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…1516182021…39

Comments

  • #512
    jaffa20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,624 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    instruction wrote: »
    I have an issue with gay marriage as well. I think its wrong.

    This post was edited and....
    younge wrote: »
    I have no problem with civil partnership. I belive that marriage is a tradition that should be kept a tradition between men and women. My family has not imposed any beliefs on me. I was born a R/C and I've studied the faith. I think your a narrow minded person to be honest.
    ''Born into your background and have beliefs forced upon them''
    I actually cannot get my head around that statement. You no nothing about my background and non of my posts in this thread or any thread for that matter have suggested that I'm some sort of religious hardliner.

    containted the above message before it was edited.

    Mods, please investigate this. Multiple profiles are not allowed and younge realised s/he was posting under the wrong username and then edited the post.


  • #513
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    jaffa20 wrote: »
    This post was edited and....



    containted the above message before it was edited.

    Mods, please investigate this. Multiple profiles are not allowed and younge realised s/he was posting under the wrong username and then edited the post.
    Well spotted, i noticed the original edited message and the one younge responded with saw they were pretty much the same, didn't cop to different usernames tho!!

    Mods can see deleted posts anyway.


  • #514
    CreepingDeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,015 ✭✭✭CreepingDeath


    Well, considering anyone who voices an opinion against gay marriage appears to be demonised, personally attacked and now hunted down and reported it's understandable why people are trying to hide their usernames to express their opinions.

    If someone tried posting in the gay and lesbian forum and was afraid of coming out, would it be appropriate for their username to be hunted down and publicly posted ? I think not.

    I see ye want to abandon democracy as well.
    thelordofcheese wrote:
    It's horrible, the rights of a group of people shouldn't be reliant on how many people you can motivate to get off their fat asses and vote.

    I wouldn't mind only the odds are probably more in favour of gay marriage with a low voter turnout.


  • #515
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    Well, considering anyone who voices an opinion against gay marriage appears to be demonised, personally attacked and now hunted down and reported it's understandable why people are trying to hide their usernames to express their opinions.

    Not really. If you have to hide your ''boards identity'' to voice your opinion then you must not think much of your own opinion.

    Personally, i think he/she was just trying to make up the numbers;)
    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    If someone tried posting in the gay and lesbian forum and was afraid of coming out, would it be appropriate for their username to be hunted down and publicly posted ? I think not.

    I see ye want to abandon democracy as well.

    I see what you did there...... actually, no.... what?


  • #516
    javaboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    I assume all the people attacking those who oppose gay marriage because they believe it is wrong have no problem with incest? I mean it's two people who love each other and it doesn't affect you. There is the issue of genetic abnormalities but that is often greatly exaggerated. And for the sake of argument let's take kids out of the equation. Incest is generally regarded as wrong or immoral or just plain icky. But there's no real reason behind it as far as I can see. So please I'd be interested to hear from the people who are attacking the opponents of gay marriage for "imposing their morality", do you have any issue with incest or incestuous marriage? If so why?


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    CreepingDeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,015 ✭✭✭CreepingDeath


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Not really. If you have to hide your ''boards identity'' to voice your opinion then you must not think much of your own opinion.

    Well, I work in a large multinational company, my opinions outside of the work environment are my own and obviously not appropriate for the sanitised, restrictive, "politically correct" workplace.
    MagicMarker wrote: »
    I see what you did there...... actually, no.... what?

    Ye ran away and told on someone who expressed a different opinion.

    I imagine there's at least a few people in the gay forums to reregistered / double registered to hide their real identities.
    It's no big deal, but should their other username be publicly posted like that ? I think what you done is inappropriate.

    (Edit) And by "you" I mean jaffa20.


  • #518
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    javaboy wrote: »
    I assume all the people attacking those who oppose gay marriage because they believe it is wrong have no problem with incest? I mean it's two people who love each other and it doesn't affect you. There is the issue of genetic abnormalities but that is often greatly exaggerated. And for the sake of argument let's take kids out of the equation. Incest is generally regarded as wrong or immoral or just plain icky. But there's no real reason behind it as far as I can see. So please I'd be interested to hear from the people who are attacking the opponents of gay marriage for "imposing their morality", do you have any issue with incest or incestuous marriage? If so why?
    Nope, because it doesn't effect me.


  • #519
    jaffa20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,624 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    CreepingDeath wrote: »

    Ye ran away and told on someone who expressed a different opinion.

    I imagine there's at least a few people in the gay forums to reregistered / double registered to hide their real identities.
    It's no big deal, but should their other username be publicly posted like that ? I think what you done is inappropriate.

    (Edit) And by "you" I mean jaffa20.

    You can post unregistered in the LGBT forum so there is no need to create multiple profiles. It's against the rules of boards.ie so that's why i highlighted it. Also, the reason we can post unregistered in certain forums is to conceal our identity and why do you think people would do that in the LGBT forum? I'm sure you have put across a lot of comments on this thread that would make people upset and angry that they feel the need to do so.


  • #520
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    Well, I work in a large multinational company, my opinions outside of the work environment are my own and obviously not appropriate for the sanitised, restrictive, "politically correct" workplace.

    So believing in the right to gay marriage is PC nowadays?
    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    I imagine there's at least a few people in the gay forums to reregistered / double registered to hide their real identities.
    It's no big deal, but should their other username be publicly posted like that?

    You can post unreg in LGB forums. There's a difference between posting anonymously because you haven't come out of the closet yet, and posting under a false account just to agree with what you say under your normal account!


  • #521
    CreepingDeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,015 ✭✭✭CreepingDeath


    jaffa20 wrote: »
    You can post unregistered in the LGBT forum so there is no need to create multiple profiles. It's against the rules of boards.ie so that's why i highlighted it.

    It's a childish thing to do, run off and tell on somebody you have a difference of opinion with. You're effectively resorting to force to silence someone.
    jaffa20 wrote: »
    I'm sure you have put across a lot of comments on this thread that would make people upset and angry that they feel the need to do so.

    Here's a quote from the After Hours charter sticky.
    Giblet wrote:
    Threads on Sex or Sexuality
    - There is a seperate forum to discuss this now, this forum requires a subscription for access. Any threads on these topics will be locked on sight. Repeat offenders will be banned.

    So this whole thread should've been reported from the word go.
    If it was posted in the sex/gay forum you would've got your own protected censored thread where my comments would've probably been censored by the moderator and you could live happily in your own policitically correct little world.

    Ye got an uncensored opinion and can't start complaining that the truth upset people.


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    So this whole thread should've been reported from the word go.
    If it was posted in the sex/gay forum you would've got your own protected censored thread where my comments would've probably been censored by the moderator and you could live happily in your own policitically correct little world.

    Ye got an uncensored opinion and can't start complaining that the truth upset people.

    Actually, this thread was probably better suited to humanities. There are a few forums that are suitable for this particular thread. However, every now and again, after hours needs one!

    Just a heads up though, just because the majority share a certain opinion, doesn't make that opinion politically correct. Sometimes, it's just what people really believe, myself included.


  • #523
    Ziggurat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 280 ✭✭Ziggurat


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    It's a childish thing to do, run off and tell on somebody you have a difference of opinion with. You're effectively resorting to force to silence someone.

    Read what he posted again. Posting with multiple accounts is not allowed. This has nothing to do with a difference of opinion.


  • #524
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Emotional and corney comment by Keith Olbermann about this!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE


  • #525
    Talliesin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,314 ✭✭✭Talliesin


    Constantius' and Constans' banning gay marriage in 342 was a pointless imposition of the view of their particular religion over those whose marriage practices had no such silly little arbitrary rules. It's about time we went back to a more common sense approach.


  • #526
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    Ye got an uncensored opinion and can't start complaining that the truth upset people.

    You're funny. In a depressing sort of way.


  • #527
    CreepingDeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,015 ✭✭✭CreepingDeath


    Zillah wrote: »
    You're funny. In a depressing sort of way.

    That was a bad choice of phrase I admit, it meant to read something like "uncensored opinions".


  • #528
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    What? I'm referring to the fact that you think you're forwarding "truth". It's hilarious.


  • #529
    SeekUp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,072 ✭✭✭SeekUp


    oeb wrote: »
    . . . it is ridiculous that anyone else should be able to deny them the rights that the rest of us take for granted.

    Agreed.

    I get the fact that a lot of people think gay marriage is wrong. And because they think it's wrong, they think it shouldn't be allowed. Like murder - you're not planning on being a murderer, but you think it's wrong and so you are against it.

    No, I am not equating gay marriage with murder, nor do I believe gay marriage is harming anyone.

    But I do think it's really, really sad that people can be equal in other areas of life: person A pays the same taxes as person B, person A is entitled to the same employment opportunities as person B, person A can buy the same home as person B, and on and on and on, but person A cannot marry (yes, I said the 'M' word) someone whom (s)he loves. We're not talking about adoption, we're not talking about populating the earth, we're not talking about incest. Person A just want to have the same consideration and recognition for their relationship as as person B does.

    This thread makes me tired. I think I'll poke around in Personal Issues for a while.


  • #530
    Jigsaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭Jigsaw


    I don't have anything against gay marriage because, as others have said, it doesn't affect me.

    I am not gay and don't understand why people would be gay but I am big enough to realise that just because I don't understand or have an affinity with something, doesn't mean that it is wrong.

    People should concentrate on their own lives and let other people live theirs.


  • #531
    oeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,793 ✭✭✭oeb


    See that's what I don't get. People think that gay marrige is wrong, fair enough. That has alot to do with the religious dogma that many people in this country are brought up in. But it is also something that happens between two consenting adults. One of them is not (generally) talking advantage of the other one. I would imagine that the percentage of people who are in abuseive gay relationships is about the same (or less) as the people who are in abusive hetrosexual relationships. So it's not actually hurting anyone. Being gay is not a crime, in face the equal status act guarentees equality for people (regardless of sexuality, race, sex etc) in a large number of areas in this country (employment, access etc).

    So, two people, that are in a legal, consenting, adult relationship, for some reason are denied the rights afforded to us hetrosexual folks when it comes to marrige. Because your (their) church thinks it is wrong.

    Comparing it to murder is incorrect. Because people that see murder as wrong are not legally allowed to commit murder themselves. I think a better comparison would be whiskey. Imagine if your group of people were allowed to drink whiskey, and it was against the law for anyone else in this country to drink whiskey. Sure, they could have vodka, which is a spirit too, and has kinda similar ABV, or they could drink rum, which is a dark spirit too. Sure, they are practicially the same thing, just with a different name. But you know, and I know, they are not the same. In fact they are very different.

    But that would be a stupid law.


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    CreepingDeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,015 ✭✭✭CreepingDeath


    Zillah wrote: »
    What? I'm referring to the fact that you think you're forwarding "truth". It's hilarious.

    Yawn. Yes, I noticed the word you hilighted in bold and "uncensored opinion" was my corrected version.


  • #533
    javaboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Nope, because it doesn't effect me.

    I'd say you're in a minority there tbh. In fact this thread:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055330448
    is aimed at atheists and asks them if they support incest or not. It's interesting to see that only 25% of people answered "yes between two consenting adults".

    Now maybe a lot of them voted no because of eugenics but it looks to me like a substantial amount of people are "imposing their morals" on other people.

    So anyone out there who is pro-gay marriage but anti-incest care to shed a little light on why one is ok and the other isn't. (Assuming for the sake of simplicity that they never have kids.)


  • #534
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Optimal compared to what?

    Seeing as you're now basing your argument on marriage leading to children. Do you think it's ok for gays to marry so long as they are prevented from adopting?

    Optimal compared to being in a single parent family or in a family with two parents of the same gender.

    Arguably that isn't a "marriage" at all then really is it? I'm opposed to changing the current definition as well as the situation for children. Essentially civil partnerships would ensure all the rights that these people needed.


  • #535
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Optimal compared to being in a single parent family or in a family with two parents of the same gender.
    What are you basing this on? Links please.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Arguably that isn't a "marriage" at all then really is it? I'm opposed to changing the current definition as well as the situation for children. Essentially civil partnerships would ensure all the rights that these people needed.

    Saying it isn't a ''marriage'' is really a total cop out man. Give me an actual reason, marriage and children are totally different entities, you can't seem to grasp that very simple concept. Not everyone who marries has or wants children and not everyone who has children is married.

    You think it's wrong for gays to marry because they can't naturally have kids together and that goes against YOUR definition of marriage, but you think it's fine that heterosexuals can marry even in situations where they are unable to naturally have children, which again, goes against YOUR definition of marriage.

    Your whole argument is one giant contradiction.


  • #536
    oeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,793 ✭✭✭oeb


    Studies have shown that a larger percent of athiests are highly educated and have an above average IQ than religious people. Should we ban religious people from rearing children, because they might be better off with athiests.

    Studies have shown that kids born in poor areas have a much lower chance of being sucessful later in life (due to inabilty to pay for college, a higher likleyhood of leaving school early, possible crime involvment (due to the higher rate of crime in these areas)).

    Should we ban poor people from having kids?


  • #537
    oeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,793 ✭✭✭oeb


    It is also worth noting that just because you are married, you do not gain the automatic right to pop down to the orphanage and pick up a few sprogs. You still have to be examined for suitability. And people keep an eye on you afterwards to make sure you remain suitable.


  • #538
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    oeb wrote: »
    It is also worth noting that just because you are married, you do not gain the automatic right to pop down to the orphanage and pick up a few sprogs. You still have to be examined for suitability. And people keep an eye on you afterwards to make sure you remain suitable.

    This is about the 11 billionth time that it's been mentioned, but jakkas seems to be content to ignore it whenever it's brought up.

    That and that it is a terrible and faulty metric to measure 'marriage' by the presence of children, seeing as it is not a condition we impose on straight couples.

    Then again, seeing as his entire argument is based on these two points, i suppose there is a reason for the ignoring.


  • #539
    Nerin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Optimal compared to being in a single parent family or in a family with two parents of the same gender.
    Woah,what a great arguement. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    So your also putting single mothers in the same cathegory as same gender parents. And as a bad thing no less. Bravo.


  • #540
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    oeb wrote: »
    Studies have shown that a larger percent of athiests are highly educated and have an above average IQ than religious people. Should we ban religious people from rearing children, because they might be better off with athiests.

    There are also conflicting studies that show that there is a higher percent of people with university degrees amongst people in religious congregations in the United States, and Australia, than the average. So, again conflicting studies suggest, that is entirely false.

    In one of the studies claiming that atheists are more intelligent, the researcher had previous works which said 1) women were less intelligent than men, 2) black people are less intelligent than whites. Now how likely do you think the other two are of being true?


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nerin wrote: »
    Woah,what a great arguement. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    So your also putting single mothers in the same cathegory as same gender parents. And as a bad thing no less. Bravo.

    They are both less than optimal. I would agree that a family with a mother and a father, are better than both the single parent structure, or the same sex structure.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement