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…1213151718…39

Comments

  • #422
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    dny123456 wrote: »
    Are you sure you know who you're defending. You can see Jakkass' real opinion over in the religion forum... here

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055110987&highlight=homosexual&page=3
    Touché


  • #423
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    dny123456 wrote: »
    Are you sure you know who you're defending. You can see Jakkass' real opinion over in the religion forum... here

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055110987&highlight=homosexual&page=3

    He's presenting a slightly less fundamental opinion here.

    Indeed, that is my opinion, and it is the opinion of the majority of the Christians on that thread I think you will find also. Not so much of an exposé.


  • #424
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    younge wrote: »
    Marriage between gay people is wrong in my opinion. That’s my answer in a nutshell. Call me old-fashioned but its how my family and I feel. Shouldn't be allowed.

    Just saying it's wrong because you say it is, that's meaningless to me. It's stupid. If you don't even know why you're pro- or against- anything, then your opinion has no weight whatsoever.

    As far as I'm concerned, a lot of that is born of a gut reaction to a distaste for gayness. I mean, if gaying it up isn't your bag, that's fine. You're not gay is all. Saying you think marriage between a gay couple is wrong because it is, because it is, because it is, it's not an argument, it's not a reason. To quote that rather excellent Wanda Sykes video above, if you don't believe in same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved.

    As for the definitions... Everybody's getting too hung up on strict definitions, and forgetting that words mean f**k all until they are interpreted. Language has evolved as long as it's been spoken. That's why dictionaries are continually updated.

    Definitions are an attempt to outline the widely understood meaning of a word - they are not the "rules" for that word forever. The definition follows the meaning, not the other way around, there is no King of English anywhere who's job is to enforce it. If we all decided that the word "apple" referred to that bendy yellow fruit (lulz), then it would. They would be apples.


  • #425
    dny123456
    Closed Accounts Posts: 431 ✭✭dny123456


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Indeed, that is my opinion, and it is the opinion of the majority of the Christians on that thread I think you will find also. Not so much of an exposé.

    Your assertion earlier on this thread
    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)

    When compared to your spouting in the religious forum of
    Jakkass wrote:
    It was God's intention for sex to be something special to be shared by man and woman and to be used as a means of reproduction. I don't think homosexuality falls into any of that.

    Remarkable how much your opinions have softened since last year! I suppose you should be congratulated on your journey towards sanity. Walk towards the light!


  • #426
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    dny123456 wrote: »
    Remarkable how much your opinions have softened since last year! I suppose you should be congratulated on your journey towards sanity. Walk towards the light!

    I hold said view currently. However, I am not telling people they must subscribe to that view. However when things may potentially have an adverse effect on society at large, I'm not happy to have it implemented to be honest with you. However if there was a democratic mandate in a referendum to legalise gay marriage in Ireland, I would have to accept it. Just as the people in California will have to accept the result of Proposition 8.


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Another reason to get rid of religion in today's society.

    A little secret for those of you who use religion as an excuse to shun gay marriage.
    God doesn't exist. It's all a big fairy tale.


  • #428
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Another reason to get rid of religion in today's society.

    A little secret for those of you who use religion as an excuse to shun gay marriage.
    God doesn't exist. It's all a big fairy tale.

    Love the idealism, but how do you intend to bring that about?


  • #429
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    However when things may potentially have an adverse effect on society at large,

    Why would it have an adverse effect on society?

    And once again, i'll ask, why would a marriage or union between a man and woman, be different from a same sex union?


  • #430
    dny123456
    Closed Accounts Posts: 431 ✭✭dny123456


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I hold said view currently.
    So you're happy for there to be civil partnerships (this thread), just as long the participants don't have sex (religious forum)?

    I'm struggling to understand you Jakkass, but I must admit I'm thinking what I'm reading is a bigot who's watering down his opinion to make it slightly more acceptable. It's quite common to be honest, you won't be last ,I'm sure. It's quite refreshing for once to be able to prove it!


  • #431
    unreggd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,835 ✭✭✭unreggd


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Love the idealism, but how do you intend to bring that about?
    Because he said so


    Thats the end of that argument by your standards


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    dny123456: Part of human nature is that we are free to live our lives as we wish. If said people were to follow Christianity, they might want to do as you have said. I'm happy for there to be civil partnerships yes.


  • #433
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Love the idealism, but how do you intend to bring that about?

    It will bring itself about. Atheism is running wild like Hulk Hogan's biceps.


  • #434
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    dny123456: Part of human nature is that we are free to live our lives as we wish. If said people were to follow Christianity, they might want to do as you have said. I'm happy for there to be civil partnerships yes.

    Just incase you missed it...
    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Why would it have an adverse effect on society?

    And once again, i'll ask, why would a marriage or union between a man and woman, be different from a same sex union?

    If you don't actually have an answer, just say so and i'll stop asking.


  • #435
    dny123456
    Closed Accounts Posts: 431 ✭✭dny123456


    Jakkass wrote: »
    dny123456: Part of human nature is that we are free to live our lives as we wish. If said people were to follow Christianity, they might want to do as you have said. I'm happy for there to be civil partnerships yes.

    Then why do you feel the need to debate it on every thread that comes up on homosexuality? Why are you here telling us about your Christianity as opposed to your catholicism? Why would you waste your time?


