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 there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Do you think that gay marriage would get passed in Ireland?

1468910

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 458 ✭✭Craebear


    The KKK have a different perspective too and I'm sure you will have no problem with me having a go at them. When gay people are being beaten and killed daily for being born the way they are, they don't need people like you spreading your crap in what is supposed to be one of the safe areas in the world for them.

    Comparing it to incest, and claiming it "a cultural phenomenom", seriously.

    I should know better, I'm feeding the troll at this stage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    Craebear wrote: »
    The KKK have a different perspective too...

    As good as Godwin's Law.

    Your sexual desires are like a religion for you. If you want to be a hate-filled zealot and refuse to engage in a balanced discussion on gay marriage, go elsewhere. There are plenty of propaganda websites that can accommodate you. Forcing your opinions on people won't work. The onus is on you and your peers to convince the status quo through rational arguments. You've spent a lot of money, invested a lot of time and made a lot of progress in stamping out homophobic hate, discrimination and physical violence. That's something all homosexual persons should be proud of.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 458 ✭✭Craebear


    Gay marriage may happen in the future, right now we have to wait for a generation of a by gone era to die out before it can happen.

    @ Plebs

    Is it concern for the good of society that motivates you?


















    It's not really now is it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    Craebear wrote: »
    Gay marriage may happen in the future, right now we have to wait for a generation of a by gone era to die out before it can happen.

    Ah yes, the aul "in this day and age" meaningless rhetoric makes an appearance yet again. You know what they say about empty vessels.

    I suspect you're under 30. Don't worry though, once people get on in life, they thend to adopt conservative views (both social and economic) and wish for these values to be passed on to the next generation: after all, why deny your children the traditions that you have benefited from? The hardcore long-haired university activists who took things a bit too seriously eventually slot quietly out of the popular activist party of the day and are absorbed into the Labour party where they don a cheap il-fitting suit and hope one day to get a council nomination. Meanwhile their peers who had the sense to settle down live in the more salubrious suburbs, drive nicer cars and don't bother themselves listening to a minority of the population harp on about Utopian visions of society's future, "equality", radical change and of course, crusties in power. No matter how much "NOISE" they make. Lyric FM and Six Nations rugby is a far more satisfying past-time.

    p.s. When you take a leaf out of your own manifesto and develop some courtesy and respect, I might consider answering your troll-like leading questions. Then again, I'm considering just ignoring you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Plebs wrote: »
    Ah yes, the aul "in this day and age" meaningless rhetoric makes an appearance yet again. You know what they say about empty vessels.

    I suspect you're under 30. Don't worry though, once people get on in life, they thend to adopt conservative views (both social and economic) and wish for these values to be passed on to the next generation: after all, why deny your children the traditions that you have benefited from? The hardcore long-haired university activists who took things a bit too seriously eventually slot quietly out of the popular activist party of the day and are absorbed into the Labour party where they don a cheap il-fitting suit and hope one day to get a council nomination. Meanwhile their peers who had the sense to settle down live in the more salubrious suburbs, drive nicer cars and don't bother themselves listening to a minority of the population harp on about Utopian visions of society's future, "equality", radical change and of course, crusties in power. No matter how much "NOISE" they make. Lyric FM and Six Nations rugby is a far more satisfying past-time.

    p.s. When you take a leaf out of your own manifesto and develop some courtesy and respect, I might consider answering your troll-like leading questions. Then again, I'm considering just ignoring you.

    So, just to be clear, the people who toe the line, move to the suburbs and go with the status quo so they can watch the rugby and drive a nice car are "open minded" and "view things from others perspectives" and the people who want "radical change", "utopian society" and "equality" are closed minded people with entrenched views. Is that correct?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    So, just to be clear, the people who toe the line, move to the suburbs and go with the status quo so they can watch the rugby and drive a nice car are "open minded" and "view things from others perspectives" and the people who want "radical change", "utopian society" and "equality" are closed minded people with entrenched views. Is that correct?

    Radical lefties spouting Utopian visions for society are so far left, and the facists spouting Utopian visions for society are so far right, that they wrap around and meet each other in Never Never Land.

