Is gay marriage a threat to humanity?

OldNotWIse · 02-03-2012 10:36am

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

To be honest, I don't believe in it. The way I see it, marridge is a religious thing.

QUOTE]

If marriage is a religious thing then I assume all men and women who marry in the eyes of God will attend mass regularly and avoid the use of contraceptions? (Ridiculous I know, but it highlights how silly it is when people use religion on an "a la carte" basis to suit their own agenda)

joseph brand · 02-03-2012 10:40am

LighterGuy wrote: »

I usually bite my tongue with these matters. But gay marriage is wrong. So wrong. It should never happen. Its against God.

As you guessed it, I am messing. lol. I support it. But lets see how many people get back to tear me a new one without seeing this hidden bit lol.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. Simple.

Well you got me.

OldNotWIse · 02-03-2012 10:41am

ixoy wrote: »

If you're going to quote Leviticus on this then I assume you're going to support all of Leviticus? Grand then - no issues with slavery?

You can't pick and choose moral arguments from this book...

Thank you, well said. I hate when people use the bible on an a la carte basis. It's so blatant that they are not religious, they are simply using religion as a platform for homophobia. If you are religious and follow Gods word and disagree with homosexuality fine (though I laugh when people say "I disagree with homosexuality" - it's a way of being and not an argument therefore it's physically impossible to "disagree" with it), but people who use the bible when it suits them drive me mad
:eek:

OldNotWIse · 02-03-2012 10:47am

Gay's can't do that,QUOTE]

sadly for you, they can hahaha

OldNotWIse · 02-03-2012 10:49am

oooops! Sorry to all those I replied to! Just realised how far back your original posts were

iguana · 02-03-2012 11:23am

cmat wrote: »

can a woman have sex with another woman and produce a child

Not through sex but we really aren't very far off science being able to accomplish this at all. There are already generation upon generation of small mammals that have been created with two mothers and no father and the success rates at accomplishing this are getting higher every year.

In very simplistic terms the ova of one female's egg is inserted into the other female's egg in place of sperm forming a zygote. The zygote is grown until it's an embryo and then implanted back into one of the mothers.

It will be a while before this can be done successfully for humans but the basics are in place and 20 to 30 years from now it may not be that unusual for lesbian couples to have the option of having a child together which is as genetically both of theirs as the child of any mother and father.

Doing it for males is more difficult as the science is much newer and at present mammals with two fathers must also have a mother but it's great news for future polyandrists.

talkinyite · 02-03-2012 11:35am

iguana wrote: »

Not through sex but we really aren't very far off science being able to accomplish this at all. There are already generation upon generation of small mammals that have been created with two mothers and no father and the success rates at accomplishing this are getting higher every year.

In very simplistic terms the ova of one female's egg is inserted into the other female's egg in place of sperm forming a zygote. The zygote is grown until it's an embryo and then implanted back into one of the mothers.

It will be a while before this can be done successfully for humans but the basics are in place and 20 to 30 years from now it may not be that unusual for lesbian couples to have the option of having a child together which is as genetically both of theirs as the child of any mother and father.

Doing it for males is more difficult as the science is much newer and at present mammals with two fathers must also have a mother but it's great news for future polyandrists.

Really? that's weird.

prinz · 02-03-2012 11:50am

Millicent wrote: »

It stopped being relevant in my life, especially their attitude to women..

Perhaps you were badly treated but there are countless women who don't feel abused by some 'attitude' to them. Perhaps we could all agree on stop judging each other?

talkinyite wrote: »

Really? that's weird.

It's the selfishness I mentioned earlier being manifested.

AngryBollix · 02-03-2012 11:52am

iguana · 02-03-2012 12:07pm

talkinyite wrote: »

Really? that's weird.

The only thing at all 'weird' about it is that the offspring of two mothers have a significantly longer lifespan then regular offspring. On average they live 30% longer.

prinz wrote: »

It's the selfishness I mentioned earlier being manifested.

Exactly what is selfish about it? Oh no, we have the potential to one day make some people very, very happy by finding a way to fulfil the dreams they never thought it possible to make real. What rat baßtards!:mad:

prinz · 02-03-2012 12:15pm

iguana wrote: »

Exactly what is selfish about it? Oh no, we have the potential to one day make some people very, very happy by finding a way to fulfil the dreams they never thought it possible to make real. What rat baßtards!:mad:

Just because we have the ability to do something as a race, doesn't mean we should go ahead and do it because it will "make somebody happy".

Maybe it would make me happy if my child could be half human half computer. Who knows what the lifespan could be. Well let's work on making that a reality shall we. Maybe somebody else just wants to clone themselves five times. Well if it makes them very, very happy off you go...

For every leap in technology/and leap in social terms there follows somebody with a new found dream which they desperately need fulfilled. Suddenly it stops becoming a dream and turns into a right. I am making a general statement by the way, not restricting it to mice zygotes. It's the world we live, 'because you're worth it', the car you have defines you as a person, buy the latest mobile phone because you need it and it's your right, we'll bring out another edition in six months and tell you the same thing but it doesn't matter, buy this perfume it will fulfill you, sleep around as much as you want if that's what you want,....... consquences? Responsibilites to ourselves and others? Nah. F*ck it. If it makes you happy go for it.

Millicent · 02-03-2012 12:21pm

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps you were badly treated but there are countless women who don't feel abused by some 'attitude' to them. Perhaps we could all agree on stop judging each other?

Who's judging? What part of "it stopped being relevant to my life" in polite answer to a direct question asking me why I left it is judging? I'm not sure what you read there but no need to chastise me for it.

talkinyite · 02-03-2012 12:24pm

iguana wrote: »

The only thing at all 'weird' about it is that the offspring of two mothers have a significantly longer lifespan then regular offspring. On average they live 30% longer.

I just think it's a generally weird concept. I'm not big into cloning and all that sort of stuff.

prinz · 02-03-2012 12:25pm

Millicent wrote: »

Who's judging? What part of "it stopped being relevant to my life" in polite answer to a direct question asking me why I left it is judging? I'm not sure what you read there but no need to chastise me for it.

Well saying the "Catholics attitude to women" as I see it is a judgement on the many, many women active in the Roman Catholic Church and insinuating they are happy to be mistreated etc.

hightower1 · 02-03-2012 12:32pm

prinz wrote: »

Just because we have the ability to do something as a race, doesn't mean we should go ahead and do it because it will "make somebody happy".

Maybe it would make me happy if my child could be half human half computer. Who knows what the lifespan could be. Well let's work on making that a reality shall we. Maybe somebody else just wants to clone themselves five times. Well if it makes them very, very happy off you go...

For every leap in technology/and leap in social terms there follows somebody with a new found dream which they desperately need fulfilled. Suddenly it stops becoming a dream and turns into a right. I am making a general statement by the way, not restricting it to mice zygotes. It's the world we live, 'because you're worth it', the car you have defines you as a person, buy the latest mobile phone because you need it and it's your right, we'll bring out another edition in six months and tell you the same thing but it doesn't matter, buy this perfume it will fulfill you, sleep around as much as you want if that's what you want,....... consquences? Responsibilites to ourselves and others? Nah. F*ck it. If it makes you happy go for it.

You raise a very interesting point there... where does the quest for personal fulfilment cross the line and contradict social responsibility?

Anyways, imo I have nothing against gay marrage I just think if you wanna play any religions game you have to play by their rules. if your religion doesnt allow gay marrige then sorry about ya, a civil partnership is your option. I wouldnt expect to be able to have a jewish weddnig if me or my partner wasnt jewish I dont scream discrimination about it. I would just have a civil marrage in that case. Is just the rules of their religion, If I dont like the rules I dont have to play.

Hell the way our population is going we could do with more gays tbh I just dont know if I could put up with the excess of skinny jeans and E4

efb · 02-03-2012 12:34pm

hightower1 wrote: »

You raise a very interesting point there... where does the quest for personal fulfilment cross the line and contradict social responsibility?

Anyways, imo I have nothing against gay marrage I just think if you wanna play any religions game you have to play by their rules. if your religion doesnt allow gay marrige then sorry about ya, a civil partnership is your option. I wouldnt expect to be able to have a jewish weddnig if me or my partner wasnt jewish I dont scream discrimination about it. I would just have a civil marrage in that case. Is just the rules of their religion, If I dont like the rules I dont have to play.

Hell the way our population is going we could do with more gays tbh I just dont know if I could put up with the excess of skinny jeans and E4

We do not want religious marraige we want equal civil marraige rights.

Civil Partnership in not the same as civil marraige!

Sonics2k · 02-03-2012 12:36pm

cmat wrote: »

can a child grow up with two women as a mom or dad be normal
NO

I did.

What's your point?

Millicent · 02-03-2012 12:40pm

prinz wrote: »

Well saying the "Catholics attitude to women" as I see it is a judgement on the many, many women active in the Roman Catholic Church and insinuating they are happy to be mistreated etc.

No. It means I was uncomfortable with their attitude that I could not be a priest, given that I was a woman, which, considering how devoted I was, I probably would have been. Their condemning of abortion even in the cases of rape bothered me. The church's attitude to divorce, even where a spouse is abused bugged me.

All of this doesn't work for *me* and I never said any woman who was still in the Catholic Church was "mistreated". But why ask me politely when you could jump to conclusions?

Bannasidhe · 02-03-2012 12:49pm

Millicent wrote: »

No. It means I was uncomfortable with their attitude that I could not be a priest, given that I was a woman, which, considering how devoted I was, I probably would have been. Their condemning of abortion even in the cases of rape bothered me. The church's attitude to divorce, even where a spouse is abused bugged me.

All of this doesn't work for *me* and I never said any woman who was still in the Catholic Church was "mistreated". But why ask me politely when you could jump to conclusions?

Jennifer Sleeman was bothered enough by how the RCC treats women to organise a Mass Boycott.

prinz · 02-03-2012 12:55pm

Millicent wrote: »

All of this doesn't work for *me* and I never said any woman who was still in the Catholic Church was "mistreated". But why ask me politely when you could jump to conclusions?

I didn't jump to conclusions, you referred to the Catholic Church's attitude to women, not your attitude to the Catholic Church, which now seems to have been the reason you left and that's fine. If you have a problem with what they teach and what they believe then that's your business. No problems. I have myself moved away from the RCC but I don't blame it on their attitude to me.. rather my opinion of what they teach.

..and one of these days I'll captain an All-Ireland winning camogie team. Damn GAA *shakes fist*

Bannasidhe · 02-03-2012 12:57pm

hightower1 wrote: »

You raise a very interesting point there... where does the quest for personal fulfilment cross the line and contradict social responsibility?

Anyways, imo I have nothing against gay marrage I just think if you wanna play any religions game you have to play by their rules. if your religion doesnt allow gay marrige then sorry about ya, a civil partnership is your option. I wouldnt expect to be able to have a jewish weddnig if me or my partner wasnt jewish I dont scream discrimination about it. I would just have a civil marrage in that case. Is just the rules of their religion, If I dont like the rules I dont have to play.

Hell the way our population is going we could do with more gays tbh I just dont know if I could put up with the excess of skinny jeans and E4

Why should I play by the rules set down by a religion I don't believe in?
I want Civil Partnership to confer exactly the same rights and responsibilities as a Civil Marriage - religion has nothing to do with it.

Why should my cousin be able to have a Civil Marriage with her male partner (second marriage for both of them) and automatically be granted a range of 'rights' as a couple that is denied to my OH and myself?

Why will my nephew be granted rights unavailable to my OH and myself when he and his girlfriend have a Civil Marriage in November that myself and my OH cannot avail of - yet we have been together for longer then this couple even know each other?

If the RCC doesn't want to perform gay marriages -that is their prerogative. It is not a reason for the Irish State to refuse to legislate for them.

prinz · 02-03-2012 1:02pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If the RCC doesn't want to perform gay marriages -that is their prerogative. It is not a reason for the Irish State to refuse to legislate for them.

Excellent point, which is why you have to wonder why the OP and so many others like it are so obsessed with the Pope. If people put as much effort into getting on to T.D.'s etc as they seem to into slagging off the RCC and expecting them to suddenly do a U-Turn, as if that would affect our national legisation either way, then they might actually achieve something.

iguana · 02-03-2012 1:06pm

prinz wrote: »

Just because we have the ability to do something as a race, doesn't mean we should go ahead and do it because it will "make somebody happy".

Maybe it would make me happy if my child could be half human half computer. Who knows what the lifespan could be. Well let's work on making that a reality shall we. Maybe somebody else just wants to clone themselves five times. Well if it makes them very, very happy off you go...

For every leap in technology/and leap in social terms there follows somebody with a new found dream which they desperately need fulfilled. Suddenly it stops becoming a dream and turns into a right. I am making a general statement by the way, not restricting it to mice zygotes. It's the world we live, 'because you're worth it', the car you have defines you as a person, buy the latest mobile phone because you need it and it's your right, we'll bring out another edition in six months and tell you the same thing but it doesn't matter, buy this perfume it will fulfill you, sleep around as much as you want if that's what you want,....... consquences? Responsibilites to ourselves and others? Nah. F*ck it. If it makes you happy go for it.

So if you and your wife want children but it's not happening you won't go to your doctor about it? If your wife experiences recurrent miscarriage you won't make use of medication to protect a pregnancy? If your wife and baby have incompatible blood systems you won't make use of medical advances to stop the baby from dying immediately after birth?

Or is it that only straight people can make use of medical science that allows them to have a family that they couldn't have had a 100 years ago?

Stark · 02-03-2012 1:09pm

prinz wrote: »

Maybe it would make me happy if my child could be half human half computer. Who knows what the lifespan could be. Well let's work on making that a reality shall we. Maybe somebody else just wants to clone themselves five times. Well if it makes them very, very happy off you go...

That would be ridiculous.

Though if I have a son, I plan to have a piece of his willy cut off...

Bannasidhe · 02-03-2012 1:12pm

prinz wrote: »

Excellent point, which is why you have to wonder why the OP and so many others like it are so obsessed with the Pope. If people put as much effort into getting on to T.D.'s etc as they seem to into slagging off the RCC and expecting them to suddenly do a U-Turn, as if that would affect our national legisation either way, then they might actually achieve something.

Because the opposition of the RCC to gay marriages is believed by the majority of our legislators to be shared by the majority of the Irish population that defines itself as Catholic.

Our government is still very wary of offending the RCC hierarchy - and FG show no signs of changing that as the storm in a tea cup about the closure of the embassy in the Vatican has shown. Many members of FG still love to rattle the rosary beads - seeming to forget they were elected to serve the State and it's citizens, not the Church and it's hierarchy.

toexpress · 02-03-2012 1:13pm

SomeFool wrote: »

Does anyone care what the church think about anything anymore. An irrelevant organisation to anyone living in the real world.

The other week Ryan Tubridy read out a letter on his show from a girl who's girlfriend was afraid to come out to her family because of their Catholic beliefs. It was heading her off down a dreadfully self destructive road sadly for her and I dare say unless she does something soon then she will be in a world of pain. The point of this is that the Catholic Church have a lot to say on a lot of things but on a relative scale they remain amazingly quiet on the subject of priests and brothers raping children.

If God made everyone in his image and loves all his "children" equally does it make a big difference if they want to have a relationship/sex with someone of their own sex? Once the person is old enough to make the choice then why does it make a difference.

The Catholic Church would want to think on before they start making statements like these, start with the man in the mirror and get your own house in order before you start preaching to others.

prinz · 02-03-2012 1:16pm

iguana wrote: »

Or is it that only straight people can make use of medical science that allows them to have a family that they couldn't have had a 100 years ago?

Not unexpected response, nothing in what I have written so far differentiated between straight and not straight so perhaps you could drop that angle.

I like plugging a kettle into the wall. I don't like that people put so much energy, time and resources into making and improving nuclear weapons. Just because I agree with vaccinations, doesn't mean I should be ok with microchipping. Just because you agree with some advances in medical science, doesn't you have to be perfectly fine with all advances.

prinz · 02-03-2012 1:18pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because the opposition of the RCC to gay marriages is believed by the majority of our legislators to be shared by the majority of the Irish population that defines itself as Catholic.
Our government is still very wary of offending the RCC hierarchy - and FG show no signs of changing that as the storm in a tea cup about the closure of the embassy in the Vatican has shown. Many members of FG still love to rattle the rosary beads - seeming to forget they were elected to serve the State and it's citizens, not the Church and it's hierarchy.

...and who voted them in?

iguana · 02-03-2012 1:39pm

prinz wrote: »

Not unexpected response, nothing in what I have written so far differentiated between straight and not straight so perhaps you could drop that angle.

I like plugging a kettle into the wall. I don't like that people put so much energy, time and resources into making and improving nuclear weapons. Just because I agree with vaccinations, doesn't mean I should be ok with microchipping. Just because you agree with some advances in medical science, doesn't you have to be perfectly fine with all advances.

Well what I wrote about was the exact same thing. I didn't ask if you were ok with electricity, you are online, clearly you are. I didn't compare reproductive science to rocket ships or bombs. I compared reproductive science to reproductive science. Apples with apples. If one couple couldn't have had a baby without current medical science then it is absolutely no different to at some point in the future other couples who couldn't previously have had a baby utilising medical science to have one. Either you are ok with reproductive science or you aren't. Anything else is hypocrisy and prejudice.

Bannasidhe · 02-03-2012 1:42pm

prinz wrote: »

...and who voted them in?

Where is the alternative? Or do you believe the massive swing to FG was because the majority of the electorate absolutely supported them rather then the fact that the majority of the electorate wanted rid of FF? Sadly, we as a people haven't yet managed to move beyond the if it's not FF as the main party it must be FG school of Irish politics.

The Secularist Labour Party also made great gains - who voted them in? The LP have made no secret of their secularist agenda yet are frequently attacked for this - as evidenced again by the furore over the Vatican embassy closure and Quinn's moves to remove some of our National Schools from the control of the RCC.

During the Presidential campaign the candidates were questioned about their religious beliefs on RTE (I think it was The Frontline but open to correction on that)- what exactly did have to do with the selection of the President - a civil office in which the holder of the office of the Presidency is the 'personification' of the civil state and guardian of our Constitutional rights - which include freedom of conscience and a clear statement that the State will not favour one particular religion?

The 'other' main religion in Ireland is the Church of Ireland - a very socially liberal organisation that has no issue with gay marriage, female clergy or even - gasp- gay clergy. But our legislators prefer to listen to the pronouncements from Rome and it's Irish cheerleaders and ignore what the Polls are telling them (73% in favour of full gay marriage) - this being the same Rome that offered a loving home to any Anglican clergy fed up of the CoE/CoI's social liberalism.

There is a vocal and powerful Catholic lobby in this country which believes it speaks for the majority of Irish citizens - unfortunately many of our public representatives also believe this so listen to this lobby group.
Personally, I do not believe they do not actually speak for the majority - but most of our lily-livered politicos are afraid to directly challenge them.

Is gay marriage a threat to humanity?

Comments