Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

NuMarvel

Sappa wrote: »

Some societies recognise homosexuals very early,in south east Asia I have seem cases where families accept their child is gay or wants to be a ladyboy at 5yrs old.
I witnessed one family who lived next door,who embraced this and their attitude was up to him.
Europe has come a hell of a long way from the days where a lobotomy was performed on a gay person,this was widespread even up to the early 80's leading to serious complications.
Gay people have to accept they are different in their sexual orientation and cannot demand the same as heterosexuals.
Let's face it,a married couple with children are under a lot more financial pressure on average to a working gay couple.
The hetero couple are doing society a service by creating life and future taxpayers who will inevitably pay for the gay couples pension.
Hence the married hetero couple deserve better conditions for making these sacrifices that a gay couple can never do.
Ireland has loads of rights afforded to homosexuals,they have their own bars,clubs,parades and are for the most part are left in peace here.
Some societies are more liberal than others ours is not as liberal as some but more than others.
Politicians who are in favour of it are point scoring and the general population is not up for it no matter what any poll says which are massively inaccurate .

Just curious. What do your "queer" friends think of your points of view? Are they in agreement that they are 2nd class citizens, though equal taxpayers, because of their sexuality?

Because right now, you're the equivalent of the bus driver telling Rosa Parks to stand at the back of the bus, and she's damned lucky she's allowed on the bus in the first place.

rock chic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How dare you say such a thing about the clergy!

i take it your being sarcastic

Sappa

Zillah wrote: »

Sappa wrote: »

Politicians who are in favour of it are point scoring and the general population is not up for it no matter what any poll says which are massively inaccurate .

There is this weird middle zone with some people whose brains seem so dysfunctional that I can't decide if they're incredibly stupid or actually insane. I'm trying to come up with a compound word for it, like mixing "idiocy" and "insanity" or something like that - it's hard though. It needs to convey that almost zen-like dissonance I feel when a person blithely sails from non sequitor to non sequitor in a cunning imitation of human thinking.

What I'm trying to say is that the thoughts in your brain don't work properly and you'll never understand why.

Your entitled to your opinions but since you I have not attacked any poster here you seem to need to attack my intelligence without an idea of the reality that is my situation just because my views differ to yours.
Not that I need to justify my educational or intellectual achievements but I hold an undergrad as well as 2 post graduate qualifications,shame on you for feeling the need to stoop this low.

Gbear

Sappa wrote: »

Majority rules

Really? Great. Better tell that to some of the southern states in the US so they can get those blackies back to work on the plantations.

Or is that just utter bollocks that ignores the notion of constitutional democracy?

Sappa wrote: »

Europe has come a hell of a long way from the days where a lobotomy was performed on a gay person,this was widespread even up to the early 80's leading to serious complications.
Ireland has loads of rights afforded to homosexuals,they have their own bars,clubs,parades and are for the most part are left in peace here.

Those bloody gays! They should be happy we don't beat them up (much) anymore. What is with them and their fag agendas? Constantly moaning that they don't deserve to be treated as sub-human. I mean come on!

Sappa wrote: »

The hetero couple are doing society a service by creating life and future taxpayers who will inevitably pay for the gay couples pension.

The point of social welfare is that you put money in with the expectation of getting it back when you're down on your luck or retired.
That we have to keep churning out babies to keep it funded, like a giant pyramid scheme, is a fault with the system, not a reason to bash people for not making babies.

Sappa wrote: »

Hence the married hetero couple deserve better conditions for making these sacrifices that a gay couple can never do.

Because as it is, we just dump unwanted children in the bin?

Are you suggesting that it's better to have children in state care rather than in loving homes? Even if all the evidence suggests that two gay parents lead to no more problems than straight ones?

Sappa wrote: »

Gay people have to accept they are different in their sexual orientation and cannot demand the same as heterosexuals.

Why? Jesus tap-dancing christ why? Because they're "icky", which is pretty much the long and short of the reasons that always seem to be given, is not enough!

Sappa

Zillah wrote: »

Sappa wrote: »

Politicians who are in favour of it are point scoring and the general population is not up for it no matter what any poll says which are massively inaccurate .