    While that little side-show transfixes those unlucky enough to have been sucked in, the rest of us occupy the real world and go about our lives in a meaningful, moral and Godly fashion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Plebs wrote: »
    Radical lefties spouting Utopian visions for society are so far left, and the facists spouting Utopian visions for society are so far right, that they wrap around and meet each other in Never Never Land.

    So anyone who thinks that having different genitalia doesn't automatically make people better parents is what you call a "radical leftie spouting Utopian visions for society"? Is that correct?
    Plebs wrote: »
    While that little side-show transfixes those unlucky enough to have been sucked in, the rest of us occupy the real world and go about our lives in a meaningful, moral and Godly fashion.
    I find it funny that you say you're living in the real world in the same sentence that you mention the magic sky fairy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I find it funny that you say you're living in the real world and then mention the magic sky fairy in the same sentence.

    Now. now. If you don't show courtesy and respect, then I won't play your little game.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 458 ✭✭Craebear


    Alright lets stop feeding the troll (I know I'm guilty but it's my first day posting thought I would treat myself)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    In my view, the Government is less and less supportive of "Normal" definitions of marriage, totally discouraging couples to marry, so, by that observation, I can't see them encouraging any other types of marriage.

    This is true and is definitely an area that needs to be addressed. Couples remaining single for years and years so as to gain better social welfare benefits has gone beyond a joke.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Plebs wrote: »
    Now. now. If you don't show courtesy and respect, then I won't play your little game.

    "Radical lefties spouting Utopian visions for society are so far left, and the facists spouting Utopian visions for society are so far right, that they wrap around and meet each other in Never Never Land"

    is not courtesy and respect. And all I'm saying is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, ie people who believe in an invisible man who is all powerful but has nothing better to do with his time than send bears to kill children, turn people into pillars of salt, kill thousands of people because the king performed a census, help people in battle in return for the sacrifice of their children, lay out the rules of slavery, ban people from eating shellfish and collecting sticks on a Saturday, tell people what they should and shouldn't do in the privacy of their bedrooms, tell women that they should not have authority over men and of course sacrifice himself to himself to save us from the punishment that he was going to give us for the crime of not living up to a standard that he set and which he made it impossible for us to live up to......shouldn't really be talking about radical ideas off in Never land. At least never land is supposed to be inside this universe


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    "Radical lefties spouting Utopian visions for society are so far left, and the facists spouting Utopian visions for society are so far right, that they wrap around and meet each other in Never Never Land"
    Countering someone's political views is fair game AFAIC. I don't like political radicalists or far left wingers. If you want to crack jokes about people's religion, you should take your insulting opinions elsewhere. I've heard Christian-bashing is a national past-time in the coffee shops of Saudi Arabia.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    is not courtesy and respect. And all I'm saying is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, ie people who believe in an invisible man who is all powerful but has nothing better to do with his time than send bears to kill children, turn people into pillars of salt, kill thousands of people because the king performed a census, help people in battle in return for the sacrifice of their children, ban people from eating shellfish and collecting sticks on a Saturday and of course sacrifice himself to himself to save us from the punishment that he was going to give us for the crime of not living up to a standard that he set and which he made it impossible for us to live up to......shouldn't really be talking about radical ideas of in Never land. At least never land is supposed to be inside this universe
    You don't even know what I believe in, yet you feel you have all the ammo you need to go off on a meaningless, intellectually shallow, polemic rant. But maybe you wrote this because it somehow makes you feel better about yourself? I suggest you isolate your warped and ignorant views to a separate area of cyber-space. Or maybe read a book (other than Dawkins and Hitchens) so as to open your mind just a little and see the world from a different perspective.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Plebs wrote: »
    Countering someone's political views is fair game AFAIC. I don't like political radicalists or far left wingers.
    Countering someone's political views is fine. What you did was insult them. you didn't really clarify btw, would you consider anyone who supports gay marriage as "a far left winger"?
    Plebs wrote: »
    If you want to crack jokes about people's religion, you should take your insulting opinions elsewhere. I've heard Christian-bashing is a national past-time in the coffee shops of Saudi Arabia.