  • #436
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Unions between a man and a woman aren't the same, as unions between two of the same gender. Unions between men and women can naturally bring forth life, as the other can't. People would be entering into these unions on different expectations in the vast majority of cases. I think you would agree with that much?


  • #437
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    dlofnep wrote: »
    It will bring itself about. Atheism is running wild like Hulk Hogan's biceps.

    Well given that faith is growing on a rather rapid scale outside of Europe and North America at the moment, I wouldn't consider that to be so true. Atheism has it's highs and it's lows just like anything else.

    Anyhow let's try keep somewhat on topic?


  • #438
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    What about the union of an infertile hetero couple? This union can't naturally bring forth life, does that make a difference?

    Really - a union is just 2 people coming together to make a lifelong committment to each other.

    And the civil laws of the state should not be dictated by anyone's religion.


  • #439
    dny123456
    Closed Accounts Posts: 431 ✭✭dny123456


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Unions between a man and a woman aren't the same, as unions between two of the same gender. Unions between men and women can naturally bring forth life, as the other can't. People would be entering into these unions on different expectations in the vast majority of cases. I think you would agree with that much?

    So infertile couples should be barred from marriage... or post menopausal women. Should they still be afforded the benefits and responsibilities of marriage if reproduction has not occurred and is not possible?

    Or is marriage about recognizing a commitment between two people. One which benefits society regardless of whether they can reproduce or not.


  • #440
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    dlofnep wrote: »
    It will bring itself about. Atheism is running wild like Hulk Hogan's biceps.

    As long as its not running wild like his son's driving.....


  • #441
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Unions between a man and a woman aren't the same, as unions between two of the same gender. Unions between men and women can naturally bring forth life, as the other can't. People would be entering into these unions on different expectations in the vast majority of cases. I think you would agree with that much?

    Not really. Just because you're a hetro couple doesn't mean you can naturally 'bring forth life'. Do you suggest that only those capable of having children should be allowed to marry?

    Plus you associate marriage with having children when the two are completely separate, one doesn't necessarily lead on to the other. People generally want to marry because they love each other, want to spend the rest of their lives together. The definition of marriage doesn't say anything about having kids.

    What adverse effect would gay marriage have on society?


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    By adverse affects I was merely dealing with the adoption query which is interrelated, I dealt with that earlier however.


  • #443
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    dny123456 wrote: »
    Then why do you feel the need to debate it on every thread that comes up on homosexuality? Why are you here telling us about your Christianity as opposed to your catholicism? Why would you waste your time?

    What Catholicism? I am Christian but not Roman Catholic. I thought I made the clear earlier? Even if I was RC, many Catholics would argue that Catholicism is a denomination of the Christian faith.

    Surely if threads are raised on the subject it involves debate. This is particularly true when a thread is placed in the Christianity forum asking Christians what they think of the subject.


  • #444
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    By adverse affects I was merely dealing with the adoption query which is interrelated, I dealt with that earlier however.
    I see, and what makes you think there would be adverse effects, considering Dave has already posted links to studies that say...

    "...there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents."

    Also, do you think only couples capable or reproducing should be allowed to marry?


  • #445
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I didn't say that marriages should only happen in that case, but in the majority of marriages carried out you must agree that the motive is to form a family unit as well as to proclaim their love for eachother surely?


  • #446
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I didn't say that marriages should only happen in that case, but in the majority of marriages carried out you must agree that the motive is to form a family unit as well as to proclaim their love for eachother surely?

    I think a lot of people who get married end up having children, i don't think they get married just so they can have children. Their reason for marrying is because of the love they have for one another.

    If you're reasoning behind denying gays the right to marry is because they can't procreate then how can stand by your argument when you think it's ok for hetros to marry, even if they can't procreate?

    Your argument is full of holes tbh.


  • #447
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    I think a lot of people who get married end up having children, i don't think they get married just so they can have children. Their reason for marrying is because of the love they have for one another.

    If you're reasoning behind denying gays the right to marry is because they can't procreate then how can stand by your argument when you think it's ok for hetros to marry, even if they can't procreate?

    Your argument is full of holes tbh.

    Hm, well I just don't think a man can replace a mother, and a woman replace a father. I explained that at the start of the argument actually.


  • #448
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Hm, well I just don't think a man can replace a mother, and a woman replace a father. I explained that at the start of the argument actually.
    You can think that all you want, but that has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.


  • #449
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    You can think that all you want, but that has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

    It has everything to do with marriage. It will change the way families are in future generations and you cannot deny that.


  • #450
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It has everything to do with marriage. It will change the way families are in future generations and you cannot deny that.
    So it would be ok for gays to marry so long as they were prevented from adopting?


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    younge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 138 ✭✭younge


    zach morris wrote: »
    You and your family are a pack of bigot assholes then.

    No your wrong mate. Far from it. I'm a R/C and I belief that marriage is for men and women and yes my uncle is gay but that will not change how I feel. I care about my uncle and his sexual orientation has not meant I've stopped caring about him, I just don't think gay marriage is acceptable, at all! What after that, gay couples adopting children. I'm sorry you think my comments are of a bigot nature. I don't mean to be hurtful, I just want to be blunt.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement