The Marriage of Gays.

banquo

Two dads is better than none.

As they say.

Metallitroll

banquo wrote: »

Two dads is better than none.

As they say.

the potential to man up x2

i think not.

as it is my mam alone would put airs on your chest not impying she's incestuous or grisly, but they'd just wax it off

TylerIE

prinz wrote: »

Children raised by two parents of the same gender do show differences from those raised by parents of the opposite gender. Even more detail, children raised by a lesbian couple show marked differences from children raised by two homosexual men in terms of gender roles.

and your references???

Stu

Theres always a way if common sense prevails but unfortunately its usually the case that people with the most power to facilitate change don't have the common sense to see whats really important.

TylerIE

sandmanporto wrote: »

I went out with a girl who was unfortunately good friends with a lesbian. The lesbian said over me "I don't know how you could go with a man".
I won't say here what I felt like saying since it's too unpleasant.

That doesnt make sense... what was unpleasant?

Metallitroll

banquo wrote: »

Two dads is better than none.

As they say.

banqou would you not say two big bully butch lesbos would provide better representatives of father figures than their male equivalent, who would respectively be more like a pair of women

TylerIE

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe in forcing people to follow Christianity, or Christian ethics. Personally, I would rather see people come to a personal faith in Jesus Christ by trusting in Him. Faith doesn't come by coercion. This is infinitely more important than any interest in politics. Politics has to do with what is temporal, trusting in Christ determines what one will face for eternity. At the same time there are secular reasons for opposing same-sex marriage. Some have been mentioned already.

Personally, I would vote against same-sex marriage. I believe the State should promote heterosexual marriage above all structures of family because it is best that children are raised with both a mother and a father. People may argue that not all people who are married have children, this is a good point, but at the same time the Constitution does say that marriage is the basis of the family unit. If this is true, marriage and family have to be considered together rather than apart.

The state doesnt "promote" marriage. It registers it and throws a few benefits to those who are married.

This should be extended to all for the wellbeing of those who are not currently allowed marry those who they love, and for the knock-on societal benefits.

The constitution doesnt state that marriage is between a man and a woman.... and it places emphasis on the Household, in article 41 parts 1 and 2 and only mentions marriage in part 3 in the same part where it states that a woman shouldnt have to leave the house for economic reasons.

The Government gives me a vote to use. I have the right to use it in accordance with my conscience for what is best for society. I will use it accordingly. That seems to be the end of discussion.

Hopefully, and theres no need for it to, it will never come to a vote... Seeing as so many people are concerned about the economy and that it should be the focus, why waste money on an unnecessary referendum when a statute could just be enacted.

TylerIE

sollar wrote: »

Considering that it takes a man and a woman to produce a child doesn't a child have the right to expect a mother and a father.

I know i would much prefer to have a mother and a father and not 2 mothers or 2 fathers.

No disrespect but seriously are you just stupid?????

A significant percentage of children nowadays are as a result of one night stands / out of wedlock etc... As mentioned previously between 1/4 and 1/3 of children in primary schools now are from non-traditional family backgrounds.

And if gay people were allowed adopt as a couple they are adopting children who otherwise have NO parents - they would be in foster care or HSE care... And most children will end up just as happy as their friends raised in hetrosexual parent-ed households, and perhaps a small number - as in hetrosexual households will be unhappy.

And as for surrogacy etc - anybody who wants to can do that already, all marriage would mean is that the state would afford the child (who you are so concerned about) the protection of being safe with the person who they seen as their birth parents partner, and who they viewed as their parent, in the event something happens the birth parent....

TylerIE

sollar wrote: »

I think the idea of civil partnership is good. I don't like the idea of having a husband and a husband or a wife and a wife. If its not husband and wife in my eyes its not marriage. Call it something else.

Well luckily for you, you dont fall in love with people of the same sex... if you did then you probably would want a husband if your male....

and no "the gheys" dont expect to join their ranks and marry a man if SSM is allowed...

Does that ease your worries?

TylerIE

prinz wrote: »

Well done Sam. Completely undermined the political and democratic system of the State. A referendum would be needed to amend the Constitution. So you admit then that I never prejudged the outcome of any referendum on the issue?

By the by a civil partnership is also an expression of love, there are a lot of civil partners out there who I imagine wouldn't be too happy with you dismissing their status.

Great news for ya - a referendum isnt even needed! The constitution doesnt need to be an amended.

In the States, A civil partnership is taken to be merely a legal document, and is treated much like a will in that its just one of the legalities of life. This was highlighted in the Proposition 8 Perry v Schwarzenegger trial. The Proposition 8 (banning gay marriage) amendment to the California constitution failed, because nothing else was the same as marriage in giving same sex couples the same benefits and protections as their hetro counterparts.

sandmanporto

lst wrote: »

That doesnt make sense... what was unpleasant?

You read it and its clear. My exs friend said to my ex in front of me 'how could you like boys'! I was offended. Can you justify this question logically? You or i wouldnt be here if opposite sexes didnt mate!!

TylerIE

sandmanporto wrote: »

You read it and its clear. My exs friend said to my ex in front of me 'how could you like boys'! I was offended. Can you justify this question logically? You or i wouldnt be here if opposite sexes didnt mate!!

And I would be offended if you asked me how could I like boys?

Whats that got to do with the current argument, debate discussion about whether or no same sex marriage should be allowed?

sandmanporto

lst wrote: »

And I would be offended if you asked me how could I like boys?

Whats that got to do with the current argument, debate discussion about whether or no same sex marriage should be allowed?

what im saying is its very innapropriate for my lesbian acquaintance whom i mentioned previously to refer to my ex 'how could you like a man'. We don't need Robbie the robot to compute that!

pragmatic1

sandmanporto wrote: »

You read it and its clear. My exs friend said to my ex in front of me 'how could you like boys'! I was offended. Can you justify this question logically? You or i wouldnt be here if opposite sexes didnt mate!!

Maybe you're a bit sensitive.

Micky Dolenz

Closed for review. May be reopened.

And Please report posts, thanks.