    You don't even know what I believe in, yet you feel you have all the ammo you need to go off on a meaningless, intellectually shallow, polemic rant. I suggest you isolate your warped and ignorant views to a separate area of cyber-space. Or maybe read a book (other than Dawkins and Hitchens) so as to open your mind just a little.

    You referred to "going about our lives in a meaningful, moral and Godly fashion". If the god you refer to is not the christian god then I wholeheartedly apologise but if it is the christian god then I should point out that my source for the description of those appalling acts is not Dawkins or Hitchens, it's the bible. Perhaps you should read it
    Plebs wrote: »
    But maybe you wrote this because it somehow makes you feel better about yourself?
    I wrote it to show you that when viewed objectively the beliefs of a christian are far more outlandish and "off in never land" than those of the most radical hippy or fascist. Ya know, in the hopes you would open your mind a little ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Countering someone's political views is fine. What you did was insult them
    Stones and glasshouses my dear boy...
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You referred to "going about our lives in a meaningful, moral and Godly fashion". If the god you refer to is not the christian god then I wholeheartedly apologise but if it is the christian god then I should point out that my source for the description of those appalling acts is not Dawkins or Hitchens, it's the bible. Perhaps you should read it
    What have the things you so eloquently described (I didn't realise I you were such a gifted theological critic) got to do with gay marriage? Religious chip on your shoulder perchance? Unhealthy fascination? Certainly seems that way.

    Then again perhaps Dawkins and Hitchens can cobble together some humorous faux intellectual catch-phrases that enable you to gloss over your existence whilst poking fun at those who believe in a higher being. Seeing as you are continuing on your unrepentant tone, I thought I'd be a little bit cheeky myself. :P
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I wrote it to show you that when viewed objectively the beliefs are a christian are far more outlandish than those of the most radical hippy or fascist. Ya know, in the hopes you would open your mind a little ;)
    To be fair, frivolous political goals such green policy and half a percent change in the tax rate are pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Then again, forcing anonymous teenagers to be put into the care of a homosexual foster home in the name of the "Equality" god is a serious matter. Especially as it's not insignificant for the individual child. Hence the need to counter and oppose (both overtly and covertly) certain political viewpoints that can harm innocent children.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Plebs wrote: »
    What have the things you so eloquently described (I didn't realise I you were such a gifted theological critic) got to do with gay marriage? Religious chip on your shoulder perchance? Unhealthy fascination? Certainly seems that way.
    Um, I refer to the part of my post that you quoted immediately after you wrote the above
    Plebs wrote: »
    To be fair, frivolous political goals (such as forcing anonymous teenagers to be put into the care of a homosexual foster home in the name of the "Equality" god) are pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Not insignificant for the individual child though.
    Nor is it insignificant to the foster/adoptive parents. you are right to say that it's insignificant to everyone else but for some reason some people feel the need to get involved and try to stop it
    Plebs wrote: »
    Then again perhaps Dawkins and Hitchens can cobble together some humorous faux intellectual catch-phrases that enable you to gloss over your existence whilst poking fun at those who believe in a higher being. Seeing as you are continuing on your unrepentant tone, I thought I'd be a little bit cheeky myself. :P

    If you want to think I'm just regurgitating Dawkins and Hitchens that is your prerogative. I suppose if someone can convince themselves that a Jewish guy rose from the dead 2000 years ago based on nothing more than a story in a book then ignoring my points because you've convinced yourself I'm just repeating what I've heard from others (as if that would make the points any less valid if it was true) shouldn't be too difficult


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I suppose if someone can convince themselves that a Jewish guy rose from the dead 2000 years ago based on nothing more than a story in a book then ignoring my points because you've convinced yourself I'm just repeating what I've heard from others (as if that would make the points any less valid if it was true) shouldn't be too difficult

    You're really not a nice person, are you?

    Good night. Zzz.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Plebs wrote: »
    Hence the need to counter and oppose (both overtly and covertly) certain political viewpoints that can harm innocent children.

    In what way does it harm innocent children? Can a homosexual not be a good parent in your eyes?

    Do you think that homosexuality is contagious?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Plebs wrote: »
    You're really not a nice person, are you?

    I'm lovely I am.

    Now try to do what you keep telling others they should do and look at things from a different perspective. Imagine how gay people feel when you compare their loving relationships to incest and bestiality, describe their love as "disgusting" and say that they should never be allowed adopt children because it would harm them.

    Now you don't seem like such a nice person do you?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 194 ✭✭i_love_toast


    it depends if owner EU says to little puppy Ireland "you must pass gay marriage" then ireland will jump over fire to pass it.....

    to be honest id love to see it passed but i would say if it was, it would be civil partnership and not religious weddings as such


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    If it takes the EU to drag our legal system out of somebody's deluded fantasy version of the 1950s, I can live with it.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Ronin247 wrote: »
    Did you read that before you posted it? A gay man and a gay woman make a heterosexual couple how exactly ?

    One word

    Marriage

    Look it up

    the legal relationship between a husband and wife

    So you're saying a gay man and a gay women should not be allowed marry?

    I looked up marriage, it doesn't say anything about a HETEROSEXUAL man and HETEROSEXUAL woman. So are you just making shít up now?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,208 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    it depends if owner EU says to little puppy Ireland "you must pass gay marriage" then ireland will jump over fire to pass it.....

    to be honest id love to see it passed but i would say if it was, it would be civil partnership and not religious weddings as such
    :confused:

    Civil Partnership is now law

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

    Terry Pratchet



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    to be honest id love to see it passed but i would say if it was, it would be civil partnership and not religious weddings as such

    I see no reason why faiths who do not have an issue with civil partnerships wouldn't offer blessing ceremonies. I think what is key is, that no faith which disagrees with the concept should be forced to perform them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Now try to do what you keep telling others they should do and look at things from a different perspective. Imagine how gay people feel when you compare their loving relationships to incest and bestiality, describe their love as "disgusting" and say that they should never be allowed adopt children because it would harm them. Now you don't seem like such a nice person do you?

    I'd imagine they'd feel much like a consensual couple in an incestuous relationship reading your comments. We all draw a line somewhere.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I'm lovely I am.
    Evidently, you're not. You've got a lot of proving to do. An apology wouldn't go astray either. I notice quite a few people have put you on their ignore list already. Sure where there's smoke there's fire...
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Now try to do what you keep telling others they should do and look at things from a different perspective. Imagine how gay people feel when you compare their loving relationships to incest and bestiality, describe their love as "disgusting" and say that they should never be allowed adopt children because it would harm them.
    Now you're being dishonest as well as nasty. I was making the point that if you're going to allow "marriage" between two homosexual persons, equality dictates that you should allow consenting brothers/sisters, first cousins, mothers/sons to marry. And, not surprisingly, quite a few of posters on this thread agree that this should be the case. But you've yet to answer my question. So, do you think that two brothers should be allowed to marry? It was the dictionary definition that someone quoted where sodomy included things such as homosexual acts and bestiality. I don't have a problem with dictionary definitions, do you? Could you please point out where I "compared" (please explain what you mean by this verb) homosexual behaviour between two humans with that of bestiality? Or maybe it's just more empty rhetoric on your part?

    Marriage is not defined as a romantic relationship between two persons that may or may not last, depending on the promiscuity levels. True marriage is a life-long commitment between man and woman. The State may end up facilitating in some way the liberals, egalitarians, single parents, unmarried co-habiters, homosexuals and gay rights activists, but this synthesis of the family unit raises more problems than solutions. Therefore, the status quo should resist these elements in society both overtly and covertly so as to ensure that the next generation inherit a society that they have benefited so much from.

    For example -- and please answer me on this -- should an adoption agency be forced to accommodate a teenager with a homosexual couple, even though the child feels uncomfortable living in such an environment? Is this true "equality"? Or should the adoption agency reserve it's right to decide where is the most suitable environment to place a vulnerable teenager? Or, would you have the adoption agency forcibly shut down by a team of illiberal liberals? lol.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    gay people are going to form families with or without your say so. the important thing is that the state not descriminate against their children by refusing acknowledge their families.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    prinz wrote: »
    I'd imagine they'd feel much like a consensual couple in an incestuous relationship reading your comments. We all draw a line somewhere.

