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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Gay marriage

1…1011131516…39

Comments

  • #362
    javaboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    Gummy Panda wrote: »
    no it defo doesn't.

    It wasn't a serious arguement to a previous statement.

    Yeah I know. I acknowledged that it was tongue in cheek way back in post #345. I made a half-joking comment myself which got taken up wrongly and in defending my own stance I ended up making it look like I thought your post was serious (which I know it wasn't).

    My head hurts now so I'm going to lie down. :)


  • #363
    javaboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Hm, if you weren't so patronising I probably would have answered by now. The research I am thinking of would involve psychologists / sociologists analysing the potential problems that kids being raised in an LGBT family could have as opposed to children with both parents.

    The "B" family could have both parents. As could the "T" family albeit probably not in the traditional roles.


  • #364
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Hm, if you weren't so patronising I probably would have answered by now. The research I am thinking of would involve psychologists / sociologists analysing the potential problems that kids being raised in an LGBT family could have as opposed to children with both parents.
    I never mentioned kids. Just because a gay couple marry doesn't mean they get kids half price.

    What research should there be done before a gay couple are allowed to marry?


  • #365
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Hm, if you weren't so patronising I probably would have answered by now. The research I am thinking of would involve psychologists / sociologists analysing the potential problems that kids being raised in an LGBT family could have as opposed to children with both parents.

    I still fail to see why you're making this an issue, other than to play the "Think of the Child-hur-in" card.

    Gay couples by definition cannot have children, if they were to look to adopt they are still subject to approval by The Adoption Authority of Ireland, Just like straight couples and single people who are also looking to adopt.


  • #366
    CreepingDeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,015 ✭✭✭CreepingDeath


    I think we all know how this is going to end anyways.

    Some Eurocrat in Brussels will make a decision for all Europe and Irish democracy will be bypassed since we signed some of it away to join the EU.

    No point arguing your point on an Irish website... ye might as well start this thread on a Belgian website.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    I think we all know how this is going to end anyways.

    Some Eurocrat in Brussels will make a decision for all Europe and Irish democracy will be bypassed since we signed some of it away to join the EU.

    No point arguing your point on an Irish website... ye might as well start this thread on a Belgian website.

    And that is why i love the EU!

    (side note: The EU doesn't work how you think it works)


  • #368
    CreepingDeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,015 ✭✭✭CreepingDeath


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    And that is why i love the EU!

    (side note: The EU doesn't work how you think it works)

    Yeah, I was being somewhat sarcastic.
    I know there's a European court of human rights, and they have some say over member states. Probably some charter everyone signed...

    On a side note, I started flicking through a book of philosophy and they said that democracy was fundamentally flawed because everyone votes for their own selfish needs.


  • #369
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    I never mentioned kids. Just because a gay couple marry doesn't mean they get kids half price.

    What research should there be done before a gay couple are allowed to marry?
    Marriage for most people leads to them wanting to form a family unit. As such I think it is only fair that research is taken to see if it is better for children to be in a family with a father and a mother, than a family of two of the same gender. It's a perfectly legitimate reason to look for research and take precautions before bringing in a measure such as this.


  • #370
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Marriage for most people leads to them wanting to form a family unit. As such I think it is only fair that research is taken to see if it is better for children to be in a family with a father and a mother, than a family of two of the same gender. It's a perfectly legitimate reason to look for research and take precautions before bringing in a measure such as this.

    For a lot of people it leads to children, not all people.

    So is it okay for gay people to marry if they don't want children?


  • #371
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,240 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    square_igloo wrote: »
    I sincerely hope that was a (very poor) attempt at humour.
    As do I. Careful now, Creepingdeath.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    For a lot of people it leads to children, not all people.

    So is it okay for gay people to marry if they don't want children?

    If it did come to light, I personally wouldn't consider it a "marriage". I don't see why homosexuals cannot pursue furthering what is afforded to them under civil partnerships instead of wanting to encroach on the traditional meaning of marriage.


  • #373
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If it did come to light, I personally wouldn't consider it a "marriage". I don't see why homosexuals cannot pursue furthering what is afforded to them under civil partnerships instead of wanting to encroach on the traditional meaning of marriage.

    Again: Marriage is not a word on which straight people hold the monopoly, and it's meaning has changed over time.
    It's likely it will again, this time to include same sex couples.


  • #374
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If it did come to light, I personally wouldn't consider it a "marriage". I don't see why homosexuals cannot pursue furthering what is afforded to them under civil partnerships instead of wanting to encroach on the traditional meaning of marriage.
    So people who are straight, and married, who do not want children shouldn't have been allowed to marry? After all, what's the point?

    Maybe it's a case of principle, maybe gay people feel they should receive equal rights? Crazy notion as it is!


  • #375
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Gummy Panda wrote: »
    silly, they were made by the devil or a wizard

    No, no. Thats white people.


  • #376
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    So people who are straight, and married, who do not want children shouldn't have been allowed to marry? After all, what's the point?

    Maybe it's a case of principle, maybe gay people feel they should receive equal rights? Crazy notion as it is!

    Surely rights can be afforded to people without trampling over the term marriage and it's meaning?


  • #377
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Surely rights can be afforded to people without trampling over the term marriage and it's meaning?

    Surely people have been trampling all over marriage and its meaning since the invention of other people to screw who you arent married to? Or divorce. Or Elizabeth Taylor. Or pluralism. Actually you could say people have been trampling all over the meaning of marriage ever since some asshole invented marriage. It is not being ruined at all by allowing homosexuals to marry. Unless it is such a house of cards that it cant evolve with the times without crumbling in on itself.
    Is the crux of this argument the separation of the religious aspect from the term marriage? So civil union is allowed because it doesnt offend more catholic dogma? Bull**** man. Bull****.


  • #378
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Surely rights can be afforded to people without trampling over the term marriage and it's meaning?

    So, if the research proves that a child brought up by a homosexual couple is no more susceptible to adverse reactions later on in life than one raised by heterosexuals, you're suddenly going to except marriage between gays? Even though it would ''trample over the term and it's meaning?''...


  • #379
    jaffa20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,624 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Surely rights can be afforded to people without trampling over the term marriage and it's meaning?

    It's a bit too late for that

    With regards to your comments on sociological and psychological research. You do realise that this cannot be carried out without something having been implemented. How is a sociologist supposed to carry out research on something that doesn't exist in society and measure its effects on a child if it hasn't been accepted as part of society. If you are referring to research in countries where it has been implemented, then i think you will find numerous research has been carried out as Dave kindly noted in his previous posts. This of course will be refuted by some social scientist who looks at this sensitive issue from a subjective standpoint rather than an objective one. By the way, i have a degree in social science so you can be reassured that i know what i'm saying.


  • #380
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Not that I'm even arguing from an RC perspective, but I don't see how civil partnerships could be considered against RC dogma. (Mind you I am merely Christian, not Catholic)

    So your rationale for saying that we should allow another step of trampling over the terms behind marriage is that it has happened in the past? I don't approve of polygamy, or any such law that would enable that.

    A union between a man and a man is not the same as a man and a woman. I don't see why it needs to be defined as if it is the same. I don't see how civil partnerships don't provide adequately, and if they don't they should bring forward to the Government propositions that will make civil partnerships more adequate.

    Edit: jaffa20, just because this has happened elsewhere doesn't mean that we should implement it here.


  • #381
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Not that I'm even arguing from an RC perspective, but I don't see how civil partnerships could be considered against RC dogma. (Mind you I am merely Christian, not Catholic)

    So your rationale for saying that we should allow another step of trampling over the terms behind marriage is that it has happened in the past? I don't approve of polygamy, or any such law that would enable that.

    A union between a man and a man is not the same as a man and a woman. I don't see why it needs to be defined as if it is the same. I don't see how civil partnerships don't provide adequately, and if they don't they should bring forward to the Government propositions that will make civil partnerships more adequate.

    So you can bend the rules and change the terms by which you refer to marriage to suit your current belief structure?
    Moral relativism is often the preserve of the confused christian.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    How is that bending the rules? I'd be curious if you could make a case to support that. I believe in moral universalism personally.


  • #383
    jaffa20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,624 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    Jakkass wrote: »

    Edit: jaffa20, just because this has happened elsewhere doesn't mean that we should implement it here.

    Yes, but does it not reassure you about the effects it can have on children. That is your worry after all. You are not arguing against it for any other reason.

    And you didn't answer my question about how these effects can be measured without allowing us to adopt children. Can you ascertain the results will be objective rather than subjective?


  • #384
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    A union between a man and a man is not the same as a man and a woman.

    Why? Says who?

    You're making homophobic and bigoted statements and not once in this thread have you actually provided anything remotely concrete to back any of it up!


  • #385
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Jakkass wrote: »
    How is that bending the rules? I'd be curious if you could make a case to support that. I believe in moral universalism personally.

    The quote from the harry potter book in your sig shows me everything I need to know about the futility of making any such case.


  • #386
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    jaffa20 wrote: »
    Yes, but does it not reassure you about the effects it can have on children. That is your worry after all. You are not arguing against it for any other reason.

    Why would it at all? It's a relatively recent emergence all over the world.


  • #387
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    dr.bollocko wrote: »
    The quote from the harry potter book in your sig shows me everything I need to know about the futility of making any such case.

    Hm, indeed I believe that God was behind bringing life to the world, most likely through the processes of Darwinian evolution through natural selection, but I'm not 100% made on it. Don't see how relevant it is to this thread though :)

    MagicMarker, I don't see it as homophobic to suggest that marriage has until the last few years been a binding of man and woman together. I also don't see it as "hatred or fear" (general definition of homophobia) of homosexuals to assert that marriage should remain as it always has been. I'm not doing this out of hatred for anyone. However, if it makes you happier to assert that I am homophobic feel free.


  • #388
    duffman90210
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 94 ✭✭duffman90210


    Gay marriages? Of course. Give me one good reason why not?


  • #389
    jaffa20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,624 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Why would it at all? It's a relatively recent emergence all over the world.

    The research that you mentioned should be carried out. It is recent but research has been carried out and it has not altered your opinion and i don't see how more research will tbh.


  • #390
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Hm, indeed I believe that God was behind bringing life to the world, most likely through the processes of Darwinian evolution through natural selection, but I'm not 100% made on it. Don't see how relevant it is to this thread though :)

    And I went just one teeny step further than you and asserted that no God did such a thing, as opposed to just the one.
    It is relevant because your quote is particular to the Old Testament and your arguments are particular to those who hide behind religion to assert a preferance that negatively effect others rather than using religion to celebrate new love and diversity.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    MagicMarker, I don't see it as homophobic to suggest that marriage has until the last few years been a binding of man and woman together. I also don't see it as "hatred or fear" (general definition of homophobia) of homosexuals to assert that marriage should remain as it always has been. I'm not doing this out of hatred for anyone. However, if it makes you happier to assert that I am homophobic feel free.

    So, really, it doesn't matter what research is done, you just don't think it should be changed simply because ''it's always been that way''.

    So should we take the right to vote away from women? Should we force blacks to be slaves? Should we burn women we deem to be witches? Should we force women back into the kitchen? Should we start putting children with unfamiliar disabilities back into sanitariums? Should we stone those who commit adultery? Or nail someone to a cross for committing a crime?

    And yes, I do believe you're a homophobe, as you're applying your idealist way of thinking to a set demographic, when it applies to many more.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement