Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

Not with ones partner though. Like I said, if myself and my wife were infertile, we would consider it an issue, and there would be no issue calling it an issue. We could utilise all the methods available to have a child, surrogacy, IVF etc etc, but it would never remove the fact that our infertility is an issue. A gay couple by definition are infertile as a couple, yet some, dare I say most, would call it hateful to observe such a fact as an issue.

Yet. Scientists closer to turning human skin cells into sperm cells. So a lesbian couple would be able to have a child and a gay couple would just need to implant the embryo in a surrogate.

SebBerkovich

SW wrote: »

Yet. Scientists closer to turning human skin cells into sperm cells. So a lesbian couple would be able to have a child and a gay couple would just need to implant the embryo in a surrogate.

God works in mysterious ways.

Cabaal

JimiTime, if you wouldn't mind responding to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90242241&postcount=5579

I feel its important to get your views on priests and nuns when it comes to their clear psychological and/or physiological issues,

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Not with ones partner though. Like I said, if myself and my wife were infertile, we would consider it an issue, and there would be no issue calling it an issue. We could utilise all the methods available to have a child, surrogacy, IVF etc etc, but it would never remove the fact that our infertility is an issue. A gay couple by definition are infertile as a couple, yet some, dare I say most, would call it hateful to observe such a fact as an issue.

This might just blow your mind Jimi, but our reproductive capabilities are not dependent on entering a contract of marriage or even being in a long term relationship or any relationship at all.

All it requires is sperm to fertilise egg and a suitable place for that fertilised egg to incubate. That is why rape victims can get pregnant without even knowing the name of the person who produced the sperm.
We do not reabsorb an embryo if the 'condition' that both sperm producer and egg producer are available and together is not met.

Our reproductive system cares not for such things - and since you believe your God made us - then that is the way your god made us (as it were).

Whether you like it or not people- gay and straight -have children without the benefit of clergy sanctifying anything or any form of contract of life partnership being entered into and have been doing so since the human race came into existence.

The 2011 census shows there were 1,179,210 families in the State on Census Night* - There were 344,944 couples without children of which 261,652 were married while 83,292 were cohabiting couples.

Over a quarter of a million married couples without children.

There were 88,918 separated and divorced men in 2011 and 115,046 women.

Men were far more likely to live in households without children. Over three quarters of separated and divorced men (77.9%) were living in households with no children, in contrast to 44.5 per cent of their female counterparts.

77% of divorced men and 44.5% of women do not live with their children. So much for the necessity of both biological parents being together - it would appear that a heterosexual marriage is not a guarantee that children will have both of their biological parents around to raise them.


The number of people who were re-married following divorce or annulment in April 2011 is 42,960 - if they have children what about the fact that those children would be raised by a couple who did not produce them together?


Total number of children 1,625,975

Overall, cohabiting couples with children had an average of 1.74 children, while the figure for married couples was 2.09 children.

261,652 married couples do not have children

The number of lone parent families stood at 215,315 in 2011 of which 186,284 were mothers and 29,031 were fathers. The majority, 124,765, had just one child.


http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011profile5/Profile%205%20Households%20and%20Families%20full%20doc%20sig%20amended.pdf


Sadly, they do not give the figures for children living with same sex couples.

However, it is clear that marriage does not equal children as the over a quarter of a million married couples without children demonstrates.

Nor does marriage guarantee that children will be raised by both their biological parents - 77% of divorced men and 44.5% of divorced women do not live with their children.

There are just under a quarter of a million families headed by a lone-parent - it would seem that in the real world a lot of people do not have a partner yet are capable of reproduction.


You live in a fantasy world Jimi that has no baring on reality. That is your right. However, you do not get to try and impose your fantasy on the rest of us and claim that is the way things should be because that is your belief.

*For census purposes, a family is defined as a couple with one
or more children, a couple without children or a lone parent
with one or more children.

pauldla

Bannasidhe, that was an excellent post, but I can't help but feeling it was wasted effort, to some extent.

Brian Shanahan

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Ah yeah, sure why not dodge the point and crack out the old polygamy line instead.

Actually there is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy, as long as rights of multiple partners are equal for both sexes (yes I know that polygamy has been historicaly a means of male dominance, but that's unequal rights), that doesn't equally apply to a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman or one man and one man or one woman and one woman.

old hippy

old hippy wrote: »

The same Jesus who hung around with a bunch of men, hmmm? You know, for someone who appears to be a Christian, you come across as extremely intolerant. Is this normal behaviour for your sect? Were you born that way or did you just chose bigotry?

Who's going to save you, Jimi?

Are you going to answer me, Jimi?

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

The biological testimony refers to the fact that one cannot reproduce with a member of the same sex. Ones desire to procreate can remain, but ones attractions rules out ever fulfilling this desire with your partner. There is nothing biologically relevant about the relationships you describe. Glad you found happiness in the end though.

It is biologically abnormal to have only one sexual partner. We are wired to 'spread our seed' as it were, as this provides a better chance of strong offspring. Marriage was an artificial invention designed to create strong family ties and alliances. Religion probably came into it as swearing an oath to a god is going to be a bigger deal than swearing an oath to your spouse's parent.
Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that occurs in most species. It could simply be a measure to prevent overpopulation, we don't know.

robindch

gaynorvader wrote: »

Marriage was an artificial invention designed to create strong family ties and alliances.

I think it's more likely that marriage evolved to cut down on male-on-male violence caused by access to females, or the lack of it -- tribal societies which don't have the concept of fixed, societally-respected marriages tend to be violent places and I seem to remember a figure of around 40% male murder rates from somewhere.

Brian Shanahan

gaynorvader wrote: »

It is biologically abnormal to have only one sexual partner. We are wired to 'spread our seed' as it were,

And according to his holy book, jimi's god doesn't care about men spreading their seed, as long as its not on the ground.

NuMarvel

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The number of lone parent families stood at 215,315 in 2011 of which 186,284 were mothers and 29,031 were fathers. The majority, 124,765, had just one child.

So what you're saying is there are 215,000 adults denying a child's natural right to a married mother and father? The number of gay couples raising children will pale in comparison to that!

And before anyone says it, yes I know, most of those single parents became single parents by circumstance, not by choice. But at some point, they chose to remain single instead of providing an opposite sex parent to their innocent, vulnerable children. That kind of selfishness should not be encouraged or rewarded!

Where's my shotgun, I've got me some singletons to marry!

aloyisious

NuMarvel wrote: »

So what you're saying is there are 215,000 adults denying a child's natural right to a married mother and father? The number of gay couples raising children will pale in comparison to that!

And before anyone says it, yes I know, most of those single parents became single parents by circumstance, not by choice. But at some point, they chose to remain single instead of providing an opposite sex parent to their innocent, vulnerable children. That kind of selfishness should not be encouraged or rewarded!

Where's my shotgun, I've got me some singletons to marry!

Oh my, a pastor who agrees with polygamy, or a polygamous pastor

ShooterSF

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, its got a whole lot to do with children and family. However, if we remove gender from marriage, then why is the number of people in the marriage important? Whats so special about it being about TWO people?

And if a larger number (than 2) wanted to get married and had at least one fertile male and female in it's numbers intent on producing offspring that would be ok with you? Marriage is all about the ability to have kids right?

robindch

The head of the CofI has said that gay people don't want to get married anyway:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/05/08/head-of-church-of-ireland-gay-people-dont-want-gay-marriage/

Pink News wrote:

The head of the Church of Ireland, the Archbishop of Armagh Richard Clark, has suggested that gay people don’t want to marry, and that civil partnerships are sufficient. Saying same-sex couples “don’t want gay marriage”, Clarke spoke to the Irish News in an interview published today in conjunction with the beginning of the Church of Ireland’s General Synod.

Giving an example of a gay couple he knows in England, Clarke attempted to suggest that most gay people do not want to be able to marry, and that civil partnerships are sufficient. “They have been together for 40 years and are in civil partnership but don’t like the nomenclature of marriage” he said.

“I can understand that. They would have said when I was with Linda, ‘You two are married, we are not married’ – they can understand the difference between equality and equivalence”.

lazygal

I have heterosexual friends who don't want to get married.



This has no connection to me getting and remaining married.

iwantmydinner

robindch wrote: »

The head of the CofI has said that gay people don't want to get married anyway:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/05/08/head-of-church-of-ireland-gay-people-dont-want-gay-marriage/

Well sure, case closed. That's me convinced!

Bellatori

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Well sure, case closed. That's me convinced!

Absolutely.... I wonder what his sample size was (nudge nudge... wink wink...):)

old hippy

robindch wrote: »

The head of the CofI has said that gay people don't want to get married anyway:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/05/08/head-of-church-of-ireland-gay-people-dont-want-gay-marriage/

Pff. He knows a same sex couple that aren't into the whole marriage thing & with that anecdote he applies it everyone else :rolleyes:

Why oh why do religious folks try and lecture us on our lives? If it's not lecturing or hectoring it's wanting to kill us. Just to make sure. Sigh.

SebBerkovich

In fairness - it's the Church of Ireland, they're probably just delighted someone is talking about them.

Bannasidhe

Apparently Channel 4 have bought the rights to a Danish TV concept where from a pool of 200 people 3 couples are matched using various criteria and then go on to marry a complete stranger.

The article refers to 'husband and wife' so this would imply it is heterosexual couples (although it is the Indo so...).

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/tv-radio/complete-strangers-to-wed-for-channel-4-married-at-first-sight-experiment-30259845.html

Sure - it's the gays who will devalue marriage :rolleyes:

Penn

Always relevant:

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

The head of the CofI has said that gay people don't want to get married anyway:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/05/08/head-of-church-of-ireland-gay-people-dont-want-gay-marriage/

Sure there were plenty of women who didn't want the right to vote and were against the whole idea of women voting,

I guess women shouldn't be able to vote if we apply the same logic :pac:

Brian Shanahan

Bellatori wrote: »

Absolutely.... I wonder what his sample size was (nudge nudge... wink wink...):)

I'm guessing he's using the same criteria selection and size as Andrew Wakefield did to "prove" the link between autism and the MMR vaccine.

On a lighter note I saw this in Limerick today:


The picture isn't perfect, taken on my not very good mobile, but the ariel bobble is in the colours of the original 8-stripe gay pride flag. It made me proud.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

The head of the CofI has said that gay people don't want to get married anyway:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/05/08/head-of-church-of-ireland-gay-people-dont-want-gay-marriage/

Of course, because if not 100% of people want it, no-one should have it. A rule to carry through life that.

MrPudding

Cabaal wrote: »

Sure there were plenty of women who didn't want the right to vote and were against the whole idea of women voting,

I guess women shouldn't be able to vote if we apply the same logic :pac:

I suspect he would be quite happy with the as well.

MrP

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This might just blow your mind Jimi, but our reproductive capabilities are not dependent on entering a contract of marriage or even being in a long term relationship or any relationship at all.

All it requires is sperm to fertilise egg and a suitable place for that fertilised egg to incubate. That is why rape victims can get pregnant without even knowing the name of the person who produced the sperm.
We do not reabsorb an embryo if the 'condition' that both sperm producer and egg producer are available and together is not met.

Our reproductive system cares not for such things - and since you believe your God made us - then that is the way your god made us (as it were).

Whether you like it or not people- gay and straight -have children without the benefit of clergy sanctifying anything or any form of contract of life partnership being entered into and have been doing so since the human race came into existence.

The 2011 census shows there were 1,179,210 families in the State on Census Night* - There were 344,944 couples without children of which 261,652 were married while 83,292 were cohabiting couples.

Over a quarter of a million married couples without children.

There were 88,918 separated and divorced men in 2011 and 115,046 women.

Men were far more likely to live in households without children. Over three quarters of separated and divorced men (77.9%) were living in households with no children, in contrast to 44.5 per cent of their female counterparts.

77% of divorced men and 44.5% of women do not live with their children. So much for the necessity of both biological parents being together - it would appear that a heterosexual marriage is not a guarantee that children will have both of their biological parents around to raise them.


The number of people who were re-married following divorce or annulment in April 2011 is 42,960 - if they have children what about the fact that those children would be raised by a couple who did not produce them together?


Total number of children 1,625,975

Overall, cohabiting couples with children had an average of 1.74 children, while the figure for married couples was 2.09 children.

261,652 married couples do not have children

The number of lone parent families stood at 215,315 in 2011 of which 186,284 were mothers and 29,031 were fathers. The majority, 124,765, had just one child.


http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011profile5/Profile%205%20Households%20and%20Families%20full%20doc%20sig%20amended.pdf


Sadly, they do not give the figures for children living with same sex couples.

However, it is clear that marriage does not equal children as the over a quarter of a million married couples without children demonstrates.

Nor does marriage guarantee that children will be raised by both their biological parents - 77% of divorced men and 44.5% of divorced women do not live with their children.

There are just under a quarter of a million families headed by a lone-parent - it would seem that in the real world a lot of people do not have a partner yet are capable of reproduction.


You live in a fantasy world Jimi that has no baring on reality. That is your right. However, you do not get to try and impose your fantasy on the rest of us and claim that is the way things should be because that is your belief.

*For census purposes, a family is defined as a couple with one
or more children, a couple without children or a lone parent
with one or more children.

There is no doubt, that our irresponsibility and selfishness, the vast vast majority being heterosexual and a very many indeed being Christians, have done more to undermine marriage through no fault divorce, infidelity etc. I would certainly not deny that. That is not an argument to undermine it further though, nor is it an argument to deny children either a mother or a father. Broken marriages etc are indeed an unfortunate part of life, as is children not having parents. Its not something to be encouraged though, is it?

Of course, you are being obtuse, I realise that. Pretending that my point is that you cannot reproduce if you are gay or whatever, but its up to you how you want to interact. A bit more respect would be good. You are amongst those who readily agree with you already, so simply putting your contentions across should suffice, without all the bumph that generally goes with your posts to me. Up to you of course.
Respectfully.
Jimi.

Obliq

JimiTime wrote: »

The biological testimony refers to the fact that one cannot reproduce with a member of the same sex. Ones desire to procreate can remain, but ones attractions rules out ever fulfilling this desire with your partner. There is nothing biologically relevant about the relationships you describe. Glad you found happiness in the end though.

JimiTime wrote: »

There is no doubt, that our irresponsibility and selfishness, the vast vast majority being heterosexual and a very many indeed being Christians, have done more to undermine marriage through no fault divorce, infidelity etc.

Would you make up your bleedin' mind Jimi?! You seem to be looking for "biological testimony", which is apparently only encountered in a successful heterosexual relationship that produces children, and that neither party backs away from.

You have said that there is nothing biologically relevant in my heterosexual relationships that produced children, and now you are talking about marriage as if that's relevant to your "biological testimony". Which is it? Marriage, producing children, is biological testimony, or having children, married or not, is biological testimony? If it is supposed to be the former, then your class of narrow mindedness has assiduously failed to achieve this throughout human history. Well done you.

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats just it though. Those desires for children etc are part of the sadness for me. That biological testimony, that they will never have the fulfillment of having a child with their partner. It speaks out against the notion that its all just perfectly normal. Like I said, if people want to be homosexual, then fine. However, there is so much bile and venom reserved for those who see that there is actually an issue. You alluded to the issue in that people will still desire children, but will have to look beyond their partners to fulfil it by definition. We would call that an issue in terms of an infertile hetero couple, yet it is demanded that being attracted to a coupling that is intrinsically infertile be considered a non issue and in fact hateful to say otherwise. Of course I'm aware of two men using a woman as a surrogate, or two women getting a man (or buying his 'produce') involved, so 'obsolete' may be wrong on a technical level, but I think it gets the point across.

Hmm, obsolete.. I suppose that obsolete, used as a term to describe something you apparently believe is not used often enough in the "norm-al" manner, is nicer than using a word like "un-natural".

I'd like you to be adult enough and accept that being Homosexual is as much a choice as is being Heterosexual, and stop peddling the line "if people want to be homosexual". Ask yourself how that stand's in comparison to the two lines you placed below it "That biological testimony, that they will never have the fulfillment of having a child with their partner".

That last seem's to indicate you accept that being homosexual is something of a lifelong nature, even if it flies in the face of what you claim is your belief. There's the implication that if they went against their homosexual "choice" and behave "normally" they could have their desire through a heterosexual partnership. I don't see how you can marry those two opposing trains of thought, as to follow the heterosexual one would be a lie, a dishonest act with effects on the heterosexual partner/spouse and any children born to them, should the homosexual person "revert" to his/her "homosexual" choice.

Bile and venom is something I think should be applied as a term to the speech and writings of those who attack their fellow humans who are homosexual. The term obsolete is probably more appropriate to the thought behind that type of act.

EDIT: another part of your writing - yet it is demanded that being attracted to a coupling that is intrinsically infertile be considered a non issue - (your likening of a heterosexual infertile couple to a same sex couple due to the procreation angle) is very much NOT A NON-ISSUE to some same sex couples, is important to both sides of the debate - Gays having YEA AND NAY sides. It's just being approached from two different angles, the equation of Marriage and Love VERSUS the equation of Marriage and Procreation. I can't decide if what you wrote (attracted to a coupling) refer's simply to the issue of procreation or if it also mean's you can't understand that same-sex couples, gay couples, can actually feel real love for each other, regardless of whether an act of sexual congress between them solely can end in procreation. You seem to have the equation of Marriage and Procreation as being the only way marriage can exist, be accepted or validated.

Absolam

JimiTime wrote: »

There is no doubt, that our irresponsibility and selfishness, the vast vast majority being heterosexual and a very many indeed being Christians, have done more to undermine marriage through no fault divorce, infidelity etc. I would certainly not deny that.

Would you deny that many people feel that marriage has not been undermined, but has instead undergone a renaissance in understanding and inclusivity transforming it into a desirable institution for people of different faiths, races, and sexual orientations alike? That, in fact, it is only a very narrow definition of marriage upheld by a minority which has been undermined, and even so, only in the opinion of that minority?

JimiTime wrote: »

That is not an argument to undermine it further though,

It probably is though. If undermining (according to your opinion, rather than fact) your version of marriage makes a more inclusive version available to more people, whilst leaving your version open to those who want it, why not?

JimiTime wrote: »

nor is it an argument to deny children either a mother or a father. Broken marriages etc are indeed an unfortunate part of life, as is children not having parents. Its not something to be encouraged though, is it?

No one else has suggested taking peoples parents away from them just because they get married. That would be barbaric. What would make you want to do such a thing?

aloyisious

@Absolom: It seem's to me that Jimi's start and end point on marriage is that it is totally related to the heterosexual "norm" marriage solely. There is no way that the concept of gay marriage, the wedding of same sex couples, would be entertained by Jimi. He sees gay marriage as further undermining the concept, and reality, of marriage being solely heterosexual and child-procreation in orientation.

It seem's his piece - Quote; That is not an argument to undermine it further though, nor is it an argument to deny children either a mother or a father. Broken marriages etc are indeed an unfortunate part of life, as is children not having parents. Its not something to be encouraged though, is it? - is based on allowing for adoption of children born to heterosexual couples after a marriage break-up (due to death or other cause) by homosexual couples is akin is equal to denying the children the furtherance of care by either of his/her heterosexual Mom or Dad. Unquote: - Ergo: adoption of children by gay couples further encourages the break-up of marriage.

The fact that the hetero family unit the child had being brought up in was no longer there, or was dysfunctional, counts for nothing in Jimi's view, when it comes to facing the prospect that an orphaned/damaged child would be placed for adoption with a gay couple outside Jimi's norms of marriage. The fact that the heterosexual parent/s of the child are no longer capable of providing a safe, loving nurturing family for the child count's for nothing when compared to the alternative of a safe and loving home being provided by a gay couple. It seem's self-evident that Jimi believes keeping the child in those damaged family settings is way better than with a gay couple.