    That the children of incestuous relationships have a much greater risk of genetic defects is a fact, not something to get insulted about. I can't really think of any reason to stop incestuous relationships where there is no chance of a child being produced (e.g. homosexual incestuous relationships)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    prinz wrote: »
    I'd imagine they'd feel much like a consensual couple in an incestuous relationship reading your comments. We all draw a line somewhere.

    Incestuous relationships are legal up from first cousin onwards already, with up to a 40% likelihood of genetic abnormalities according to C4 Dispatches yesterday. There's probably a good case for legislation there.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    gay people are going to form families with or without your say so. the important thing is that the state not descriminate against their children by refusing acknowledge their families.

    Using innocent children as pawns in a war against the State over equality is below the belt. Two men prancing around with their buggy in a public demonstration of "how far we've come as a society" is very sad. Not just for the parents, but for the child and the community who are left to accommodate these people as best they can. People who are on a mission to re-engineer society against the grain, by force if necessary, will be opposed at every stage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Incestuous relationships are legal up from first cousin onwards already, with up to a 40% likelihood of genetic abnormalities according to C4 Dispatches yesterday. There's probably a good case for legislation there.

    Not really, because we live in a technological age where the reproductive system can be tinkered to facilitate whatever titillations we desire.

    And what gives you the assumption that all romantic relationships necessarily have a sexual component?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That the children of incestuous relationships have a much greater risk of genetic defects is a fact, not something to get insulted about. I can't really think of any reason to stop incestuous relationships where there is no chance of a child being produced (e.g. homosexual incestuous relationships)

    So you do agree legislating on marriage over the issue of possible future offspring is acceptable?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    Plebs wrote: »
    Using innocent children as pawns in a war against the State over equality is below the belt. Two men prancing around with their buggy in a public demonstration of "how far we've come as a society" is very sad. Not just for the parents, but for the child and the community who are left to accommodate these people as best they can. People who are on a mission to re-engineer society against the grain, by force if necessary, will be opposed at every stage.



    that's all you, baby.

    gay people will have kids for the same reason that straight people will - they want to. if there is one thing we can be sure of, its that you cannot stop people having kids. Its good to know those kids can count on someone like you to tell them it would have been better if they weren't born.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 701 ✭✭✭christina_x


    cooltown wrote: »
    Do you think gay marriage would get passed in Ireland?
    I think that many of the posters here would have no problem with it but when I think of the older generation. I sadly can say I don't think it would!
    I think your right! I would definately vote to have it passed, but even if i look to my mothers generation (shes in her 50's) I'd be very doubtful if it would actually be passed. She would never treat a homosexual person any differently but she does believe that there is something psychologically wrong with them and on soaps with characters like sied and christian in eastenders she turns away. And if she ever hears of any of my gay friends with their new bf, shes "awh.. awh tell me no more, its just wrong" :confused::rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    (double post, oops)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 369 ✭✭sasser


    I think your right! I would definately vote to have it passed, but even if i look to my mothers generation (shes in her 50's) I'd be very doubtful if it would actually be passed. She would never treat a homosexual person any differently but she does believe that there is something psychologically wrong with them and on soaps with characters like sied and christian in eastenders she turns away. And if she ever hears of any of my gay friends with their new bf, shes "awh.. awh tell me no more, its just wrong" :confused::rolleyes:

    My parents are in their 70's, and both would vote to pass gay marriage in a heartbeat. No all the "older" generation have closed minds. I do think Ireland will have gay marriage, and I don't think it is as far off as some seem to think.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    ...it would have been better if they weren't born.

    Oh look, another dishonest homosexual rights activist. Sam Vimes will be on now shortly to help you out.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Plebs wrote: »
    And what gives you the assumption that all romantic relationships necessarily have a sexual component?

    It doesn't really matter if certain individuals in a marriage won't have sexual relations, but more often than not it will happen. The State has to factor in the possibility of what could happen in all cases to be an effective legislator.

