David Quinn and Gay Marriage

Morbert

I have started a new thread as I do not want to derail the other David Quinn thread

antiskeptic wrote: »

The childs right in question is a child being raised by it's two biological parents. A homosexual familial unit cannot do this by design.

A child's rights extend far beyond "biological parents". They have a right to a stable, loving, supportive family. It is not true that any heterosexual familial unit is better than any homosexual familial unit at preserving these rights. This obvious fact is ignored by Quinn's argument. Also, you have said it is by design. That obviously isn't true at all. It is not the intention of a homosexual familial unit to not preserve a child's rights.

By formerly recognising homosexual familial units, the State opens the way for systematic adoption by gay couples, one of whom is the biological parent of the offspring being adopted by the other partner. If you think that you can enable marriage but draw a line at adoption (where one of the partners in the homosexual unit is the biological parent) then you are, I think, engaging in sophistry.

Ironically, your subtle switching of "adoption" to "adoption (where one of the partners in the homosexual unit is the biological parent)" is a classic example of sophistry. A couple, regardless of their relation to the child, should not be allowed to adopt if they are unfit. If Quinn wants to argue that gay couples are not fit to adopt, then he should do so. Saying gay marriage should be illegal because it opens the way for adoption is as useless as saying premarital sex should be illegal because it opens the way for single mothers.

In your first paragraph, you mentioned the right of a child to be raised by its biological parents. I find this right to be inconsequential compared to the right to a stable, supportive, encouraging household, but I should point out that by speaking out against adoption by biological parents with a same-sex partner, you are arguing against your earlier point.

Consider that the State-element of marriage confers rights and protections on a couple in the context of a unexpressed expectation that the male/female family unit will provide the State with the replacement population it needs. That some people won't be able to have children, that others will choose not to have children at all, doesn't alter the macro-intent behind the States support. So, the question isn't the intent of the couple getting married. It is the intent of the State in their providing the benefits that accrue to a married couple.

The above is not an argument against gay marriage, as they would be included in the group of married people who are unable to have kids. Why, in your opinion, do sterile couples get married? And why, in your opinion, does the state allow sterile couples to be married? I wholly reject any speculation about "unexpressed expectations". It is preferable to the state if its member are productive contributors to the well-being of society. Stable unions (i.e. Marriages) help achieve this.

antiskeptic

Starting at the end

Morbert wrote: »

The above is not an argument against gay marriage, as they would be included in the group of married people who are unable to have kids.

I utilised the term macro-intent in my post for a reason. The State is in the business of setting policies aimed at achieving global aims - not getting itself bogged down in hopeless detail. Yes they could interview people to find out of they intended to have kids before granting the benefits and protections that come with marriage. Yes, they could subject every couple to a sterility test to ensure they had it in them. Instead, what they do is bank on the fact that the vast majority of people will get married at child-bearing age and that the vast majority of them will want to have kids. It will be accepted that this one size fits all won't be absolutely equitable but in terms of bang per buck, it is efficient

Objections to homosexual marriage

Given this intent, it makes absolutely no sense to extend the benefits accruing to a married couple to folk who, sight unseen, are known not to be capable of fulfilling this intent. Not capable that is, without the sacrificing of the right of a child to be raised by it's parents.

In granting the right to marry to homosexual relationships the State would be encouraging and promoting a practice whereby children will be denied the right to be raised by their parents. There is nothing stopping unmarried homosexual partnerships from producing and raising children anymore than there is something stopping single mothers producing and raising children. It isn't the States task to act as a contraceptive. It is the States job to promote what it see's as the ideal state of affairs and to discourage that which it see's as less than ideal.

Why, in your opinion, do sterile couples get married? And why, in your opinion, does the state allow sterile couples to be married? I wholly reject any speculation about "unexpressed expectations". It is preferable to the state if its member are productive contributors to the well-being of society. Stable unions (i.e. Marriages) help achieve this.

1) For the reason given above (the State doesn't micro-manage)

2) The State doesn't have to worry about an undesirable state of affairs wrt a childs right to be raised by it's bio/parents

I would agree btw that marriage adds stability to a union (and presumably this carries into homosexual unions too) and that this is desirable for society. The issue here however is the child and it's rights.

A child's rights extend far beyond "biological parents". They have a right to a stable, loving, supportive family. It is not true that any heterosexual familial unit is better than any homosexual familial unit at preserving these rights. This obvious fact is ignored by Quinn's argument. Also, you have said it is by design. That obviously isn't true at all. It is not the intention of a homosexual familial unit to not preserve a child's rights.

I'm not claiming that any heterosexual f/u is better than any homosexual f/u as preserving these rights. I don't think David Quinn is either (perhaps given that everybody would grab for the data that best supports their case.)

'By design' doesn't imply intent. It implies 'by the very nature of those marriages', a childs right to be raised by it's biological parents is waived.

If a person isn't prepared to consider the rights of the child they like to produce then I would question their fitness to be parents - whether their not considering the rights of a child arises from their being homosexual or from them being addicted to drugs etc. For the State to give overt support to this state of affairs is wrong imo.

Ironically, your subtle switching of "adoption" to "adoption (where one of the partners in the homosexual unit is the biological parent)" is a classic example of sophistry. A couple, regardless of their relation to the child, should not be allowed to adopt if they are unfit. If Quinn wants to argue that gay couples are not fit to adopt, then he should do so.

I don't think that's the argument. The argument centres on the right of a child to be raised by it's biological parents. My underlining this is for clarity only

Saying gay marriage should be illegal because it opens the way for adoption is as useless as saying premarital sex should be illegal because it opens the way for single mothers.

I don't agree. This is about what the State should be encouraging and supporting.

In your first paragraph, you mentioned the right of a child to be raised by its biological parents. I find this right to be inconsequential compared to the right to a stable, supportive, encouraging household,
but I should point out that by speaking out against adoption by biological parents with a same-sex partner, you are arguing against your earlier point.

I'm not sure what you mean by my speaking out against adoption by biological parents with a same sex-partner. A biological parent doesn't have to adopt. The partner does.

You might find a childs right in this regard inconsequential compared to...

Clearly if the child is there and one parent isn't .. then it is best that the child be raised in a stable loving environment than otherwise. But in asking that the State encourage this second state of affairs, you are also asking that it encourage the first state of affairs (which it does by giving it's imprimateur to gay marriage).

Asry

antiskeptic wrote: »

If a person isn't prepared to consider the rights of the child they like to produce then I would question their fitness to be parents - whether their not considering the rights of a child arises from their being homosexual or from them being addicted to drugs etc. For the State to give overt support to this state of affairs is wrong imo.

Why would LGBT people be unprepared to accept children's rights? Just because they can't concieve in the biological fashion doesn't mean they don't care about the rights of children? And by extension doesn't mean that they would be unfit parents?

antiskeptic

Asry wrote: »

Why would LGBT people be unprepared to accept children's rights? Just because they can't concieve in the biological fashion doesn't mean they don't care about the rights of children? And by extension doesn't mean that they would be unfit parents?

The right being considerd is the right of a child to be raised by it's biological parents. In choosing to have children, the person in a homosexual relationship (LGBT doesn't necessarily imply this) must in someway render inconsequential, this right.

It's a somewhat abstract notion but in considering whether to have children a person must consider their fitness as a parent. If they decide themselves unfit for whatever reason and forgo having a child then they are honouring the rights of the child they haven't had.

It's jumps the gun to say that it is better for a child to be raised in a loving family unit (whether homosexual or not) than otherwise. This question centres on an earlier issue being addressed: the childs needs over the parents desire to have children.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

I utilised the term macro-intent in my post for a reason. The State is in the business of setting policies aimed at achieving global aims - not getting itself bogged down in hopeless detail. Yes they could interview people to find out of they intended to have kids before granting the benefits and protections that come with marriage. Yes, they could subject every couple to a sterility test to ensure they had it in them. Instead, what they do is bank on the fact that the vast majority of people will get married at child-bearing age and that the vast majority of them will want to have kids. It will be accepted that this one size fits all won't be absolutely equitable but in terms of bang per buck, it is efficient

Given this intent, it makes absolutely no sense to extend the benefits accruing to a married couple to folk who, sight unseen, are known not to be capable of fulfilling this intent. Not capable that is, without the sacrificing of the right of a child to be raised by it's parents.

In granting the right to marry to homosexual relationships the State would be encouraging and promoting a practice whereby children will be denied the right to be raised by their parents. There is nothing stopping unmarried homosexual partnerships from producing and raising children anymore than there is something stopping single mothers producing and raising children. It isn't the States task to act as a contraceptive. It is the States job to promote what it see's as the ideal state of affairs and to discourage that which it see's as less than ideal.

If by parents, you mean biological parents, I must again stress that the rights of a child are not preserved simply because their parents are biological. A child has the right to be raised by loving, supportive, encouraging, stable parents. We have unfortunately seen that the criteria of "biological parents" does not preserve these rights.

Marriage is not a utilitarian government strategy to meet this dubious criteria. It is instead an encouragement of stable, committed unions. What the state sees as the ideal state of affairs is what the people see as an ideal state of affairs. Hence, the state allows sterile couples to marry, but not due to fear of being bogged down in hopeless detail. It allows sterile couples to marry because it recognises the commitment and unity as positive things. Things people want to encourage.

There are genuine questions about homosexual vs heterosexual couples when it comes to children. But a stable, working, homosexual couple that contributes to the state is a far better environment to encourage than a single mother living on state benefits. And the idea that homosexual couples deny children their rights is on with no support.

1) For the reason given above (the State doesn't micro-manage)

My first question was "Why do sterile couples get married?" I.e. Why do they choose to get married?

'By design' doesn't imply intent. It implies 'by the very nature of those marriages', a childs right to be raised by it's biological parents is waived.

It does imply intent.

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/by_design.htm

If a person isn't prepared to consider the rights of the child they like to produce then I would question their fitness to be parents - whether their not considering the rights of a child arises from their being homosexual or from them being addicted to drugs etc. For the State to give overt support to this state of affairs is wrong imo.

And this implies homosexual couples are not willing to consider the rights of the child. I reject "biological parents" as a right that is in any way meaningful. It is an abstract notion, and unimportant compared to the right to loving, supportive parents.

Asry

Morbert wrote: »

And this implies homosexual couples are not willing to consider the rights of the child. I reject "biological parents" as a right that is in any way meaningful. It is an abstract notion, and unimportant compared to the right to loving, supportive parents.

In fairness, I'd agree here.

wonderfulname

Morbert wrote: »

There are genuine questions about homosexual vs heterosexual couples when it comes to children...

Figured I'd butt in here, those questions aren't really as genuine as people like to make them out to be, we can confidently say with a weight of scientific backing that there is simply no difference between the quality of parenting of gay or straight couples; http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf

NuMarvel

antiskeptic wrote: »

The right being considerd is the right of a child to be raised by it's biological parents.

How does a child go about exercising that right? If the parents put a child up for adoption/fostering, then presumably the child has a legal recourse to cancel that adoption/fostering, under their right to be raised by their biological parents. What act of the Oireachtas should the child invoke in order to assert their right?

To extend that line of thinking even further, presumably it's mandatory for both parents to be involved in the raising of the child. So therefore, even if divorced or separated, both parents will HAVE to live in the locality of the child in order to fulfil their obligations. I'm sure that's the case in most circumstances anyway, but the child's rights now mean that one of those parents CAN'T move to another part of the country, or even emigrate. I wonder if that's a common feature of divorce and separation arrangements.

And to extend that line of thinking even further again, single parent families will be a thing of the past because both parents will HAVE to be involved in the raising of the child.

So for the sake of the children who aren't currently being raised by their biological parents, how does such a child go about remedying this?

yutta

I'm totally against this notion of gays getting their hands on children.

wonderfulname

Do you have any reason for this or have you just decided to randomly insult some minorities this fine morning?

NuMarvel

yutta wrote: »

I'm totally against this notion of gays getting their hands on children.

Ignoring the horrifically prejudicial tone of your post, that horse has well and truly bolted. It's not a notion, it's a fact: there are families out there with same-sex parents. Gay parents already "have their hands on" children.

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

The right being considerd is the right of a child to be raised by it's biological parents.

So what happens if your god has decided that it is time for the parent to join him in heaven? How does that effect the childs right to be raised by its biological parents?

Can you point to where this right to be raised by your biological parents springs from and also how you would enforece that right against your god?

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

So what happens if your god has decided that it is time for the parent to join him in heaven? How does that effect the childs right to be raised by its biological parents?

If you want to talk about the primacy of rights - God's over those of his creations - then start a new thread.

Fanny Cradock

yutta wrote: »

I'm totally against this notion of gays getting their hands on children.

If you do decide to expand on this, please read the charter first.

a-ha

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

yutta wrote: »

I'm totally against this notion of gays getting their hands on children.

Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights”.

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association.

Some of these bodies have submitted amicus briefs in support of same sex marriage in which they concluded that the children of same sex couples would benefit if their parents were allowed to marry.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf


The children of same sex parents are no more likely to be gay than the children of opposite sex parents.

http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage of Same-Sex Couples Position Statement - October 2006 (1).pdf

Monty.

I refuse to condone your sin. Satan loves sodomy. The great "sodomy is normal and natural and a basis for parenting" propaganda myth continues. Listen to yourselves and your pseudo intellectual excuses, sophistry, pride and lust. Dress it up anyway you want to. Modern day Sodom and Gomorrah ; those fooled by clever Satan will reap what he sows for them.

wonderfulname

Grand monty, believe whatever bull suits you, can we get on with achieving equal rights in this life so, as it's up to god to judge and not man?

a-ha

Monty. wrote: »

I refuse you condone your sin. Satan loves sodomy. The great "sodomy is normal and natural and a basis for parenting" propaganda myth continues. Listen to yourselves and your pseudo intellectual excuses, sophistry, pride and lust. Dress it up anyway you want to. Modern day Sodom and Gomorrah ; those fooled by clever Satan will reap what he sows for them.

I would have just asked how you know he exists but your recent post is altogether TMI. How did you become so well acquainted?

smokingman

One for Monty...turns out the animal world is full of wholesome same sex relationships who also raise their young. So birds "sin" eh?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14479670

Zombrex

Monty. wrote: »

I refuse you condone your sin. Satan loves sodomy. The great "sodomy is normal and natural and a basis for parenting" propaganda myth continues. Listen to yourselves and your pseudo intellectual excuses, sophistry, pride and lust. Dress it up anyway you want to. Modern day Sodom and Gomorrah ; those fooled by clever Satan will reap what he sows for them.

You shouldn't let your own personal distaste for homosexual relations cloud your judgement.

It is perfectly natural for a heterosexual to find the idea of a homosexual relationship distasteful. That is just nature directing your attentions.

But it would be wrong to assume because find it distasteful all others should as well. For example I'm a heterosexual man, I have no desire for sexual relations with a man. Does that men what women do is inherently disgusting, having sex with men? No, of course not. I recognize that a woman has a different sexual attraction to me, I don't condemn them because I find the idea of having sex with a man distasteful.

People need to separate their own feelings on the matter from the wider issue of the action. Just because you are confused by the concept of homosexual doesn't mean there is something inherently harmful about it.

philologos

wonderfulname wrote: »

Grand monty, believe whatever bull suits you, can we get on with achieving equal rights in this life so, as it's up to god to judge and not man?

Although I agree Monty has come on very strong there is one valid point in what he is saying. It is important to note that there is a difference between tolerating something and applauding / endorsing it. The word tolerance is abused to suggest that people should applaud what others do rather than simply tolerate it.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

Although I agree Monty has come on very strong there is one valid point in what he is saying. It is important to note that there is a difference between tolerating something and applauding / endorsing it. The word tolerance is abused to suggest that people should applaud what others do rather than simply tolerate it.

I applaud and tolerate homosexual marriage.

Penn

philologos wrote: »

Although I agree Monty has come on very strong there is one valid point in what he is saying. It is important to note that there is a difference between tolerating something and applauding / endorsing it. The word tolerance is abused to suggest that people should applaud what others do rather than simply tolerate it.

I disagree. Wanting same-sex marriage has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with equality, and their rights to be treated equally to others, regardless of their sexual orientation. If people don't applaud/endorse it due to their religious beliefs, that's fine with me, and they are entitled to feel that way. But to actually oppose it is discrimination and unfair. Your religion is your own. These people should be free to live their life in whatever manner they choose in accordance with the law.

Take religion out of the equation and what you have are two people who wish to get married but are not allowed because they are of the same sex. Why not? Again, discounting religion, there is no reason why they should not be allowed to get married.

So what we have is people who can't get married because a religion they may not even follow is stopping it.

gimmebroadband

Barrington wrote: »

I disagree. Wanting same-sex marriage has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with equality, and their rights to be treated equally to others, regardless of their sexual orientation. If people don't applaud/endorse it due to their religious beliefs, that's fine with me, and they are entitled to feel that way. But to actually oppose it is discrimination and unfair. Your religion is your own. These people should be free to live their life in whatever manner they choose in accordance with the law.

Take religion out of the equation and what you have are two people who wish to get married but are not allowed because they are of the same sex. Why not? Again, discounting religion, there is no reason why they should not be allowed to get married.

So what we have is people who can't get married because a religion they may not even follow is stopping it.

It's UN-NATURAL, that's why!

CerebralCortex

gimmebroadband wrote: »

It's UN-NATURAL, that's why!

Ah hullo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14479670

Turtwig

gimmebroadband wrote: »

It's UN-NATURAL, that's why!

So is using the internet.

NuMarvel

gimmebroadband wrote: »

It's UN-NATURAL, that's why!

Didn't the link in smokingman's post above (#19) show that it is natural, i.e. it occurs in nature?

So if same-sex couplings are natural, then why shouldn't same-sex couples have access to the same legal rights as hetersexual couples?

The full text of the news article:

Homosexual zebra finches form long-term bond By Victoria Gill
Science reporter, BBC Nature

Same-sex pairs of monogamous birds are just as attached and faithful to each other as those paired with a member of the opposite sex.

The insight comes from a study of zebra finches - highly vocal, colourful birds that sing to their mates, a performance thought to strengthen the pair's bond.

Scientists found that same-sex pairs of finches sang to and preened each other just like heterosexual pairs.

The study is reported in the journal Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology.

Male king penguins have been seen to "flirt" with other males in the colony Lead researcher Julie Elie from the University of California Berkeley said that the research showed that "relationships in animals can be more complicated than just a male and a female who meet and reproduce, even in birds".

Dr Elie and her colleagues are interested in zebra finches' behaviour. The birds establish life-long relationships and are highly social; males sing to their mates, the birds preen each other and pairs share a nest.

"I'm interested in how animals establish relationships and how [they] use acoustic communication in their social interactions," Dr Elie told BBC Nature.

"My observations of [them] led me to this surprising result: same-sex individuals would also interact in affiliative manners, like male-female pairs."

Dr Elie decided to look more closely at the formation of these bonds and the behaviour of finches in same-sex pairs.

First, she and her colleagues, Clementine Vignal and Nicolas Mathevon from the University of Saint-Etienne, raised young finches in same-sex groups. More than half of the birds paired up with another bird of the same sex.

The team then closely monitored the birds for signs that they had bonded fully.

Bonded birds, Dr Elie explained, perch side by side, nestled together. They also greet each other by "nuzzling" beaks.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
Female partners copulate with a paired male then rear the young together”
End Quote
Dr Julie Elie

UC Berkeley

Monogamous animals videos, news and facts: BBC Nature
In the next stage of their study, the scientists brought novel females to a group of bonded male-male pairs. Out of eight males that were engaged in same-sex pair-bonds, five ignored the females completely and continued to interact with their male partner.

The findings indicate that, even in birds, the drive to find a mate is far more complicated than simply the need to reproduce.

"A pair-bond in socially monogamous species represents a cooperative partnership that may give advantages for survival," said Dr Elie. "Finding a social partner, whatever its sex, could be a priority."

There are many other examples of same-sex pairing in the avian world.

In monogamous gulls and albatrosses, it gives females the chance to breed without a male partner.

"Female partners copulate with a paired male then rear the young together," Dr Elie explained.

In captivity, there have been at least two cases of male penguins forming long-term bonds when there are females available.

Perhaps the most famous of these was two male chinstrap penguins in Manhattan's Central Park Zoo, named Roy and Silo. They bonded and paid no attention to females in their enclosure for at least a year.

They even built a nest together and incubated and hatched a fertilised egg donated to them by one of the keepers.

smokingman

gimmebroadband wrote: »

It's UN-NATURAL, that's why!

So is faith

philologos

Funny enough Barrington, I agree that no religion should dominate political discussion. I also don't believe that laws should be drafted purely on the notion of one particular belief system favouring something over something else. My current position would be that if the people decided via referendum to legalise same-sex marriage I would give deference to democracy even if I happen to disagree with it myself.

However, there can be discussions over whether or not the State should give due preference to the traditional family of mother, father and child over alternative arrangements. I think that discussion is valid and necessary in and of itself. It is in that regard that antiskeptic originally argued as far as I can see.

oldrnwisr

gimmebroadband wrote: »

It's UN-NATURAL, that's why!

Uh, No.

In case you missed it,

smokingman wrote: »

One for Monty...turns out the animal world is full of wholesome same sex relationships who also raise their young. So birds "sin" eh?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14479670

Not to mention this, this, this, this etc. etc.

So do you have anything useful to contribute?

Penn

philologos wrote: »

Funny enough Barrington, I agree that no religion should dominate political discussion. I also don't believe that laws should be drafted purely on the notion of one particular belief system favouring something over something else. My current position would be that if the people decided via referendum to legalise same-sex marriage I would give deference to democracy even if I happen to disagree with it myself.

However, there can be discussions over whether or not the State should give due preference to the traditional family of mother, father and child over alternative arrangements. I think that discussion is valid and necessary in and of itself. It is in that regard that antiskeptic originally argued as far as I can see.

Well, one step at a time, eh. Once you bring children into it, I agree, that becomes another discussion. We're probably on opposite sides of the fence on that discussion too, but that is another discussion. But as for the simple act of one person marrying another, there is no valid reason why it should not be allowed in the case of both those people being of the same gender.

philologos

Barrington: I have no issue with people wanting to formalise whatever relationship they want along the lines of civil partnership. Marriage at least in Irish law is regarded as the foundation of the family. That's why family inevitably is a key part of the discussion.

a-ha

philologos wrote: »

Barrington: I have no issue with people wanting to formalise whatever relationship they want along the lines of civil partnership. Marriage at least in Irish law is regarded as the foundation of the family. That's why family inevitably is a key part of the discussion.

Why exclude gay people? Where do you think we come from if not families, Mars? Don't you realize that lots of gay people have children.

oldrnwisr

philologos wrote: »

Marriage at least in Irish law is regarded as the foundation of the family. That's why family inevitably is a key part of the discussion.

Yes, but the people who drafted the constitution chose not to define either marriage or the family:

41.
1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

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

Now, while it is true that case law in this country has interpreted marriage and the family to have a given meaning, this meaning has been informed by catholic culture and history. The supreme court, however, despite the principle of stare decisis has the authority to overturn any precedent if it finds that the social and legal circumstances have changed, especially where constitutional matters are concerned. I think that the social change in Ireland over the last half century and particularly since 1988 provide adequate basis for overturning current precedent.

So, it must be said that an argument based on the family is only valid in a discussion of homosexual marriage within an Irish legal context and even then is tenuous at best.

gimmebroadband

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Uh, No.

In case you missed it,



Not to mention this, this, this, this etc. etc.

So do you have anything useful to contribute?

God created MAN in His image not ANIMALS!!!

smokingman

gimmebroadband wrote: »

God created MAN in His image not ANIMALS!!!

So you're not one for evolution then?

oldrnwisr

oldrnwisr wrote: »

So do you have anything useful to contribute?

gimmebroadband wrote: »

God created MAN in His image not ANIMALS!!!

So, that'll be a no then.

philologos

a-ha wrote: »

Why exclude gay people? Where do you think we come from if not families, Mars? Don't you realize that lots of gay people have children.

How did you come to the conclusion that I said anything about origins?

oldrnwisr: We are constitutionally bound to man and woman only as a result of the Zappone & Gilligan case of 2006.

You're right that it isn't directly defined as a mother and a father, but the current situation in terms of the judiciary is that we'll more than likely have to have a referendum.

In the context of what I posted to Barrington, I have no issue in respect to people formalising relationships they have with each other as long as they aren't polygamous.

oldrnwisr

philologos wrote: »

oldrnwisr: We are constitutionally bound to man and woman only as a result of the Zappone & Gilligan case of 2006.

You're right that it isn't directly defined as a mother and a father, but the current situation in terms of the judiciary is that we'll more than likely have to have a referendum.

I would say that we are legally, rather than constitutionally bound as a result of the Zappone case, since the judgement could be overturned in the Supreme Court but I know what you mean.

I agree that we will probably end up with a referendum rather than a change of staff, although with the growing list of problems that need fixing in the constitution I think that a consitutional convention might not be a bad idea.

philologos

When the case hits the Supreme Court, then the interpretation of the judiciary is binding on the Constitution. This appeal is pending. If the judiciary find a problem with the Constitution they will still refer it to the Government for referendum.

Penn

This is all really semantics. Legal definitions of words are one thing, what they mean to people are another. A marriage may be defined as a formal union between a man and woman recognised by law or some such, but it's more than that to the people involved. And same-sex couples should be entitled to have that too.

Same with a family. A family may be legally defined as father, mother, 2.4 children etc, but that isn't always what it means.

NuMarvel

gimmebroadband wrote: »

God created MAN in His image not ANIMALS!!!

How does that support your previous assertion that same-sex marriage is "UN-NATURAL"?

Zombrex

gimmebroadband wrote: »

God created MAN in His image not ANIMALS!!!

God doesn't have sex so one would imagine this refers to a desire for a loving relationship, not the physicality of sexual intercourse.

Monty.

Wholesome life long male friendship/companionship is fine, sodomy etc. is not. All but a very few dysfunctional confused animals know which hole to stick it into. You cannot blame a small minority of confused animals for a dysfunctional urge, yet you wish to use this confused dysfunctional urge as an excuse why humans should not resist such dysfunctional urges. Just because someone has the urge to do something does not mean they have the right to act on it, nor claim it is natural, nor claim they have the "right" to build marriage and parenthood around it with Satan inspired clever sophistry in order to normalise their lust of sodomy and make it acceptable as it was in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Fool us into condoning your acts of sodomy and the building of marriage and parenthood around it ? Never
What's the next agenda, normalising the “right” to having “loving” sex with minors ? Hah.
Go back to your sophistry and spin now so . . .

Dave!

The lady doth protest too much, methinks...

Monty.

Ah yes, more sophistry. Satan is the master of it as well. If all else fails, try to fall back on the old tricks, and try ad hominem. Dare complain about sodomy = you must surely love sodomy ! I'm sure anyone that complains about Fianna Fail must be a closet Fianna Failer as well, I bet the FF'ers wish they thought of that one. I guess anti-Christians must really be closet Christians as well.

oldrnwisr

Monty. wrote: »

Wholesome life long male friendship/companionship is fine, sodomy etc. is not.

It'd be great if you could answer why not, particularly if you can do it without reference to your holy book.

Monty. wrote: »

All but a very few dysfunctional confused animals know which hole to stick it into. You cannot blame a small minority of confused animals for a dysfunctional urge, yet you wish to use this confused dysfunctional urge as an excuse why humans should not resist such dysfunctional urges.

First off, this isn't a few confused animals. Homosexual behaviour has been recorded in over 1500 species and well-studied in over 500 species. Bruce Bagemihl presents a review of the literature on homosexual behaviour in animals in his book Biological Exuberance. This of course has already pointed out to you.

Monty. wrote: »

nor claim it is natural

If 1500+ species of animal which practice homosexual behaviour is not natural then I'd love to know what your definition of natural because it's obviously one that I wasn't previously aware of and certainly not this one.

Monty. wrote: »

nor claim they have the "right" to build marriage and parenthood around it with Satan inspired clever sophistry in order to normalise their lust of sodomy and make it acceptable as it was in Sodom and Gomorrah.

I think that this entire argument would be best served by sticking to facts and not fantasy. So unless you can demonstrate that a being called Satan actually exists or that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah actually happened can we stick to real points.

So, like I said to gimmebroadband, do you actually have something useful to contribute to this debate?

Zombrex

Monty. wrote: »

Wholesome life long male friendship/companionship is fine, sodomy etc. is not. All but a very few dysfunctional confused animals know which hole to stick it into.

Does that include anal sex between married heterosexual couples?

Is it the actual act that you object to, or homosexual relationships?

Monty. wrote: »

You cannot blame a small minority of confused animals for a dysfunctional urge, yet you wish to use this confused dysfunctional urge as an excuse why humans should not resist such dysfunctional urges.

Again, humans or homosexual humans?

Monty. wrote: »

Just because someone has the urge to do something does not mean they have the right to act on it, nor claim it is natural, nor claim they have the "right" to build marriage and parenthood around it with Satan inspired clever sophistry in order to normalise their lust of sodomy and make it acceptable as it was in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Why, what happens if sodomy becomes acceptable?

The Bible says it doesn't approve. It doesn't say why. The Bible disproves of a lot of things that have no bearing on social order. The world doesn't collapse because people are not all Christian or follow Christian notions of correct sexual behaviour.

Monty. wrote: »

Go back to your sophistry and spin now so . . .

The only one trying to spin anything is you. You have been presented with evidence and all you keep saying is Satan wants you to have homosexual relations.

Again this seems to be more your issue with the act than anything to do with evidence or how the rest of society should feel about it.

NuMarvel

Monty. wrote: »

What's the next agenda, normalising the “right” to having “loving” sex with minors ? Hah.

That's not really a stone you should be throwing in this particular glasshouse, don't you agree?

Besides which, the old "homosexuality = paedophilia" argument is beyond old at this stage, and even you should know the difference between the two.

Zombrex

Monty. wrote: »

Ah yes, more sophistry. Satan is the master of it as well. If all else fails, try to fall back on the old tricks, and try ad hominem. Dare complain about sodomy = you must surely love sodomy ! I'm sure anyone that complains about Fianna Fail must be a closet Fianna Failer as well, I bet the FF'ers wish they thought of that one. I guess anti-Christians must really be closet Christians as well.

There is complaining about homosexuality and then there is hysterically invoking Satan at the mere mention of it.

There are other Christians on this forum how manage to object to homosexuality in some what of a less flaming manner

Fanny Cradock

NuMarvel wrote: »

Besides which, the old "homosexuality = paedophilia" argument is beyond old at this stage, and even you should know the difference between the two.

Indeed. Let's not go there, folks.