There is this weird middle zone with some people whose brains seem so dysfunctional that I can't decide if they're incredibly stupid or actually insane. I'm trying to come up with a compound word for it, like mixing "idiocy" and "insanity" or something like that - it's hard though. It needs to convey that almost zen-like dissonance I feel when a person blithely sails from non sequitor to non sequitor in a cunning imitation of human thinking.

What I'm trying to say is that the thoughts in your brain don't work properly and you'll never understand why.

Your entitled to your opinions but since I have not attacked any poster here you seem to need to attack my intelligence without an idea of the reality that is my situation just because my views differ to yours.
Not that I need to justify my educational or intellectual achievements but I hold an undergrad as well as 2 post graduate qualifications,shame on you for feeling the need to stoop this low.

Bannasidhe

rock chic wrote: »

i take it your being sarcastic

absolutely.

NuMarvel

Sappa wrote: »

Majority rules

Personally, I don't believe that human and civil rights should go to a referendum unless absolutely necessary.

There was never a referendum when the Equal Status Acts were passed. Or when same-sex sexual activity was decriminalised. Or when women were allowed to stay in the civil service after marriage. And that's even though the Constitution strongly implies a married woman's place is in the home.

Similarly, because the extension of civil marriage rights to same sex couples doesn't impinge on anyone else's freedoms in any way, and the Constitution doesn't have a clear ban on it, I don't see why it needs to go to the people in the first place.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can't even afford a dildo as the grand kids are bleeding me dry so even if I was inclined to try and persuade herself that sodomy was compulsory for all homosexualists and in the highly unlikely event that she didn't slap me upside the head for even suggesting bum sex I couldn't afford the equipment to enable us to have a go and see what the fuss is all about.

Have Hasbro not released a suitable Transformer yet?? You'd think with all those Optimus Primes and Megatrons and Ultra Magnuses, they'd have released something you could try

Dades

Sappa, forgetting the fact that number seem to be against you, your must know that this "majority rules" argument is utterly bereft of any merit?

Just like your anecdotal evidence concerning situations you've come across (5 yr old ladyboys? Really?) has no relevance to the laws of a modern society.

jill_valentine

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can't even afford a dildo as the grand kids are bleeding me dry so even if I was inclined to try and persuade herself that sodomy was compulsory for all homosexualists and in the highly unlikely event that she didn't slap me upside the head for even suggesting bum sex I couldn't afford the equipment to enable us to have a go and see what the fuss is all about.

I'd hold off on that for a while anyway, I think we're still waiting on a ruling from Actor on whether or not lesbians exist.

Sappa

Dades wrote: »

Sappa, forgetting the fact that number seem to be against you, your must know that this "majority rules" argument is utterly bereft of any merit?

Just like your anecdotal evidence concerning situations you've come across (5 yr old ladyboys? Really?) has no relevance to the laws of a modern society.

Rules ate made for the majority right?
I was giving am example of a highly liberal society to homosexuality directly as a result of their Buddhist faith but we won't go into that here.

Nodin

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'd hold off on that for a while anyway, I think we're still waiting on a ruling from Actor on whether or not lesbians exist.

...he does seem a bit fixated on the male, its true.

Bannasidhe

Sappa wrote: »

Your entitled to your opinions but since you I have not attacked any poster here you seem to need to attack my intelligence without an idea of the reality that is my situation just because my views differ to yours.
Not that I need to justify my educational or intellectual achievements but I hold an undergrad as well as 2 post graduate qualifications,shame on you for feeling the need to stoop this low.

You have stated that I am not entitled to the same legal rights as either my sister or brother simply because I am Gay and they are straight. I take that as an attack.

Bannasidhe

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'd hold off on that for a while anyway, I think we're still waiting on a ruling from Actor on whether or not lesbians exist.

No way am I going to be able to explain to herself that we don't exist :eek:

Nodin

Sappa wrote: »

Rules ate made for the majority right?
..........

Rules are made for society and, in theory, to protect minorities within that society from the "tyranny of the majority".

oldrnwisr

Sappa wrote: »

Rules ate made for the majority right?

In a word, no.

What you are talking about is an ochlocracy, mob rule. We live in a democracy.

The problem with your argument, as Dades has already explained is that an appeal to the majority or an argumentum ad populum has no merit. Something doesn't become true because lots of people believe in it. For example, back in 1897 the state legislature of Indiana tried to pass a bill which would have officially declared pi to be 3, in keeping with biblical principles. Had they succeeded they would have given legal recognition to something which is demonstrably false, just as you are attempting to do by arguing for denying equal rights to gay couples.

Finally, although the urge to use the Picard facepalm for your last post was strong, I think a quote from him might be more useful:

"With the first link the chain is forged, the first thought forbidden, the first speech censured, the first freedom denied chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged by it."

jill_valentine

Nodin wrote: »

...he does seem a bit fixated on the male, its true.

He fixates on sodomy in particular, so until we get a bit more clarification on the issue I think gay chaps will just have to make do with frottage, oral, mutual masturbation and anilingus.

You know, for society's sake.

jill_valentine

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No way am I going to be able to explain to herself that we don't exist :eek:

Further complicated if you don't exist either.

NuMarvel

jill_valentine wrote: »

He fixates on sodomy in particular, so until we get a bit more clarification on the issue I think gay chaps will just have to make do with frottage, oral, mutual masturbation and anilingus.

You know, for society's sake.

As long as it's not for too long, I'm okay with that. And nipple play. And neck and ear nibbling. And.... Actually never mind, I'm just gonna go have a cold shower.

fitz0

jill_valentine wrote: »

He fixates on sodomy in particular, so until we get a bit more clarification on the issue I think gay chaps will just have to make do with frottage, oral, mutual masturbation and anilingus.

You know, for society's sake.

Technically oral is sodomy as well, so none of that ya hear?

Bannasidhe

jill_valentine wrote: »

Further complicated if you don't exist either.

ARRRRRGGGGHHHH I'm having an existentialist crises now. Do I exist? Does my OH exist? Do we have Gay sex? Is it Gay sex if it's not bum sex?

I'm sooooo confused.

PopePalpatine

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm willing to wager he'll ignore that and return a bit later nd say "Sodomy is wrong."
Why are hardcore Catholics obsessed with sodomy?

Because they're trying to block out the numerous occasions where paedophile priests have done it to children?

jill_valentine

Bannasidhe wrote: »

ARRRRRGGGGHHHH I'm having an existentialist crises now. Do I exist? Does my OH exist? Do we have Gay sex? Is it Gay sex if it's not bum sex?

I'm sooooo confused.

/frantically consults bible

Sarky

If neither of you exist, any sodomy you engage in doesn't exist either, so go forth and, er, whatever.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

If neither of you exist, any sodomy you engage in doesn't exist either, so go forth and, er, whatever.

Have Hot Lesbian Sex*




*by 'sex' I mean Tea, but at least it's hot.

robindch

Actor wrote: »

You're easily offended by people saying "bad things" on the internet.

I'm not offended. In my position as moderator, I'm simply doing what's necessary to maintain the high standard of debate that's a feature of this forum, but conspicuous by its absence from your input to it.

Galvasean

Bannasidhe wrote: »

*by 'sex' I mean Tea, but at least it's hot.

I will see you in the elevator

Sierra 117

Mmm... hot lesbian tea...

Turtwig

Sappa wrote: »

Your entitled to your opinions but since you I have not attacked any poster here you seem to need to attack my intelligence without an idea of the reality that is my situation just because my views differ to yours.
Not that I need to justify my educational or intellectual achievements but I hold an undergrad as well as 2 post graduate qualifications,shame on you for feeling the need to stoop this low.

It doesn't matter how many Nobel prizes you've won, if what you say is wrong, then it's wrong. Your reasoning throughout this thread has been fallacious and no amount of achievements in academia or otherwise are ever going to offset that.

Zillah

MagicMarker wrote: »

Reaaaallly?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0915/1224278900109.html



http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-ireland-introduce-same-sex-marriage-446094-May2012/


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elections/opinion-polls/more-than-six-in-10-now-want-samesex-marriage-legalised-2554026.html



http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/poll-73-of-public-back-allowing-same-sex-marriage-in-constitution-184849.html



It's seems the numbers of bigoted, homophobic numptys are dwindling.

Ehhhhh...he already addressed this, silly: The polls are wrong.

Sure, he's heard it from both the lads down the pub and the mother-in-law; no one in the country is going to vote for gay marriage.

Sarky

Nobody wants you to list your qualifications Sappa, they're irrelevant.

We just want you to acknowledge that without anything to back them up, your opinions so far on gay marriage are stupid, and I'd you have no evidence otherwise then you should consider changing them.