    It's the same reason why family and marriage go together and must be considered together. Not all married people will have a family, but the possibility is open that they will. Indeed this is likely.
    Plebs wrote: »
    Oh look, another dishonest homosexual rights activist. Sam Vimes will be on now shortly to help you out.

    Please don't risk having the thread locked by the mods. We can and should have a calm and proper discussion on this!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,221 ✭✭✭Daith


    Plebs wrote: »
    Using innocent children as pawns in a war against the State over equality is below the belt. Two men prancing around with their buggy in a public demonstration of "how far we've come as a society" is very sad.

    Yeah gay men prance and will only want to have children to stick two fingers (or whatever they're used to *wink**wink*) at the State.

    I'd imagine the lesbians would be stomping around in their doc marterns?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Plebs wrote: »
    Evidently, you're not. You've got a lot of proving to do. An apology wouldn't go astray either. I notice quite a few people have put you on their ignore list already. Sure where there's smoke there's fire...
    As far as I know one person has me on his ignore list and that's a whole other matter entirely. I will apologise to you when you apologise for comparing gay people's love to incest and bestiality, calling it disgusting and suggesting that they should not be allowed raise children because it would harm them.

    In fact I don't think I will. What exactly do you think I should apologise for? Giving a list of some of the appalling acts carried out by Yahweh and his followers and some of the more outlandish christian beliefs? Do you dispute that each of the things that I listed are in the bible and a part of the christian faith?
    Plebs wrote: »
    Now you're being dishonest as well as nasty. I was making the point that if you're going to allow "marriage" between two homosexual persons, equality dictates that you should allow consenting brothers/sisters, first cousins, mothers/sons to marry. And, not surprisingly, quite a few of posters on this thread agree that this should be the case. But you've yet to answer my question. So, do you think that two brothers should be allowed to marry? It was the dictionary definition that someone quoted where sodomy included things such as homosexual acts and bestiality. I don't have a problem with dictionary definitions, do you? Could you please point out where I "compared" (please explain what you mean by this verb) homosexual behaviour between two humans with that of bestiality? Or maybe it's just more empty rhetoric on your part?
    No I don't have a problem with incestuous relationships as long as the possibility of producing children in precluded because of the increased risk of genetic defects. I would in fact be more in favour of homosexual incestuous relationships than heterosexual ones for this reason.

    Also, equality doesn't "dictate" that everyone should be allowed do whatever they want no matter who is harmed. Incestuous relationships present a high risk of genetically defective offspring. For this reason it should be restricted. Beastiality involves abusing an animal that is incapable of giving consent. For this reason it should be restricted. But "because I think what they do in their bedrooms is yucky" is not a reason to legally prevent people adopting children. This does not make them bad parents. And "because my old book of supernatural stories says it's an abomination right next to the bit where it condones slavery" is not a reason either, right up until the day that you prove the existence of the being described in said book

    Plebs wrote: »
    Marriage is not defined as a romantic relationship between two persons that may or may not last, depending on the promiscuity levels. True marriage is a life-long commitment between man and woman. The State may end up facilitating in some way the liberals, egalitarians, single parents, unmarried co-habiters, homosexuals and gay rights activists, but this synthesis of the family unit raises more problems than solutions. Therefore, the status quo should resist these elements in society both overtly and covertly so as to ensure that the next generation inherit a society that they have benefited so much from.

    you want to see what biblical marriage is do you?

    Marriage has been constantly redefined throughout the ages. What you call "true marriage" is actually the current understanding of marriage among some christian churches in some parts of the world. As recently as 1995 in this country the definition of marriage did not include the possibility of divorce but it does now.
    Plebs wrote: »
    For example -- and please answer me on this -- should an adoption agency be forced to accommodate a teenager with a homosexual couple, even though the child feels uncomfortable living in such an environment? Is this true "equality"? Or should the adoption agency reserve it's right to decide where is the most suitable environment to place a vulnerable teenager? Or, would you have the adoption agency forcibly shut down by a team of illiberal liberals? lol.

    If a teenager feels uncomfortable moving in with a particular family for any reason their views should be listened to


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    sasser wrote: »
    My parents are in their 70's, and both would vote to pass gay marriage in a heartbeat. No all the "older" generation have closed minds.
    Similarly, so would my grandparents on both sides of the family, all in their late 60s - early 70s. Unfortunately, they seem to be relatively unusual among their generation and a lot of older people tend to be very negative about anything relating to LGBT rights.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    Plebs wrote: »
    Oh look, another dishonest homosexual rights activist. Sam Vimes will be on now shortly to help you out.


    I'm sorry, I am not reading your spat with Vimes.

    I'm also sorry if I was unclear. its like this:

    People have children. Even gay people.

    It follows that there have been/are/will be children with gay families.

    you argued that this was the wrong thing for the gay parents to do. if they did not do it, the children in question would not have been born.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Plebs wrote: »
    People who are on a mission to re-engineer society against the grain, by force if necessary, will be opposed at every stage.

    This has quiet echoes of the 'auld "homosexual agenda" about it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,976 ✭✭✭Brendog


    Instead of being "Man and Wife" ...
    You'll be "Butt-Buddies"


    Instead of being "Married"...
    You'll be "Butt-Buddied"

    and

    Instead of being "The Bride and Groom"...
    You'll be "Butt-Buddies"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It doesn't really matter if certain individuals in a marriage won't have sexual relations, but more often than not it will happen. The State has to factor in the possibility of what could happen in all cases to be an effective legislator.

    It's the same reason why family and marriage go together and must be considered together. Not all married people will have a family, but the possibility is open that they will. Indeed this is likely.

    Most homosexual activists don't talk about children. I'm glad you have the honesty to do so, as it is a very sensitive moral issue. You can rest assured that any referendum on changing the constitution to facilitate "marriage" between two homosexual persons will not mention the care of children as to do so would be akin to shooting yourself in the foot. Re-engineering the family unit so as to facilitate a minority's flawed ideology is not something I would like to see would therefore vote against any such moves to allow co-habiting homosexuals to "marry".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    If a teenager feels uncomfortable moving in with a particular family for any reason their views should be listened to

    Surely that would be "discrimination"? lol.

    Also, did the anti-religious bigot have a nice sleep?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Plebs wrote: »
    Most homosexual activists don't talk about children. I'm glad you have the honesty to do so, as it is a very sensitive moral issue.

    I'm not a "homosexual activist". I oppose same-sex marriage. That said, if the people vote for same-sex marriage, I will accept the verdict of the people.
    Plebs wrote: »
    You can rest assured that any referendum on changing the constitution to facilitate "marriage" between two homosexual persons will not mention the care of children as to do so would be akin to shooting yourself in the foot. Re-engineering the family unit so as to facilitate a minority's flawed ideology is not something I would like to see would therefore vote against any such moves to allow co-habiting homosexuals to "marry".

    If the referendum does not. The campaign will bring up the subject.

    I agree with you on family structures, but your posts have gone much further than the subject of marriage or no marriage. You have gone into quite a lot of detail about LGBT sexual acts, which are really irrelevant to marriage. People can clearly have sex without being married. Are you also arguing for the re-criminalisation of such acts?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Plebs wrote: »
    Surely that would be "discrimination"? lol.

    Also, did the anti-religious bigot have a nice sleep?

    I think I might take Craebear's advice now.
    Craebear wrote: »
    Alright lets stop feeding the troll (I know I'm guilty but it's my first day posting thought I would treat myself)

    Perhaps when you have something to contribute other than silly attempts to brand listening to a child's view about where they want to live as discrimination and insults based on the fact that I listed some christian beliefs I might continue


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No I don't have a problem with incestuous relationships ...

    lol. You need to rationalise your logical absurdities.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Plebs wrote: »
    lol. You need to rationalise your logical absurdities.

    Right so


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 285 ✭✭Plebs


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Perhaps when you have something to contribute other than silly attempts to brand listening to a child's view about where they want to live as discrimination and insults based on the fact that I listed some christian beliefs I might continue

    You don't know what I believe in. You're trying to stereotype me so you can regurgitate your stock thoughts. Please don't stereotype me or try to tell me what I do or don't believe in.


Advertisement