Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

Czarcasm

hansfrei wrote: »

What questions?

This is the question in the poll in the OP, and you know all too well it is a referendum about marriage equality for LGBT couples -


How would you vote if there was a referendum on same-sex marriage today?

I'm an undecided voter

Grand, that's all you had to say instead of the rest of your grandstanding and soapboxing and moaning because you weren't allowed drag the thread off-topic.

If people want to change the staus quo they should propose the argument and discuss the issues for and against.

You can't even offer any conclusive opinion one way or the other in this thread, you want to discuss something completely different, you want to discuss the definition of marriage itself. That's not what this thread is about.

If you want to discuss something else, start a new thread, put forward your argument, and lets hear what you have to say for or against it, or are you undecided about starting a new thread too?

I don't think this one can take much more of your constant weasel wording and soap boxing. You're not being persecuted for your opinion, you're being asked to stick to the topic of this thread, that's all.

hansfrei

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What questions? Seriously? Well....





This one in particualr - several times...



... and for the second time...


... not to mention the third ...


That's six. Well, four if you count the one asked three times only once...

EDIT: can't find numbers seven and eight, so I'll just have to type them:

7 - Why do you think polygamy would have a negative infulence on society if it was legalsied?

and

8 - Where has the legalisation of homosexual marriage ever led to the legalsiation of polygamy?


... THOSE questions.

I posted the answer to that. The two are@ historically intertwined and the marriage movement in the states has already moved onto polygamy. Thats the facts. Don't shoot me.

The reason marriage was redefined a thousand years ago to be about one man and one woman. I don't know. Wouldn't mind talking to someone who does know. Are you saying we were wrong for the last thousand years so?

K-9

hansfrei wrote: »

The reason marriage was redefined a thousand years ago to be about one man and one woman. I don't know. Wouldn't mind talking to someone who does know. Are you saying we were wrong for the last thousand years so?

This is were we need Wibbs, Wibbs knows loads of stuff about ancient civilisations!

Seriously, civilisation has had monumental changes in the last 100 years, never mind one thousand. You seem to be saying we are going back a thousand years, but we aren't, because we've had a thousand years of evolution in between!

hansfrei

K-9 wrote: »

This is were we need Wibbs, Wibbs knows loads of stuff about ancient civilisations!

Seriously, civilisation has had monumental changes in the last 100 years, never mind one thousand. You seem to be saying we are going back a thousand years, but we aren't, because we've had a thousand years of evolution in between!

I'm asking a question. As far as I know, thats kinda how conversations go. What happened then in one hundred years that so made us want to change marriage.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hansfrei wrote: »

I posted the answer to that. The two are@ historically intertwined and the marriage movement in the states has already moved onto polygamy. Thats the facts. Don't shoot me.

The reason marriage was redefined a thousand years ago to be about one man and one woman. I don't know. Wouldn't mind talking to someone who does know. Are you saying we were wrong for the last thousand years so?

I'm saying it's bull****, and unless you can show me a 1,000 year old source defining marriage which is still relevant today or a US state that has legalised BOTH polygamy AND same-sex marriage, and a link connectign that the later led to the former, you've STILL answered nothing.

Good luck.

And the first 6 questions remain untouched.

Czarcasm

hansfrei wrote: »

I'm asking a question. As far as I know, thats kinda how conversations go. What happened then in one hundred years that so made us want to change marriage.

To answer your question:

Society changes and evolves all the time.


Now can you answer mine:

What negative effects do you see for society (Irish Society) if a Referendum is passed that grants LGBT couples the same rights and recognition as heterosexual couples?

hansfrei

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm saying it's bull****, and unless you can show me a 1,000 year old source defining marriage which is still relevant today or a US state that has legalised BOTH polygamy AND same-sex marriage, and a link connectign that the later led to the former, you've STILL answered nothing.

Good luck.

And the first 6 questions remain untouched.

Already posted links to polygamists in the US. Some posters dimissed them. They'll dismiss the Canadian recommendations too?

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=8451dc17-5b5f-4ea4-a05f-71f7c758662a&

What makes marriage different today?


Let me guess. Because bigotry, because I say so, because equality. All of those answers are ridiculous.

hansfrei

Czarcasm wrote: »

To answer your question:

Society changes and evolves all the time.


Now can you answer mine:

What negative effects do you see for society (Irish Society) if a Referendum is passed that grants LGBT couples the same rights and recognition as heterosexual couples?

Society does change all the time. Thats what I've said over and over and over again. Why are you not listening? Stop reading just to reply.

Society has changed again and again and again. In the last thousand years its changed a thousand times. Why change marriage now is the question and why change it to effect only 5% more people. Why not change it to reflect society today?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hansfrei wrote: »

Already posted links to polygamists in the US. Some posters dimissed them. They'll dismiss the Canadian recommendations too?

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=8451dc17-5b5f-4ea4-a05f-71f7c758662a&

You haven't read the article you've linked to, as it neither answers any 6 unasnwered questions I quoted nor mentions anything to do with homosexual marriage.

What makes marriage different today?

I never asked the question. In any case, before it can be answered you've got to go back and give me a definition of marriage that existed 1,000 years ago, and then give me a defiinition of marriage as it exists today before any comparison can be made.

Let me guess. Because bigotry, because I say so, because equality. All of those answers are ridiculous.

Probably bigotry, but then no one - not even you - has any idea what you're comparing here.

SV

hansfrei wrote: »

Already posted links to polygamists in the US. Some posters dimissed them. They'll dismiss the Canadian recommendations too?

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=8451dc17-5b5f-4ea4-a05f-71f7c758662a&

What makes marriage different today?


Let me guess. Because bigotry, because I say so, because equality. All of those answers are ridiculous.

Nothing is ridiculous about equality.

NuMarvel

hansfrei wrote: »

Society does change all the time. Thats what I've said over and over and over again. Why are you not listening? Stop reading just to reply.

Society has changed again and again and again. In the last thousand years its changed a thousand times. Why change marriage now is the question and why change it to effect only 5% more people. Why not change it to reflect society today?

The question on the ballot paper will relate to marriage for same-sex couples. There's no point talking about other types of marriage here because that's not what we'll be asked about on the day.

There's nothing, absolutely nothing, stopping you from starting a new thread to discuss the pros and cons of other types of marriage. You've clearly given the issues some thought, so it's surprising you haven't done this already. Just go the appropriate forum, and click the New Thread button.

Now, do you have anything to say on the issue before us, that of marriage for same-sex couples? Maybe you don't, which is fine, but either way let's stay on topic.

Zubeneschamali

hansfrei wrote: »

Are you saying we were wrong for the last thousand years so?

Yes, because for the last 1000 years, we have been discriminating against gays.

For most of that 1000 years, we have discriminated against non-whites, non-males, the disabled, the poor, and non-Christians too, and that was also wrong.

Bullseye1

We have been discriminating against males too.

Terry1985

Czarcasm wrote: »

What negative effects do you see for society (Irish Society) if a Referendum is passed that grants LGBT couples the same rights and recognition as heterosexual couples?

- costs the taxpayer more, eg. Widow/widowers pensions
- how will that work for 'deserted wives' benefit?
- automatically gives immigration rights to foreign partners
- another step towards lgbt couples bring able to adopt (I've no problem if one is parent though)
- rubber stamps lbgt as normal biological behavior when it isn't
- higher life insurance premiums for everyone of lgbt couples can be nominated as beneficiaries

pauldla

Terry1985 wrote: »

- costs the taxpayer more, eg. Widow/widowers pensions
- how will that work for 'deserted wives' benefit?
- automatically gives immigration rights to foreign partners
- another step towards lgbt couples bring able to adopt (I've no problem if one is parent though)
- rubber stamps lbgt as normal biological behavior when it isn't
- higher life insurance premiums for everyone of lgbt couples can be nominated as beneficiaries

-Should gay spouses not be given parity with straight spouses? Are they not paying the same taxes?
-Could we extended that to 'deserted guardians'?
-Having a foreign partner myself, I'd love to learn more about that
-No problem if one parent? Jaysis, that's big of you. Let them adopt, it'll reduce the burden on state coffers
-Wow
-On this, I have no idea

Absoluvely

Terry1985 wrote: »

- costs the taxpayer more, eg. Widow/widowers pensions
- how will that work for 'deserted wives' benefit?
- automatically gives immigration rights to foreign partners
- another step towards lgbt couples bring able to adopt (I've no problem if one is parent though)
- rubber stamps lbgt as normal biological behavior when it isn't
- higher life insurance premiums for everyone of lgbt couples can be nominated as beneficiaries

So essentially your problem with same-sex marriage is equality.
Also it's unnatural - "biologically abnormal".

:pac:

NTMK

Terry1985 wrote: »

- costs the taxpayer more, eg. Widow/widowers pensions

then we can remove that for married couples too if youre so concerned with it

- how will that work for 'deserted wives' benefit?

you think that exists in any meaningful way

- automatically gives immigration rights to foreign partners

and?

- another step towards lgbt couples bring able to adopt (I've no problem if one is parent though)

strange logic no? youve no problem with them being biological parents but you have issues with them adopting

- rubber stamps lbgt as normal biological behavior when it isn't

considering it happens quite a bit in the wild with other species its not that abnormal

- higher life insurance premiums for everyone of lgbt couples can be nominated as beneficiaries

my heart bleeds for the fraction of a cent that will cost you

Benny_Cake

Terry1985 wrote: »

- costs the taxpayer more, eg. Widow/widowers pensions
- how will that work for 'deserted wives' benefit?
- automatically gives immigration rights to foreign partners
- another step towards lgbt couples bring able to adopt (I've no problem if one is parent though)
- rubber stamps lbgt as normal biological behavior when it isn't
- higher life insurance premiums for everyone of lgbt couples can be nominated as beneficiaries

Normality is subjective. And overrated, in any case.

Gay people live among us and always have. While it isn't known exactly what causes someone to be heterosexual or homosexual, it seems that either your sexuality is something that you are born with or develops at such a young age as it may as well make no difference. Based on human history, it would be abnormal if LGBT people didn't exist.

Zubeneschamali

Terry1985 wrote: »

- automatically gives immigration rights to foreign partners

It'd be much more effective if we stopped recognizing mixed race marriages and non-Christian marriages.

OldNotWIse

Terry1985 wrote: »

- costs the taxpayer more, eg. Widow/widowers pensions
- how will that work for 'deserted wives' benefit?
- automatically gives immigration rights to foreign partners
- another step towards lgbt couples bring able to adopt (I've no problem if one is parent though)
- rubber stamps lbgt as normal biological behavior when it isn't
- higher life insurance premiums for everyone of lgbt couples can be nominated as beneficiaries

And what's wrong with that? My partner is non-european. What is it about our committed relationship that adversely affects you? In fact, I will go one step further and ask, what is it about our committed relationship that is any of your God damned business?

Terry1985

NTMK wrote: »

strange logic no? youve no problem with them being biological parents but you have issues with them adopting

I don't see how that's strange logic.
A biological parent has every right to choose who is a Guardian of their children.
But the state should place adoptees with a hetero couple to provide a gender balanced upbringing.

NTMK wrote: »

considering it happens quite a bit in the wild with other species its not that abnormal

That's a very vague argument.
Nobody is trying to stop lgbt behavior, but it shouldn't be endorsed as equal to behaviour and given the same state benefits which were put in place to protect stay at home wives/mothers.
Yes I know there's lesbian mothers out there and the state should focus on directing benefits in a marriage independent way to the children anything this may difference.

Absoluvely

Terry1985 wrote: »

A biological parent has every right to choose who is a Guardian of their children.

I have just chosen for you to be a guardian of my 86 biological children.
Enjoy!

Daith

Terry1985 wrote: »

But the state should place adoptees with a hetero couple to provide a gender balanced upbringing.

What exactly does a gender balanced upbringing mean aside from having one parent with a penis and one with a vagina?

NTMK

Terry1985 wrote: »

I don't see how that's strange logic.
A biological parent has every right to choose who is a Guardian of their children.
But the state should place adoptees with a hetero couple to provide a gender balanced upbringing.

gender balanced upbringing? you do realise that theory kind of got crushed by the sheer amount of one parent families. Gender balance is not nearly as important as stabilty and shock horror kids draw influences from outside there family too

That's a very vague argument.
Nobody is trying to stop lgbt behavior, but it shouldn't be endorsed as equal to behaviour and given the same state benefits which were put in place to protect stay at home wives/mothers.
Yes I know there's lesbian mothers out there and the state should focus on directing benefits in a marriage independent way to the children anything this may difference.

why shouldnt it be endorsed? its not abnormal behavior, uncommon? yes. what about gay fathers who are stay at home wouldnt be too unlikely given the current economy why shouldnt he be entitled to the same benefits that a married couple in the same position is? this kind of thinking in turn places the kid at a disadvantage compared to a hetero couples kid

hansfrei

SV wrote: »

Nothing is ridiculous about equality.

Not equality. More distraction.

Terry1985

OldNotWIse wrote: »

And what's wrong with that? My partner is non-european. What is it about our committed relationship that adversely affects you? In fact, I will go one step further and ask, what is it about our committed relationship that is any of your God damned business?

Immigration control, how my hard earned tax is being spent, state endorsement of abnormal behavior and seeing how the state treats vulnerable adopted children are all my business and the business of every Irish citizen.

Collectively we choose how liberal or conservative Irish society is... well except when the EU puts it's large legal foot down on us.

TomoBhoy

Terry1985 wrote: »

Immigration control, how my hard earned tax is being spent, state endorsement of abnormal behavior and seeing how the state treats vulnerable adopted children are all my business and the business of every Irish citizen.

Collectively we choose how liberal or conservative Irish society is... well except when the EU puts it's large legal foot down on us.

Abnormal ? You lost any creditability there is
I am completely at a loss here were you transported from the 19th century ?
At least your a dying breed

Terry1985

Daith wrote: »

What exactly does a gender balanced upbringing mean aside from having one parent with a penis and one with a vagina?

You're the one reducing people to body parts.
A mother and a father have significantly different roles in child development, each bringing completely different skills, perspectives and child rearing approaches.

TomoBhoy

Terry1985 wrote: »

You're the one reducing people to body parts.
A mother and a father have significantly different roles in child development, each bringing completely different skills, perspectives and child rearing approaches.

The most f"ed up people I know come from your idea of what constitutes a "perfect" family

I had 3 women bring me up.

Terry1985

TomoBhoy wrote: »

At least your a dying breed

I always find that insult amusing considering a strictly gay couple cannot reproduce by themselves.