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/

David Quinn and Gay Marriage

24567…51

Comments

  • #32
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Barrington: I have no issue with people wanting to formalise whatever relationship they want along the lines of civil partnership. Marriage at least in Irish law is regarded as the foundation of the family. That's why family inevitably is a key part of the discussion.


  • #33
    a-ha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 135 ✭✭a-ha


    philologos wrote: »
    Barrington: I have no issue with people wanting to formalise whatever relationship they want along the lines of civil partnership. Marriage at least in Irish law is regarded as the foundation of the family. That's why family inevitably is a key part of the discussion.

    Why exclude gay people? Where do you think we come from if not families, Mars? Don't you realize that lots of gay people have children.


  • #34
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    philologos wrote: »
    Marriage at least in Irish law is regarded as the foundation of the family. That's why family inevitably is a key part of the discussion.

    Yes, but the people who drafted the constitution chose not to define either marriage or the family:

    41.
    1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
    2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

    3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

    Now, while it is true that case law in this country has interpreted marriage and the family to have a given meaning, this meaning has been informed by catholic culture and history. The supreme court, however, despite the principle of stare decisis has the authority to overturn any precedent if it finds that the social and legal circumstances have changed, especially where constitutional matters are concerned. I think that the social change in Ireland over the last half century and particularly since 1988 provide adequate basis for overturning current precedent.

    So, it must be said that an argument based on the family is only valid in a discussion of homosexual marriage within an Irish legal context and even then is tenuous at best.


  • #35
    gimmebroadband
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,267 ✭✭✭gimmebroadband


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Uh, No.

    In case you missed it,



    Not to mention this, this, this, this etc. etc.

    So do you have anything useful to contribute?


    God created MAN in His image not ANIMALS!!!


  • #36
    smokingman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,795 ✭✭✭smokingman


    gimmebroadband wrote: »
    God created MAN in His image not ANIMALS!!!

    So you're not one for evolution then?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    So do you have anything useful to contribute?
    gimmebroadband wrote: »
    God created MAN in His image not ANIMALS!!!

    So, that'll be a no then.


  • #38
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    a-ha wrote: »
    Why exclude gay people? Where do you think we come from if not families, Mars? Don't you realize that lots of gay people have children.

    How did you come to the conclusion that I said anything about origins?

    oldrnwisr: We are constitutionally bound to man and woman only as a result of the Zappone & Gilligan case of 2006.

    You're right that it isn't directly defined as a mother and a father, but the current situation in terms of the judiciary is that we'll more than likely have to have a referendum.

    In the context of what I posted to Barrington, I have no issue in respect to people formalising relationships they have with each other as long as they aren't polygamous.


  • #39
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    philologos wrote: »
    oldrnwisr: We are constitutionally bound to man and woman only as a result of the Zappone & Gilligan case of 2006.

    You're right that it isn't directly defined as a mother and a father, but the current situation in terms of the judiciary is that we'll more than likely have to have a referendum.

    I would say that we are legally, rather than constitutionally bound as a result of the Zappone case, since the judgement could be overturned in the Supreme Court but I know what you mean.

    I agree that we will probably end up with a referendum rather than a change of staff, although with the growing list of problems that need fixing in the constitution I think that a consitutional convention might not be a bad idea.


  • #40
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    When the case hits the Supreme Court, then the interpretation of the judiciary is binding on the Constitution. This appeal is pending. If the judiciary find a problem with the Constitution they will still refer it to the Government for referendum.


  • #41
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,024 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    This is all really semantics. Legal definitions of words are one thing, what they mean to people are another. A marriage may be defined as a formal union between a man and woman recognised by law or some such, but it's more than that to the people involved. And same-sex couples should be entitled to have that too.

    Same with a family. A family may be legally defined as father, mother, 2.4 children etc, but that isn't always what it means.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    gimmebroadband wrote: »
    God created MAN in His image not ANIMALS!!!

    How does that support your previous assertion that same-sex marriage is "UN-NATURAL"?


  • #43
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    gimmebroadband wrote: »
    God created MAN in His image not ANIMALS!!!

    God doesn't have sex so one would imagine this refers to a desire for a loving relationship, not the physicality of sexual intercourse.


  • #44
    Monty.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Monty.


    Wholesome life long male friendship/companionship is fine, sodomy etc. is not. All but a very few dysfunctional confused animals know which hole to stick it into. You cannot blame a small minority of confused animals for a dysfunctional urge, yet you wish to use this confused dysfunctional urge as an excuse why humans should not resist such dysfunctional urges. Just because someone has the urge to do something does not mean they have the right to act on it, nor claim it is natural, nor claim they have the "right" to build marriage and parenthood around it with Satan inspired clever sophistry in order to normalise their lust of sodomy and make it acceptable as it was in Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Fool us into condoning your acts of sodomy and the building of marriage and parenthood around it ? Never
    What's the next agenda, normalising the “right” to having “loving” sex with minors ? Hah.
    Go back to your sophistry and spin now so . . .


  • #45
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    The lady doth protest too much, methinks...

    tumblr_lkp7ac0Inl1qc46e7o1_500.jpg


  • #46
    Monty.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Monty.


    Ah yes, more sophistry. Satan is the master of it as well. If all else fails, try to fall back on the old tricks, and try ad hominem. Dare complain about sodomy = you must surely love sodomy ! I'm sure anyone that complains about Fianna Fail must be a closet Fianna Failer as well, I bet the FF'ers wish they thought of that one. I guess anti-Christians must really be closet Christians as well.


  • #47
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Monty. wrote: »
    Wholesome life long male friendship/companionship is fine, sodomy etc. is not.

    It'd be great if you could answer why not, particularly if you can do it without reference to your holy book.
    Monty. wrote: »
    All but a very few dysfunctional confused animals know which hole to stick it into. You cannot blame a small minority of confused animals for a dysfunctional urge, yet you wish to use this confused dysfunctional urge as an excuse why humans should not resist such dysfunctional urges.

    First off, this isn't a few confused animals. Homosexual behaviour has been recorded in over 1500 species and well-studied in over 500 species. Bruce Bagemihl presents a review of the literature on homosexual behaviour in animals in his book Biological Exuberance. This of course has already pointed out to you.

    Monty. wrote: »
    nor claim it is natural

    If 1500+ species of animal which practice homosexual behaviour is not natural then I'd love to know what your definition of natural because it's obviously one that I wasn't previously aware of and certainly not this one.
    Monty. wrote: »
    nor claim they have the "right" to build marriage and parenthood around it with Satan inspired clever sophistry in order to normalise their lust of sodomy and make it acceptable as it was in Sodom and Gomorrah.

    I think that this entire argument would be best served by sticking to facts and not fantasy. So unless you can demonstrate that a being called Satan actually exists or that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah actually happened can we stick to real points.

    So, like I said to gimmebroadband, do you actually have something useful to contribute to this debate?


  • #48
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Monty. wrote: »
    Wholesome life long male friendship/companionship is fine, sodomy etc. is not. All but a very few dysfunctional confused animals know which hole to stick it into.

    Does that include anal sex between married heterosexual couples?

    Is it the actual act that you object to, or homosexual relationships?
    Monty. wrote: »
    You cannot blame a small minority of confused animals for a dysfunctional urge, yet you wish to use this confused dysfunctional urge as an excuse why humans should not resist such dysfunctional urges.

    Again, humans or homosexual humans?
    Monty. wrote: »
    Just because someone has the urge to do something does not mean they have the right to act on it, nor claim it is natural, nor claim they have the "right" to build marriage and parenthood around it with Satan inspired clever sophistry in order to normalise their lust of sodomy and make it acceptable as it was in Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Why, what happens if sodomy becomes acceptable?

    The Bible says it doesn't approve. It doesn't say why. The Bible disproves of a lot of things that have no bearing on social order. The world doesn't collapse because people are not all Christian or follow Christian notions of correct sexual behaviour.
    Monty. wrote: »
    Go back to your sophistry and spin now so . . .

    The only one trying to spin anything is you. You have been presented with evidence and all you keep saying is Satan wants you to have homosexual relations.

    Again this seems to be more your issue with the act than anything to do with evidence or how the rest of society should feel about it.


  • #49
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Monty. wrote: »
    What's the next agenda, normalising the “right” to having “loving” sex with minors ? Hah.

    That's not really a stone you should be throwing in this particular glasshouse, don't you agree?

    Besides which, the old "homosexuality = paedophilia" argument is beyond old at this stage, and even you should know the difference between the two.


  • #50
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Monty. wrote: »
    Ah yes, more sophistry. Satan is the master of it as well. If all else fails, try to fall back on the old tricks, and try ad hominem. Dare complain about sodomy = you must surely love sodomy ! I'm sure anyone that complains about Fianna Fail must be a closet Fianna Failer as well, I bet the FF'ers wish they thought of that one. I guess anti-Christians must really be closet Christians as well.

    There is complaining about homosexuality and then there is hysterically invoking Satan at the mere mention of it.

    There are other Christians on this forum how manage to object to homosexuality in some what of a less flaming manner ;)


  • #51
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Besides which, the old "homosexuality = paedophilia" argument is beyond old at this stage, and even you should know the difference between the two.

    Indeed. Let's not go there, folks.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Monty.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Monty.


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    That's not really a stone you should be throwing in this particular glasshouse, don't you agree?

    No, I'm not your champion David Norris


  • #53
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    philologos wrote: »
    However, there can be discussions over whether or not the State should give due preference to the traditional family of mother, father and child over alternative arrangements. I think that discussion is valid and necessary in and of itself. It is in that regard that antiskeptic originally argued as far as I can see.

    The preference is entirely a cultural one, stemming from conservative catholic upbringings, the discussion is not necessary, all evidence shows that the make up of a family has no bearing on a child, I find it ridiculous that engrained outdated beliefs on the nature of the family are given as much credence as actual evidence and fact.


  • #54
    mikeyboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 196 ✭✭mikeyboy


    Monty. wrote: »
    Wholesome life long male friendship/companionship is fine, sodomy etc. is not. All but a very few dysfunctional confused animals know which hole to stick it into. You cannot blame a small minority of confused animals for a dysfunctional urge, yet you wish to use this confused dysfunctional urge as an excuse why humans should not resist such dysfunctional urges. Just because someone has the urge to do something does not mean they have the right to act on it, nor claim it is natural, nor claim they have the "right" to build marriage and parenthood around it with Satan inspired clever sophistry in order to normalise their lust of sodomy and make it acceptable as it was in Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Fool us into condoning your acts of sodomy and the building of marriage and parenthood around it ? Never
    What's the next agenda, normalising the “right” to having “loving” sex with minors ? Hah.
    Go back to your sophistry and spin now so . . .

    Your condemnation of homosexuals must at least in part be based on Leviticus 18:22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." Since that refers only to male homosexuality does that mean you find lesbianism acceptable?
    Do you also refrain from eating pork, Leviticus 11:7-8? Wearing clothes made of more than one kind of cloth or planting more than one kind of seed in a field, Leviticus 19:19? Cutting your hair or shaving, Leviticus 19:27? Eating shellfish, Deuteronomy 14:9? Forbid a woman to speak in church, 1st Corinthians 14:34?


  • #55
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Monty. wrote: »
    No, I'm not your champion David Norris

    If David Norris is the only thing that comes to mind when you talk about sex with minors, then I suggest do a little bit more research. Others, who are theoretically far more ardent followers of the Bible, have actually carried out the act. I think it's very clear who is more deserving of your scorn and stone throwing.


  • #56
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    The preference is entirely a cultural one, stemming from conservative catholic upbringings, the discussion is not necessary, all evidence shows that the make up of a family has no bearing on a child, I find it ridiculous that engrained outdated beliefs on the nature of the family are given as much credence as actual evidence and fact.

    Having had neither a conservative or a Catholic upbringing I still think that it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father when they are growing up. Male and female role models are essential in child development. The research you've presented contradicts other research which has looked into gender roles in child development.

    There's nothing outdated by saying that a child should in the vast majority of cases have a mum and dad and that this should be ensured where possible by the State in defending marriage and in adoption preference.


  • #57
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    philologos wrote: »
    Having had neither a conservative or a Catholic upbringing I still think that it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father when they are growing up. Male and female role models are essential in child development. The research you've presented contradicts other research which has looked into gender roles in child development.

    There's nothing outdated by saying that a child should in the vast majority of cases have a mum and dad and that this should be ensured where possible by the State in defending marriage and in adoption preference.

    Absolutely everything there is just, wrong, wrong, wrong..
    • "Male and Female Role Models are "essential" to child development"
      • Says who?
    • "Nothing outdated by saying a child should in the vast majority of cases have a mum and dad"
      .
      • This doesn't say anything about gender of the mum and dad parents tho doesn't it. Couldn't a mum just as easily be male? If you are claiming that the mother must be female and the dad male then it's completely outdated and at odds with the consensual position of almost 50 years of intense scientific research.


  • #58
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    philologos wrote: »
    Having had neither a conservative or a Catholic upbringing I still think that it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father when they are growing up. Male and female role models are essential in child development. The research you've presented contradicts other research which has looked into gender roles in child development.

    There's nothing outdated by saying that a child should in the vast majority of cases have a mum and dad and that this should be ensured where possible by the State in defending marriage and in adoption preference.

    You think that it is best, or you actually have evidence to back up your assertion?

    I've already pointed out here that the research says exactly the opposite of what you're claiming and a-ha has also pointed out here that the consensus of the relevant medical organisations is that there is no difference between children raised by a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple.

    The view may not be outdated but it is most definitely wrong.


  • #59
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    philologos wrote: »
    The research you've presented contradicts other research which has looked into gender roles in child development.
    APA wrote:
    it is significant that, even taking into account all the questions and/or limitations that may characterize research in this area, none of the published research suggests conclusions different from the others.

    So where exactly is your other research? Myself and others have offered solid external reference to back up our position, you have done no such thing. In all the time I have looked into research on the effects of being raised in a defacto family I have never once seen a conclusion other than that the sexual orientation or number of parents in a household has no bearing on the well being of a child, evidently neither has the American Psychological Association, I'm sure whatever evidence you provide us you'll want to pass on to them, they'll feel ever so foolish...


  • #60
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    You are in the Christianity Forum, not After Hours. If you want to discuss this topic here then you do so with the understanding that Christians tend to believe in and try to follow the Bible.

    Therefore. If you can't enter a discussion without snide remarks about holy books or muppetry about fantasy then it would be better for you not to bother.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Monty. wrote: »
    Wholesome life long male friendship/companionship is fine, sodomy etc. is not.

    It'd be great if you could answer why not, particularly if you can do it without reference to your holy book.
    Monty. wrote: »
    All but a very few dysfunctional confused animals know which hole to stick it into. You cannot blame a small minority of confused animals for a dysfunctional urge, yet you wish to use this confused dysfunctional urge as an excuse why humans should not resist such dysfunctional urges.

    First off, this isn't a few confused animals. Homosexual behaviour has been recorded in over 1500 species and well-studied in over 500 species. Bruce Bagemihl presents a review of the literature on homosexual behaviour in animals in his book Biological Exuberance. This of course has already pointed out to you.

    Monty. wrote: »
    nor claim it is natural

    If 1500+ species of animal which practice homosexual behaviour is not natural then I'd love to know what your definition of natural because it's obviously one that I wasn't previously aware of and certainly not this one.
    Monty. wrote: »
    nor claim they have the "right" to build marriage and parenthood around it with Satan inspired clever sophistry in order to normalise their lust of sodomy and make it acceptable as it was in Sodom and Gomorrah.

    I think that this entire argument would be best served by sticking to facts and not fantasy. So unless you can demonstrate that a being called Satan actually exists or that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah actually happened can we stick to real points.

    So, like I said to gimmebroadband, do you actually have something useful to contribute to this debate?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    wonderfulname: This is from a few years ago with some quotations from a text on the influence of gender roles on children. In this case it was particularly in the case of fathers. More citations here.

    Your position if true, refutes the idea that gender is significant in child rearing. Other studies on the other hand say that gender roles are significant in child rearing. Someones wrong, no?

    I am highly skeptical of the claim that a woman can fully replace a father's role in a childs life, likewise I'm highly skeptical that a man can replace a mother. Men give different things to children than women do. If you take a look on google scholar for studies on gender roles in child rearing you'll see a whole lot more as well. Men and women are different and as such they complement eachother in child rearing. Each encourage their child differently, each deal with their child differently, and children can learn a lot from how each deal with others too.

    In other words, I don't buy it because it doesn't make much sense to me.

    When I get a bit more time I might do a fresh search on the subject.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement