by the way, not restricting it to mice zygotes. It's the world we live, 'because you're worth it', the car you have defines you as a person, buy the latest mobile phone because you need it and it's your right, we'll bring out another edition in six months and tell you the same thing but it doesn't matter, buy this perfume it will fulfill you, sleep around as much as you want if that's what you want,....... consquences? Responsibilites to ourselves and others? Nah. F*ck it. If it makes you happy go for it.

So if you and your wife want children but it's not happening you won't go to your doctor about it? If your wife experiences recurrent miscarriage you won't make use of medication to protect a pregnancy? If your wife and baby have incompatible blood systems you won't make use of medical advances to stop the baby from dying immediately after birth?

Or is it that only straight people can make use of medical science that allows them to have a family that they couldn't have had a 100 years ago?

Stark · 02-03-2012 1:09pm

prinz wrote: »

Maybe it would make me happy if my child could be half human half computer. Who knows what the lifespan could be. Well let's work on making that a reality shall we. Maybe somebody else just wants to clone themselves five times. Well if it makes them very, very happy off you go...

That would be ridiculous.

Though if I have a son, I plan to have a piece of his willy cut off...

Bannasidhe · 02-03-2012 1:12pm

prinz wrote: »

Excellent point, which is why you have to wonder why the OP and so many others like it are so obsessed with the Pope. If people put as much effort into getting on to T.D.'s etc as they seem to into slagging off the RCC and expecting them to suddenly do a U-Turn, as if that would affect our national legisation either way, then they might actually achieve something.

Because the opposition of the RCC to gay marriages is believed by the majority of our legislators to be shared by the majority of the Irish population that defines itself as Catholic.

Our government is still very wary of offending the RCC hierarchy - and FG show no signs of changing that as the storm in a tea cup about the closure of the embassy in the Vatican has shown. Many members of FG still love to rattle the rosary beads - seeming to forget they were elected to serve the State and it's citizens, not the Church and it's hierarchy.

toexpress · 02-03-2012 1:13pm

SomeFool wrote: »

Does anyone care what the church think about anything anymore. An irrelevant organisation to anyone living in the real world.

The other week Ryan Tubridy read out a letter on his show from a girl who's girlfriend was afraid to come out to her family because of their Catholic beliefs. It was heading her off down a dreadfully self destructive road sadly for her and I dare say unless she does something soon then she will be in a world of pain. The point of this is that the Catholic Church have a lot to say on a lot of things but on a relative scale they remain amazingly quiet on the subject of priests and brothers raping children.

If God made everyone in his image and loves all his "children" equally does it make a big difference if they want to have a relationship/sex with someone of their own sex? Once the person is old enough to make the choice then why does it make a difference.

The Catholic Church would want to think on before they start making statements like these, start with the man in the mirror and get your own house in order before you start preaching to others.

prinz · 02-03-2012 1:16pm

iguana wrote: »

Or is it that only straight people can make use of medical science that allows them to have a family that they couldn't have had a 100 years ago?

Not unexpected response, nothing in what I have written so far differentiated between straight and not straight so perhaps you could drop that angle.

I like plugging a kettle into the wall. I don't like that people put so much energy, time and resources into making and improving nuclear weapons. Just because I agree with vaccinations, doesn't mean I should be ok with microchipping. Just because you agree with some advances in medical science, doesn't you have to be perfectly fine with all advances.

prinz · 02-03-2012 1:18pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because the opposition of the RCC to gay marriages is believed by the majority of our legislators to be shared by the majority of the Irish population that defines itself as Catholic.
Our government is still very wary of offending the RCC hierarchy - and FG show no signs of changing that as the storm in a tea cup about the closure of the embassy in the Vatican has shown. Many members of FG still love to rattle the rosary beads - seeming to forget they were elected to serve the State and it's citizens, not the Church and it's hierarchy.

...and who voted them in?

iguana · 02-03-2012 1:39pm

prinz wrote: »

Not unexpected response, nothing in what I have written so far differentiated between straight and not straight so perhaps you could drop that angle.

I like plugging a kettle into the wall. I don't like that people put so much energy, time and resources into making and improving nuclear weapons. Just because I agree with vaccinations, doesn't mean I should be ok with microchipping. Just because you agree with some advances in medical science, doesn't you have to be perfectly fine with all advances.

Well what I wrote about was the exact same thing. I didn't ask if you were ok with electricity, you are online, clearly you are. I didn't compare reproductive science to rocket ships or bombs. I compared reproductive science to reproductive science. Apples with apples. If one couple couldn't have had a baby without current medical science then it is absolutely no different to at some point in the future other couples who couldn't previously have had a baby utilising medical science to have one. Either you are ok with reproductive science or you aren't. Anything else is hypocrisy and prejudice.

Bannasidhe · 02-03-2012 1:42pm

prinz wrote: »

...and who voted them in?

Where is the alternative? Or do you believe the massive swing to FG was because the majority of the electorate absolutely supported them rather then the fact that the majority of the electorate wanted rid of FF? Sadly, we as a people haven't yet managed to move beyond the if it's not FF as the main party it must be FG school of Irish politics.

The Secularist Labour Party also made great gains - who voted them in? The LP have made no secret of their secularist agenda yet are frequently attacked for this - as evidenced again by the furore over the Vatican embassy closure and Quinn's moves to remove some of our National Schools from the control of the RCC.

During the Presidential campaign the candidates were questioned about their religious beliefs on RTE (I think it was The Frontline but open to correction on that)- what exactly did have to do with the selection of the President - a civil office in which the holder of the office of the Presidency is the 'personification' of the civil state and guardian of our Constitutional rights - which include freedom of conscience and a clear statement that the State will not favour one particular religion?

The 'other' main religion in Ireland is the Church of Ireland - a very socially liberal organisation that has no issue with gay marriage, female clergy or even - gasp- gay clergy. But our legislators prefer to listen to the pronouncements from Rome and it's Irish cheerleaders and ignore what the Polls are telling them (73% in favour of full gay marriage) - this being the same Rome that offered a loving home to any Anglican clergy fed up of the CoE/CoI's social liberalism.

There is a vocal and powerful Catholic lobby in this country which believes it speaks for the majority of Irish citizens - unfortunately many of our public representatives also believe this so listen to this lobby group.
Personally, I do not believe they do not actually speak for the majority - but most of our lily-livered politicos are afraid to directly challenge them.

Pacifist Pigeon · 02-03-2012 1:47pm

prinz wrote: »

Just because we have the ability to do something as a race, doesn't mean we should go ahead and do it because it will "make somebody happy".

Maybe it would make me happy if my child could be half human half computer. Who knows what the lifespan could be. Well let's work on making that a reality shall we. Maybe somebody else just wants to clone themselves five times. Well if it makes them very, very happy off you go...

For every leap in technology/and leap in social terms there follows somebody with a new found dream which they desperately need fulfilled. Suddenly it stops becoming a dream and turns into a right. I am making a general statement by the way, not restricting it to mice zygotes. It's the world we live, 'because you're worth it', the car you have defines you as a person, buy the latest mobile phone because you need it and it's your right, we'll bring out another edition in six months and tell you the same thing but it doesn't matter, buy this perfume it will fulfill you, sleep around as much as you want if that's what you want,....... consquences? Responsibilites to ourselves and others? Nah. F*ck it. If it makes you happy go for it.

By that logic, I could say that any straight couple who wanted to have a child are in fact selfish too.

hightower1 · 02-03-2012 1:48pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why should I play by the rules set down by a religion I don't believe in?
I want Civil Partnership to confer exactly the same rights and responsibilities as a Civil Marriage - religion has nothing to do with it.

Why should my cousin be able to have a Civil Marriage with her male partner (second marriage for both of them) and automatically be granted a range of 'rights' as a couple that is denied to my OH and myself?

Why will my nephew be granted rights unavailable to my OH and myself when he and his girlfriend have a Civil Marriage in November that myself and my OH cannot avail of - yet we have been together for longer then this couple even know each other?

If the RCC doesn't want to perform gay marriages -that is their prerogative. It is not a reason for the Irish State to refuse to legislate for them.

Sorry, I didt realize the differences between civil partnership and a civil marrage and assosiated legal differences between a civil marrage and religious marrage.

I totally agree though, civil marrages should have the exact same benefits as a religious one. Theres no logical reason as to why they shouldnt. Just seems like more political and legal baggage carried around from the old days when the church was the real government here. About time we move on from that period of history imo.

prinz · 02-03-2012 1:49pm

iguana wrote: »

Either you are ok with reproductive science or you aren't. Anything else is hypocrisy and prejudice.

No I don't think testing a couples fertility is the same as fusing one egg with another to create a zygote in a lab, then put it back into a woman to develop. As it happens I have discussed things like IVF with my wife and we're both agreed we would rather adopt.. as it happens we plan on adopting anyway if the circumstances allow, and I don't care that we are a heterosexual couple. Reproductive science is a massive area so lumping it all together as one package is disengenuous to the extreme. What happens when it comes to the person (gay or straight) who wants one of their eggs fused with another in the future? Do I agree with that no, does the sexual orientation of the woman involved make a difference? No.

prinz · 02-03-2012 1:51pm

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

By that logic, I could say that any straight couple who wanted to have a child are in fact selfish too.

Could you point out where I mentioned gay or straight in my post? I could give you a hint, I didn't.

Edit: Just to add, even though it is unneccessary because I didn't restrict my earlier comments to any orientation despite the usual attempts to pretend otherwise, I think that many straight couples are selfish too when it comes to having kids.

prinz · 02-03-2012 2:06pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sadly, we as a people haven't yet managed to move beyond the if it's not FF as the main party it must be FG school of Irish politics..

I agree.. but it's redundant to turn around and condemn them for not being representative of the people, when it was the people who voted them into office knowing full well what they are about to begin with.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Secularist Labour Party also made great gains - who voted them in? The LP have made no secret of their secularist agenda yet are frequently attacked for this - as evidenced again by the furore over the Vatican embassy closure and Quinn's moves to remove some of our National Schools from the control of the RCC...

As a christian myself I will say I voted Labour.... (and for a man once caught in a compromising position with anohter man in the Phoenix Park IIRC :eek:). I also fully support the closing of the Vatican embassy (I don't see any reason why a state our size and in our financial position needs two embassies in Rome a stones throw from one another) and I fully support a state run secular particularly at primary level education system.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

During the Presidential campaign the candidates were questioned about their religious beliefs on RTE (I think it was The Frontline but open to correction on that)- what exactly did have to do with the selection of the President - a civil office in which the holder of the office of the Presidency is the 'personification' of the civil state and guardian of our Constitutional rights - which include freedom of conscience and a clear statement that the State will not favour one particular religion? ...

Again good question. However it's not only the religious people who make an issue of the religious affiliation or lack thereof of candidates. You'd also have to take it up with the people who attack various candidates on nothing other than their religious beliefs. That's a broader issue than Catholics or Rome of the Vatican. I should be just as entitled to choose someone based on their religious beliefs as another person feels entitled not to vote for someone on their relgious beliefs. It's something that I saw many times here during the presidential debate, sort of 'anyone who votes for Dana must be some Catholic crazy fundamentalist nutbag..... and on a side note I refuse to vote for Dana because I refuse to vote for a Catholic.'

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The 'other' main religion in Ireland is the Church of Ireland - a very socially liberal organisation that has no issue with gay marriage, female clergy or even - gasp- gay clergy. But our legislators prefer to listen to the pronouncements from Rome and it's Irish cheerleaders and ignore what the Polls are telling them (73% in favour of full gay marriage) - this being the same Rome that offered a loving home to any Anglican clergy fed up of the CoE/CoI's social liberalism...

I don't think anything is to be gained from various churches continually moving with society so to speak personally. That's not what they are about, and in many cases undermines their own message. I'd rather see a church stand for something and die out completely than go with the flow in the interests of maintaining their position.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There is a vocal and powerful Catholic lobby in this country which believes it speaks for the majority of Irish citizens - unfortunately many of our public representatives also believe this so listen to this lobby group.
Personally, I do not believe they do not actually speak for the majority - but most of our lily-livered politicos are afraid to directly challenge them.

Vocal perhaps, but like any lobby group that is their right. As for the power, I don't think it's still as powerful as people like to imagine and blaming the puppet-masters in Rome just lets the people on the ground here with the real power to represent the people off the hook. "It's not us it's Britain the EU the Vatican.." Time to take responsibility for ourselves rather than indulging in endless fingerpointing.

Bannasidhe · 02-03-2012 2:26pm

hightower1 wrote: »

Sorry, I didt realize the differences between civil partnership and a civil marrage and assosiated legal differences between a civil marrage and religious marrage.

I totally agree though, civil marrages should have the exact same benefits as a religious one. Theres no logical reason as to why they shouldnt. Just seems like more political and legal baggage carried around from the old days when the church was the real government here. About time we move on from that period of history imo.

The issue is that religious marriages are also civil marriages as the celebrant - be they Priest, Rabbi, Iman, Vicar, Pastor etc - is recognised by the State as legally entitled to perform marriages but marriage is currently is defined by the State as being between 2 people of opposite genders - so people of the same gender who wished to get legal recognition for their relationship were offered Civil Partnership instead. Now, if Civil Partnership conferred exactly the same rights and responsibilities as Civil Marriage there would be no issue. The problem is, it doesn't.

For example - Civil Partnership makes no reference to children. Many justify this by saying - well, a gay couple cannot actually make a baby together but say a man marries a women who had children outside marriage - as her husband that man can legally adopt those children even though biologically he has no relationship with them. His 'rights' as her husband could actually supersede the biological father's unless the biological father had taken legal steps to have his relationship to his children recognised.

So what we have is the potential for a situation where a gay couple have a child - one of them being the biological parent. That couple enter a civil partnership which grants certain inheritance rights to each other - 'family home' etc- should the biological parent of the child die, the home becomes the property of their surviving partner. That person legally has no relationship to the child - so could lose custody - and can not will the property to the child without that child being faced with a possibly huge tax bill.

An extreme case - but possible - gay couple are in a car crash, biological parent killed outright so surviving partner inherits all property held in common as a couple. Partner dies some days later. Child has now not only lost both parents - but has also been effectively disinherited due to discriminatory legislation which prevented the non-biological parent from adopting them. Yet the option already exists within civil marriages for the partner of a child's biological parent to legally adopt that child - why is this being denied to gay couples?

The other much discussed issue is 'gay' adoption - yet - a gay person can already adopt a child in this country but they have to do so as a single person. A gay couple - even if they have entered a civil partnership - cannot adopt as a couple but a heterosexual couple in a civil marriage can.

There are hundreds of children in this country who were/are being raised by gay couples (some of these 'children' are now adults with children of their own), people may not like to admit they exist - but they do and are citizens of this State and entitled to the same rights as the children of straight couples - but they are being denied the right to two parents for no other reason then those two parents are of the same gender.

Caliden · 02-03-2012 2:36pm

It's been legal in Canada for years and the world has yet to come apart at the seams.
That lad needs reality check

Bannasidhe · 02-03-2012 2:39pm

prinz wrote: »

Vocal perhaps, but like any lobby group that is their right. As for the power, I don't think it's still as powerful as people like to imagine and blaming the puppet-masters in Rome just lets the people on the ground here with the real power to represent the people off the hook. "It's not us it's Britain the EU the Vatican.." Time to take responsibility for ourselves rather than indulging in endless fingerpointing.

Personally, I lay the blame firmly at the feet of our legislators who allow their personal religious beliefs to influence policies which result in a situation where some citizens of this country are denied access to rights under the law that are not only available to other citizens but to non- citizens as soon as they arrive here.

A married heterosexual couple who move to Ireland have more rights under Irish law then homosexual Irish citizens have - that is patiently unjust.

A heterosexual couple who marry in Canada or Spain, for example, would have the same rights in Canada and Spain as any other married couple, if they moved here they would automatically have all the same rights as an Irish heterosexual married couple have.

A gay couple who married in Canada or Spain would have the same rights in Canada and Spain as any other married couple, if they moved here they would not have all the same rights as an Irish heterosexual married couple have but would have to settle for those limited rights granted under civil partnership.

prinz · 02-03-2012 3:59pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Personally, I lay the blame firmly at the feet of our legislators who allow their personal religious beliefs to influence policies..

On the first part I don't know if that's fair to say. Religous beliefs especially when it comes to social issues aren't something you can just put aside. For many their religious beliefs, their moral position, their ethical position etc etc all combine, and I think it's unfair to say automatically say 'oh because he/she is x religious beliefs therefore it has influenced their vote' on whatever topic. Sometimes it doesn't matter, opening the pubs on Good Friday for example.. I can't see any real reason why a Roman Catholic could vote against it on religious grounds it has no bearing on the faith or core principles of the religion, nor does it have a bearing on their right to mark the day as they see fit.

However when it comes to something like abortion then I can see why somebody would, and I feel the people we elect should be allowed to vote according to their conscience on those kind of issues. I don't think you can have religion in one box, and conscience in another, and morals in a third. It's just not that simple when it comes to life and death matters. However I think politicians should be totally upfront about where they stand on these issues and then you can vote for them or not.. but I think it's a bit much to vote people into office and then expect them to go against the very moral fibre of their being.

On the issue of a civil gay marriage I'd probably vote for it to a point and that point is kids. I'm even coming around to the rights of gay couples to adopt where all external legal claims to the child have been severed, so that the only people to have parental rights to the child are the couple raising it as it should be.

However I am not sure the state should be giving the green light to sperm donors and surrogates etc and be standing over that as something that is acknowldged as good for a kid. I don't know how it could be organised and policed. The family courts are messy enough without cases with three people laying claim to a poor child as if it's a stereo or TV. How much of a part is a donor or surrogate going to play in a their child's life for example? What about the rights of a child to know their biological parents? What responsibilities are going to be imposed on a donor? Monetary? Are we going to end up with people signing away all rights or interests in their own biological children officially? We already have them doing it unofficially. Is that in the child's best interests long term? Oh here you go Timmy, this is where your biological father/mother signed a form and said he/she wanted nothing more to do with you whatsoever... and the courts will protect his right to do that.. Even worse you'll have couples doing it unofficially and then when things go sour there'll be a three way tug of war over a child between it's parents.... and then it's parent........ It would be horrific to see kids being turned into pawns to satisfy the selfish needs of the parents any more than they already are with heterosexuals, which is itself horrible enough.

My concern would be for the kids, and again the sexual orientation of the couple raising the child is irrelevant. There are many heterosexual couples who I think have proven themselves incapable of caring properly for a child and should have theirs taken into care.

And I know people laugh at the slippery slope argument but I can see the time come when people are arguing that the state should be recognising other forms of marriage and longterm I don't think that's beneficial for society.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The issue is that religious marriages are also civil marriages as the celebrant - be they Priest, Rabbi, Iman, Vicar, Pastor etc - is recognised by the State as legally entitled to perform marriages but marriage is currently is defined by the State as being between 2 people of opposite genders

On another point you mentioned earlier about the religious marriage and civil marriage being one and the same in this country again I wholeheartedly agree. I think the state should take charge of the civil side of things and have a civil acknowledgment of the marriage and then if the couple choose they can have a religious/humanist/whatever ceremony of whatever persuasion. It should be two different matters, and the state should only recognise those who have a civil marriage.

By the by, thanks for responding in an intelligent and level-headed, mature way. I'm sure you can see we actually agree on more things than we disagree about... and I'm religious. There was another poster earlier in the same boat. Someone said earlier on the thread that we all have something to learn from each other and that's true, but all too often if you are religious or conservative then your views and opinions and swept aside as irrelevant by the so-called more "socially liberal" amongst us.

Bannasidhe · 02-03-2012 4:16pm

prinz wrote: »

On the first part I don't know if that's fair to say. Religous beliefs especially when it comes to social issues aren't something you can just put aside. For many their religious beliefs, their moral position, their ethical position etc etc all combine, and I think it's unfair to say automatically say 'oh because he/she is x religious beliefs therefore it has influenced their vote' on whatever topic. Sometimes it doesn't matter, opening the pubs on Good Friday for example.. I can't see any real reason why a Roman Catholic could vote against it on religious grounds it has no bearing on the faith or core principles of the religion, nor does it have a bearing on their right to mark the day as they see fit.

However when it comes to something like abortion then I can see why somebody would, and I feel the people we elect should be allowed to vote according to their conscience on those kind of issues. I don't think you can have religion in one box, and conscience in another, and morals in a third. It's just not that simple when it comes to life and death matters. However I think politicians should be totally upfront about where they stand on these issues and then you can vote for them or not.. but I think it's a bit much to vote people into office and then expect them to go against the very moral fibre of their being.

On the issue of a civil gay marriage I'd probably vote for it to a point and that point is kids. I'm even coming around to the rights of gay couples to adopt where all external legal claims to the child have been severed, so that the only people to have parental rights to the child are the couple raising it as it should be.

However I am not sure the state should be giving the green light to sperm donors and surrogates etc and be standing over that as something that is acknowldged as good for a kid. I don't know how it could be organised and policed. The family courts are messy enough without cases with three people laying claim to a poor child as if it's a stereo or TV. How much of a part is a donor or surrogate going to play in a their child's life for example? What about the rights of a child to know their biological parents? What responsibilities are going to be imposed on a donor? Monetary? Are we going to end up with people signing away all rights or interests in their own biological children officially? We already have them doing it unofficially. Is that in the child's best interests long term? Oh here you go Timmy, this is where your biological father/mother signed a form and said he/she wanted nothing more to do with you whatsoever... and the courts will protect his right to do that.. Even worse you'll have couples doing it unofficially and then when things go sour there'll be a three way tug of war over a child between it's parents.... and then it's parent........

And I know people laugh at the slippery slope argument but I can see the time come when people are arguing that the state should be recognising other forms of marriage and longterm I don't think that's beneficial for society.

On another point you mentioned earlier about the religious marriage and civil marriage being one and the same in this country again I wholeheartedly agree. I think the state should take charge of the civil side of things and have a civil acknowledgment of the marriage and then if the couple choose they can have a religious/humanist/whatever ceremony of whatever persuasion. It should be two different matters, and the state should only recognise those who have a civil marriage.

Unless someone running for office clearly outlines how their religious beliefs will influence any decisions they make then no - they do not have the right once elected to say - well, everyone knows I'm Catholic/Muslim/Jewish so obviously that will influence me'. Our public representatives are charged with representing all of their constituents - not just those who share their religious views. Is Alan Shatter the Minister of Justice for Jews? No - he is the minister for Justice for all Irish citizens - Jew, Gentile, Muslim, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist and even Jedi.

Do you think only gay couple use sperm donors and surrogacy? Really?????

The fact is - there are hundreds of children already growing up in families headed by gay couples - yet our Family Courts haven't been swamped by such cases as you describe. Why should allowing a gay couple to adopt as a couple or the gay non-biological parent adopt their partner's biological children change that? Have our family courts been inundated with cases where unmarried biological father's are seeking to prevent the children's husband from adopting?

Children of already gay couples exist - and a 'what might happen' scenario is no justification for denying those children the same right to two loving, legally recognised, parents as extended to the children of heterosexuals.

We need to legislate for what is - not what may or may not happen.

Is gay marriage a threat to humanity?

Comments