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

APART FROM RELIGIOUS BELIEFS what are the arguments against gay marriage?

  • 27-05-2013 3:09pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,217 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    Please don't let this descend into a religion-bashing thread. I'm agnostic but I have no problem with people's beliefs so long as they do not affect others. Each to their own.

    I'm just wondering, are there any rational, articulate arguments against gay marriage that would make you think "Hmm, that's worth thinking about"?

    I'm all for gay marriage. I don't think a church should, by state law, be forced into accepting it. I think that's for each church to work on internally and, obviously, I believe that state laws should not be based on religious beliefs. But that's another argument.

    I just have not heard any arguments that did not revolve around the whole "Against the bible/reducing the sanctity of marriage" arguments. I mean, NOT ONE!!!


«134567

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,412 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Apart from religion, I suppose it'd have to be....

    .... You know? I don't think there is one!

    Fancy that...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    I've never heard a valid anti-gay marriage argument tbh, it all either descends into using the bible, comparing same sex couples to paedophiles or sleeping with animals or family members. Maybe the reason nobody can come up with a rational argument against it because there isn't one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,737 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    I've heard "It's not natural". Then you point out all the animal species that engage in homosexual behaviour. "I don't care, it's just not natural", but they refuse to say in what way it's not natural. I suspect that it actually means 'I think it's icky, therefore no-one should be allowed to do it'.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 635 ✭✭✭SEANoftheDEAD


    Grand so. Thats that thread finished.

    Next


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,412 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Grand so. Thats that thread finished.

    Next

    Give it time. Holy joe will be along soon to add the funny.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,602 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Grand so. Thats that thread finished.

    Next

    But we haven't had a chance to bash religion yet!


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,768 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    It would be up to the proponents of the change to make the argument why they would allow the State to undo the historical societal definition of marriage between a man and women, why the State would then persecute individuals who did not agree with this new definition (as is happening in the UK) which given the power of State could effectively make them unemployable and what exactly is the stopping point for this new arrangements, if same sex couples can get married what is the rational limits to who can.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    The main secular reasons I've heard is that the word marriage defines marriage between a man and woman and so can't apply to gay couple which is a ridiculous reason.

    The other being that the benefits given to married couples are given because the union provides children which will become contributors to society in future. This argument makes a bit more sense but given not all straight couples can or will have children it shouldn't matter.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    All the people I've spoken to, who are against same sex marriage, say that the children concept is the biggest stumbling block. Adoption etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    I'm so supportive of gay marriage I think only gays should be allowed to marry.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I'm so supportive of gay marriage I think only gays should be allowed to marry.

    Zombie post


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,602 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Manach wrote: »
    It would be up to the proponents of the change to make the argument why they would allow the State to undo the historical societal definition of marriage between a man and women, why the State would then persecute individuals who did not agree with this new definition (as is happening in the UK) which given the power of State could effectively make them unemployable and what exactly is the stopping point for this new arrangements, if same sex couples can get married what is the rational limits to who can.

    So if we allow gay marriage, people will lose their jobs and others will begin marrying inanimate objects and animals?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,754 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    1) Gays will want to adopt
    (and turn their kid into a gay - ewww!)

    2) Marraige is a special thing between a man and a woman accourding to the Consitution
    (it isn't)

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    o1s1n wrote: »
    So if we allow gay marriage, people will lose their jobs and others will begin marrying inanimate objects and animals?

    Yes, we'll all turn gay, and mankind will be doomed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,412 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Manach wrote: »
    It would be up to the proponents of the change to make the argument why they would allow the State to undo the historical societal definition of marriage between a man and women, why the State would then persecute individuals who did not agree with this new definition (as is happening in the UK) which given the power of State could effectively make them unemployable and what exactly is the stopping point for this new arrangements, if same sex couples can get married what is the rational limits to who can.

    In the same way as it was up to abolitionist to convince the state regarding the wrongness of slavery? The state took convincing, but hindsight has proven the abolitionists right, without a shadow of doubt.

    I'd say we're nearly there, and rightly so. Future generations will look back and wonder what al the fuss was about.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,754 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Manach wrote: »
    It would be up to the proponents of the change to make the argument why they would allow the State to undo the historical societal definition of marriage between a man and women, why the State would then persecute individuals who did not agree with this new definition (as is happening in the UK) which given the power of State could effectively make them unemployable and what exactly is the stopping point for this new arrangements, if same sex couples can get married what is the rational limits to who can.

    This has been done countless times. Successfully, too, in other jurisdictions.

    Also, saying something like "what are the limits?" is ridiculous. Either there are genuine threats that should be listed by the presenter of the argument, or there are not, in which case he's just scaremongering.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,087 ✭✭✭Duiske


    When you take religious arguments/bigotry out of the equation, not that they were particularly rational or articulate arguments to begin with, there's simply nothing left to argue about. And thats as it should be.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,412 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Manach wrote: »
    if same sex couples can get married what is the rational limits to who can.

    I'd say, men could marry women, women could marry men, men could marry men, and women could marry women.

    That'd be it.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Lucas Whining Garter


    "I think it's icky so I'll pretend it's about saving the kids despite studies showing kids with gay parents do super"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Manach wrote: »
    It would be up to the proponents of the change to make the argument why they would allow the State to undo the historical societal definition of marriage between a man and women, why the State would then persecute individuals who did not agree with this new definition (as is happening in the UK) which given the power of State could effectively make them unemployable and what exactly is the stopping point for this new arrangements, if same sex couples can get married what is the rational limits to who can.

    That would only truly apply if the reasons for outlawing homosexuality had a rational basis.

    In those circumstances it would be the case that once upon a time we made a rational decision to outlaw homosexual marriage but for whatever reason, that no longer applies.

    That isn't what happened. The underpinning of all anti-homosexual laws is religious or otherwise irrational. It hasn't become any less rational over time, it's just that most people have become more rational and realise that the law was based on nonsense to begin with.

    That something has occurred for a long period of time (heterosexual-only marriage) is not a reason to persist with it. It's merely an incidental fact. "That's how it's always been", isn't a compelling argument.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,992 ✭✭✭DavyD_83


    I was thinking about this the other day. I have nothing against gays getting married.
    I was more wondering about the fact that gay married couples would also want to be entitled to tax benefits that other married couples get.

    I have nothing against this in theory, but it got me wondering why are married couples entitled to any of this anyway?

    Surely all the tax benefits that exist for married couples, are essentially designed to allow them to support a family and continue to create and raise further tax payers (aka children)

    In this case, should all current 'marriage benefits' only come into play when the couple has children.
    I would assume they should also be entitled to the same if they adopt or otherwise acquire (that word looks wrong) children.
    I don't see any real social benefit to households where only one individual works unless there are children to take care of, so why should the state subsidise them or make allowances for them .

    Anyway, short version of my rambling; shouldn't all 'marital benifits' only be available for those raising children (whether gay, straight or into donkeys)?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 635 ✭✭✭SEANoftheDEAD


    krudler wrote: »
    Yes, we'll all turn gay, and mankind will be doomed.

    It might actually be of benefit... slow down the worlds populations growth...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    RangeR wrote: »
    All the people I've spoken to, who are against same sex marriage, say that the children concept is the biggest stumbling block. Adoption etc.

    While that could be a secular reason, it's no more based on rationality than Leviticus-based arguments.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,412 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    It might actually be of benefit... slow down the worlds populations growth...

    My gay cousin and her wife have a daughter.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,754 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    DavyD_83 wrote: »
    I was thinking about this the other day. I have nothing against gays getting married.
    I was more wondering about the fact that gay married couples would also want to be entitled to tax benefits that other married couples get.

    I have nothing against this in theory, but it got me wondering why are married couples entitled to any of this anyway?

    In a marraige contract (usually) most assest will be in both names. It's not really fair to tax someone for taking ownership of soemthing they already own.

    it might also be a case of the decased party having been the sole earner: if the stay-at-home partner inherits an asset, like a house, but no cash, why should they be forced to sell it off just to pay the taxman?
    Surely all the tax benefits that exist for married couples, are essentially designed to allow them to support a family and continue to create and raise further tax payers (aka children)

    Anyway, short version of my rambling; shouldn't all 'marital benifits' only be available for those raising children (whether gay, straight or into donkeys)?

    I disagree with your premise in the first chapter - why can two people not just declare their love for each other and not want to bring kids into the world? They might not like kids, they might know they'd be bad parents and just make a responsible addition.

    Marraige is not solely about having kids.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    endacl wrote: »
    My gay cousin and her wife have a daughter.

    This gay has a son and two grandchildren. :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    This gay has a son and two grandchildren. :D

    You better not make them gay too! *shakes fist*


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,412 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    This gay has a son and two grandchildren. :D

    By having children you're skewing the stats! Cease and desist. What's next?!? Voting? Driving licences? Where will it end?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,737 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Manach wrote: »
    It would be up to the proponents of the change to make the argument why they would allow the State to undo the historical societal definition of marriage between a man and women, why the State would then persecute individuals who did not agree with this new definition (as is happening in the UK) which given the power of State could effectively make them unemployable and what exactly is the stopping point for this new arrangements, if same sex couples can get married what is the rational limits to who can.
    What is this? I don't even?

    To be able to get married you must be; of legal age to consent, giving informed consent and entering freely into the union. Dogs, cats, horses, children, tables, cars, and the Berlin Wall are either not of legal age, or are unable to give consent. Therefore we don't have to worry about adults marrying anyone except other adults. Happy now?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,087 ✭✭✭Duiske


    It might actually be of benefit... slow down the worlds populations growth...

    Or think of the business potential. I just checked and spermbank.ie is available for a mere €24.95 per annum. :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    kylith wrote: »
    What is this? I don't even?

    To be able to get married you must be; of legal age to consent, giving informed consent and entering freely into the union. Dogs, cats, horses, children, tables, cars, and the Berlin Wall are either not of legal age, or are unable to give consent. Therefore we don't have to worry about adults marrying anyone except other adults. Happy now?

    Told ya, the same old arguments, if men can marry men then men can marry sheep and playstations and tractors, where will it end?!?!?!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,754 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    kylith wrote: »
    What is this? I don't even?

    To be able to get married you must be; of legal age to consent, giving informed consent and entering freely into the union. Dogs, cats, horses, children, tables, cars, and the Berlin Wall are either not of legal age, or are unable to give consent. Therefore we don't have to worry about adults marrying anyone except other adults. Happy now?

    He may have a point...

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,412 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    kylith wrote: »
    What is this? I don't even?

    To be able to get married you must be; of legal age to consent, giving informed consent and entering freely into the union. Dogs, cats, horses, children, tables, cars, and the Berlin Wall are either not of legal age, or are unable to give consent. Therefore we don't have to worry about adults marrying anyone except other adults. Happy now?

    I'm pretty sure the Berlin Wall is old enough. The bits that are left anyway. New thread anybody? Could be the new 'biscuits' or 'ice cream'!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,992 ✭✭✭DavyD_83


    In a marraige contract (usually) most assest will be in both names. It's not really fair to tax someone for taking ownership of soemthing they already own.



    I disagree with your premise in the first chapter - why can two people not just declare their love for each other and not want to bring kids into the world? They might not like kids, they might know they'd be bad parents and just make a responsible addition.

    Marraige is not solely about having kids.

    I wasn't saying married people should be forced to have kids. well, i didn't mean to.
    and when I referred to taxes, i more meant income tax, and the fact that married couples are allowed to share tax free allowances. Presumably this is a product of the theory that wifey would stay at home with the kids and hubby would be out earning for both of them.
    I understand the (theoretical) benefit to society in this model, however providing similar benefits to just allow one member of the couple stay at home and mind the house does not seem to have the same reasoning for me.
    I'm not saying this is a correct way of thinking about things, but I do think it was the basic thought process behind this setup back when it was designed.

    Sry, off topic i think.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    From a secular point of view marriage is a state institution used to promote the traditional family unit (one male and one female parent, plus x number of kids).

    It, in theory, recognises the importance of children to society, and in particular it recognises the importance of children being raised as well as possible. It makes the assumption that the traditional family unit is the best environment for raising children. And, it therefore encourages this unit through benefits like tax reliefs and other protections.

    There are studies which back up the claim that the traditional family unit is the best environment for children. These form the basis for a secular argument gay marriage, in short people believe that the state should only endorse and promote the best possible environment for children to be raised.

    As far as I'm aware though*, most or all of these studies are disputed in one way or another, and there are other studies which show that same-sex parents do as good a job. Either way, there doesn't appear to be any real scientific consensus, which is why the strongest objection comes from religious beliefs.



    *tbh I've never looked at this in any real detail, this is just what I've picked up from newspaper/magazine articles.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    kylith wrote: »
    What is this? I don't even?

    To be able to get married you must be; of legal age to consent, giving informed consent and entering freely into the union. Dogs, cats, horses, children, tables, cars, and the Berlin Wall are either not of legal age, or are unable to give consent. Therefore we don't have to worry about adults marrying anyone except other adults. Happy now?

    That argument always struck as desperately looking for something to shakily place your argument on because just saying it's icky wouldn't fly.

    It's just so bloody lazy. If you think about it for more than about 4 seconds you come to the conclusion you've outlined.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,737 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    That's what reminded me of it. I bet you it wasn't recognised by the government though.
    endacl wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure the Berlin Wall is old enough. The bits that are left anyway. New thread anybody? Could be the new 'biscuits' or 'ice cream'!

    Ah, but the Berlin wall can't sign a marriage licence, can it? It can't even draw an X on the page.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,754 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    DavyD_83 wrote: »
    I wasn't saying married people should be forced to have kids. well, i didn't mean to.
    and when I referred to taxes, i more meant income tax, and the fact that married couples are allowed to share tax free allowances. Presumably this is a product of the theory that wifey would stay at home with the kids and hubby would be out earning for both of them.
    I understand the (theoretical) benefit to society in this model, however providing similar benefits to just allow one member of the couple stay at home and mind the house does not seem to have the same reasoning for me.
    I'm not saying this is a correct way of thinking about things, but I do think it was the basic thought process behind this setup back when it was designed.

    Sry, off topic i think.

    Ah, ok - I was thinking inheritance tax and the like.

    In case, as I said, the marraige contract usually sees a married couple as just that - one couple - and that refers to legal status, taxes, assets and everything.

    I don;t see why this should be any different when you have kids. Couples need security too,

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    DavyD_83 wrote: »
    I was thinking about this the other day. I have nothing against gays getting married.
    I was more wondering about the fact that gay married couples would also want to be entitled to tax benefits that other married couples get.

    I have nothing against this in theory, but it got me wondering why are married couples entitled to any of this anyway?

    Surely all the tax benefits that exist for married couples, are essentially designed to allow them to support a family and continue to create and raise further tax payers (aka children)

    In this case, should all current 'marriage benefits' only come into play when the couple has children.
    I would assume they should also be entitled to the same if they adopt or otherwise acquire (that word looks wrong) children.
    I don't see any real social benefit to households where only one individual works unless there are children to take care of, so why should the state subsidise them or make allowances for them .

    Anyway, short version of my rambling; shouldn't all 'marital benifits' only be available for those raising children (whether gay, straight or into donkeys)?

    Aquire children lol
    free-candy-van.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    WTF is going on here, guys. You lot are having a rational argument about a rational subject. Where the hell has the smart comments gone. ?THIS IS AFTER HOURS!!!!

    This is where I come to get my ****s and giggles!!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,412 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    kylith wrote: »
    That's what reminded me of it


    Ah, but the Berlin wall can't sign a marriage licence, can it? It can't even draw an X on the page.

    Ok. You got me there. There were too many people talking sense. I thought the debate needed just a pinch of devil's advocacy.

    :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    stevenmu wrote: »
    From a secular point of view marriage is a state institution used to promote the traditional family unit (one male and one female parent, plus x number of kids).

    It, in theory, recognises the importance of children to society, and in particular it recognises the importance of children being raised as well as possible. It makes the assumption that the traditional family unit is the best environment for raising children. And, it therefore encourages this unit through benefits like tax reliefs and other protections.

    There are studies which back up the claim that the traditional family unit is the best environment for children. These form the basis for a secular argument gay marriage, in short people believe that the state should only endorse and promote the best possible environment for children to be raised.

    As far as I'm aware though*, most or all of these studies are disputed in one way or another, and there are other studies which show that same-sex parents do as good a job. Either way, there doesn't appear to be any real scientific consensus, which is why the strongest objection comes from religious beliefs.



    *tbh I've never looked at this in any real detail, this is just what I've picked up from newspaper/magazine articles.

    I guarantee you for every study showing the "right" family is mum and dad and blah amount of kids there's one showing that having one male or female parent, or two gay ones or no parents, or adoptive ones, or an only child or dozen siblings people can still turn out fine.

    Now we'll just wait for the "they'll be bullied in school!" argument.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,412 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    RangeR wrote: »
    WTF is going on here, guys. You lot are having a rational argument about a rational subject. Where the hell has the smart comments gone. ?THIS IS AFTER HOURS!!!!

    This is where I come to get my ****s and giggles!!!!!

    Hold tight. Give people time to get logged on. 6 o'clock mass is just finishing up around now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    stevenmu wrote: »
    From a secular point of view marriage is a state institution used to promote the traditional family unit (one male and one female parent, plus x number of kids).

    It, in theory, recognises the importance of children to society, and in particular it recognises the importance of children being raised as well as possible. It makes the assumption that the traditional family unit is the best environment for raising children. And, it therefore encourages this unit through benefits like tax reliefs and other protections.

    There are studies which back up the claim that the traditional family unit is the best environment for children. These form the basis for a secular argument gay marriage, in short people believe that the state should only endorse and promote the best possible environment for children to be raised.

    As far as I'm aware though*, most or all of these studies are disputed in one way or another, and there are other studies which show that same-sex parents do as good a job. Either way, there doesn't appear to be any real scientific consensus, which is why the strongest objection comes from religious beliefs.



    *tbh I've never looked at this in any real detail, this is just what I've picked up from newspaper/magazine articles.

    The secular basis of marriage is that of it being to do with chattel, it has nothing to do with family and everything to do with ownership and inheritance. The idea of marriage being for the benefit of a family is about as old as marriage being a commitment of love between two people and each has as much validity when taken in regards to the whole history of marriage.

    I recently read an extremely good article on gay marriage. It confirms gay marriage opponents beliefs that allowing same sex marriage will change all marriage, but it says it will change it for the better not damage it.
    “When [conservatives] say that gay marriage threatens my marriage, I used to say, ‘That’s ridiculous.’ Now I say, ‘Yeah, it does. It’s asking you a crucial question about your marriage that you may not want to answer: If I’m a man, am I actually sharing the duties and responsibilities of married life equally with my wife?’ Same-sex marriage gives us another image of what marriage can be.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...liss/309317/3/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    The reproductive argument doesn't make sense for two reasons:

    1) There are plenty of married heterosexual couples who choose not to or can't have kids. So, making that argument's pretty offensive to couples who are in that situation.

    2) The human race's doing almost too well. The global population is increasing so fast that we can't even guarantee feeding everyone. There's absolutely no risk whatsoever of the population going into decline because we recognise gay marriage. Also, people will be gay anyway, whether they're allowed to marry or not making the argument a bit moot anyway.

    A gay couple (or a straight couple without kids) still creates a solid relationship unit, they contribute to society in all sorts of ways - work, creating things, generating knowledge, supporting others in the community, paying taxes, participating in general. If they do adopt, then they're giving a kid a start in life that they might otherwise not have had.

    I think people just have to start seeing humanity for what it is. I find religious and conservative views tend to look at humanity in a very strange way. They often seem to see it as if we were just lone hunters / gatherers out in the forrest operating without any form of society.

    In reality, humanity's a huge, deeply-interconnected system. It's not a bunch of competing individuals, rather it's organised as societies / tribes / super-tribes or whatever terminology you want to give it.

    When the society does well, it's because of the contributions of all of its members. A prosperous society has good health, low child mortality and generates loads of knowledge and does really well. For that to happen, everyone has to chip in. It's not all about having kids and reproducing, it's about supporting a bigger communal effort because that way our society's does well and prospers and reproduces and we go on.

    It's pretty damn obvious that a percentage of humans are homosexual. I think it's extremely arrogant to assume that that's not something that's emerged as part of human evolution and that was quite possibly advantageous.

    For example, it may be some kind of an adaptation that allowed a % of the population (before artificial contraception arrived) to be able to live without having to bear kids. I mean, if you think about it if you'd a small tribe, you'd have a situation where the kids were actually supported by extra adults and the burden of child rearing / hunting / gathering / building / developing knowledge etc could be spread around a lot more.

    It's about time we stopped looking at something that's clearly a very common human trait as if it were something strange / unusual / abnormal and actually started looking at it as something that's just part of what makes us what we are as a species.

    I don't really see being anti gay marriage as being any different to deciding to ban redheads from marrying or something.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    If Gays get married then the prophecy of Cthulhu will be fulfilled, allowing his 7th son to rise and bring a 1000 centuries of suffering upon the earth by strangling people with their own bowels and making kites out of ginger people's skin.

    He'll then milk the men through their nipples and have women on a never-ending period while children will be told Santa doesn't exist but if he did he'd probably hate them anyways........




    ......Or.........or so I'm told, anyways.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 536 ✭✭✭Clareboy


    Just think about it for a moment! A man getting married to a man! What a nonsense!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,737 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Duggy747 wrote: »
    If Gays get married then the prophecy of Cthulhu will be fulfilled, allowing his 7th son to rise and bring a 1000 centuries of suffering upon the earth by strangling people with their own bowels and making kites out of ginger people's skin.

    He'll then milk the men through their nipples and have women on a never-ending period while children will be told Santa doesn't exist but if he did he'd probably hate them anyways........




    ......Or.........or so I'm told, anyways.

    Ah, the wrath of the Ancient Ones. Finally a good argument against letting teh gheys have human rights.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Clareboy wrote: »
    Just think about it for a moment! A man getting married to a man! What a nonsense!


    Why?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    kylith wrote: »
    Ah, the wrath of the Ancient Ones. Finally a good argument against letting teh gheys have human rights.

    I'd say they should be allowed marry but everyone is automatically divorced once the stars begin to align. Hah! You've been lawyered Cthulhu!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement