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

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

1…1314161819…218

Comments

  • #452
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Neilos wrote: »
    How this has become a discussion on incest over homosexuality is beyond me and i really think there's better places for it. What my opinion boils down to is this, I know very little about the history and background of incest and therefore i don't feel I'm in a great place to comment on it but what i do know is it carries with it a high degree of risk in terms of the offspring from such a relationship. Homosexuality does not have this risk attached to it and to compare both in the same argument is unfair and misleading.

    Someone with knowledge in the history and background of incest could probably put up much better arguments for or against it than i could.

    I agree we are way off topic and this discussion is for a different thread.

    It is a complex issue and one that I am still working out in my own mind.


  • #453
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Neilos wrote: »
    The link is working fine for me. The main reason I'd object to incest is the fact that children born of direct siblings are at a significantly higher risk of congenital birth defects.

    I'm curious what you make of couples who have a known history of potentially serious generic defects. Would you object to them reproducing?


  • #454
    Bloodwing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭Bloodwing


    Neilos wrote: »
    How this has become a discussion on incest over homosexuality is beyond me and i really think there's better places for it. What my opinion boils down to is this, I know very little about the history and background of incest and therefore i don't feel I'm in a great place to comment on it but what i do know is it carries with it a high degree of risk in terms of the offspring from such a relationship. Homosexuality does not have this risk attached to it and to compare both in the same argument is unfair and misleading.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I'm curious what you make of couples who have a known history of potentially serious generic defects. Would you object to them reproducing?

    As above, this isn't the place for this discussion, it's not related to homosexuality in any way in my opinion.


  • #455
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I'm curious what you make of couples who have a known history of potentially serious generic defects. Would you object to them reproducing?
    With Neilos' permission, I'll jump in here.

    I study many many families with a variety of genetic disorders. It is widely known, by both medics and the relevant communities, that consanguineous relationships contribute hugely to the prevalence of genetic disorders in newborns. Furthermore, the financial burden of caring for children with genetic disorders born to consanguineous parents is so utterly skewed it's almost unbelievable.

    But geneticists are largely in agreement that you cannot stop people marrying and spawning with family members where a specific culture dictates it to be desirable. Many refuse to believe that genetic relatedness is the problem, some ascribe it to a supernatural being, some lie about relationships.

    Would I stop it? Yes. Can it be stopped? No.

    I'll leave it there, wildly off topic but really my bag, if you get me.


  • #456
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    doctoremma wrote: »
    With Neilos' permission, I'll jump in here.

    I study many many families with a variety of genetic disorders. It is widely known, by both medics and the relevant communities, that consanguineous relationships contribute hugely to the prevalence of genetic disorders in newborns. Furthermore, the financial burden of caring for children with genetic disorders born to consanguineous parents is so utterly skewed it's almost unbelievable.

    But geneticists are largely in agreement that you cannot stop people marrying and spawning with family members where a specific culture dictates it to be desirable. Many refuse to believe that genetic relatedness is the problem, some ascribe it to a supernatural being, some lie about relationships.

    Would I stop it? Yes. Can it be stopped? No.

    I'll leave it there, wildly off topic but really my bag, if you get me.

    OK, well thanks for answering, even if it was on behalf of someone else.

    BTW, the opinions on incest are very interesting.


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    OK, well thanks for answering, even if it was on behalf of someone else.

    BTW, the opinions on incest are very interesting.

    The opinions on incest are bizarre !! Or am I alone in thinking that ? It is following logic/Equality/Political correctness to a seemingly rational conclusion but being anything but.

    Call me old fashioned .


  • #458
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    marienbad wrote: »
    The opinions on incest are bizarre !! Or am I alone in thinking that ? It is following logic/Equality/Political correctness to a seemingly rational conclusion but being anything but.

    Call me old fashioned .

    I'd go one further than bizarre and I would say that I find the concept disgusting. But I also applaud Doctoremma for being honest enough to admit that she sees nothing inherently morally wrong with incest. Moreover, I think such a view is a logical outworking if you think that you live in an amoral universe.*
    You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals
    So let's do it like they do on the discover channel


    And the disclaimer is (and I think I need one because people will take me up wrong - inadvertently or otherwise) that I don't think that being an atheist means that you are morally evil or have a burning desire to get busy with your sibling.


  • #459
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I'd go one further than bizarre and I would say that I find the concept disgusting. But I also applaud Doctoremma for being honest enough to admit that she sees nothing inherently morally wrong with incest. Moreover, I think such a view is a logical outworking if you think that you live in an amoral universe.*




    And the disclaimer is (and I think I need one because people will take me up wrong - inadvertently or otherwise) that I don't think that being an atheist means that you are morally evil or have a burning desire to get busy with your sibling.

    Ninja edit between me having written my response and gone back to check a little something....


  • #460
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    My poorly phrased post aside, I'm surprised how often Christian apologists (and ordinary folk like myself) have to clarify ourselves when we talk about morality.


  • #461
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Neilos wrote: »
    As above, this isn't the place for this discussion, it's not related to homosexuality in any way in my opinion.

    It is related to homosexuality - because most of the same arguments that have been advanced for gay marriage apply equally to incestuous marriages.

    It also spears pretty effectively those who like to lambast others as intolerant while they themselves turn out to be much more intolerant.


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    PDN wrote: »
    It is related to homosexuality - because most of the same arguments that have been advanced for gay marriage apply equally to incestuous marriages.

    It also spears pretty effectively those who like to lambast others as intolerant while they themselves turn out to be much more intolerant.

    Of course we shouldn't prevent gay marriage because of the possibility of things like polygamous and incestuous relationships - I would take each case on it's own merits. But it seems valid to ask if the same line of reasoning applies to these groups.

    PDN, if you support the right to gay civil unions (insert the word marriage if one thinks it is applicable), then I wonder what your opinion about the right to polygamous and incestuous relationships is?

    I think that there are at least two contexts to consider here when answering - that of Christianity and that of a secular and pluralist democracy. Though I should clarify this by saying that I don't think that these two are incompatible.

    So, what do you think?


  • #463
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Neilos wrote: »
    The definition of a parent as per the dictionary doesn't matter a damn. All that matters is the care and love that any parent offers their child and unless you have been adopted yourself you cannot claim to know that it's a different kind of relationship. I've asked the anti gay brigade twice already and got no answer but I'll ask again, if gay marriage or same sex adoption is allowed and becomes common place how will it negatively affect YOUR life? As far as I can see it will only affect you if you sit around worrying that society is falling apart and the gays are coming for you.

    Except it is widely regarded and backed up in terms of studies that a child with both their mother and father is better off. I dealt with this a few pages ago.

    For the record I think nonsense like the "anti-gay parade" doesn't help having a good discussion.


  • #464
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    Except it is widely regarded and backed up in terms of studies that a child with both their mother and father is better off. I dealt with this a few pages ago.

    For the record I think nonsense like the "anti-gay parade" doesn't help having a good discussion.


    Yeah philogos you keeping saying that , and in a perfect world and from my own experience I tend to agree with you . But the mish mash mixed up world that we live in the optimum choice is not always available. So can I ask how you would you rank the folllowing

    1 biological parents
    2 adoptive parents
    3 Single parents
    4 biological parent + Step parent
    5 Same Sex Parents
    6 Foster Home
    7 Disfunctional biological parents etc
    8 A.N.Other.

    Also do you thing it is right that the religion of children to be adopted should be limited to parents from that religion, as was enforced by the Catholic church for many years ( maybe still is ) in this country ?


  • #465
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    marienbad wrote: »
    Yeah philogos you keeping saying that , and in a perfect world and from my own experience I tend to agree with you . But the mish mash mixed up world that we live in the optimum choice is not always available. So can I ask how you would you rank the folllowing

    My point is simply that the Government should leave marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and as the basis for the family.
    marienbad wrote: »
    1 biological parents
    2 adoptive parents
    3 Single parents
    4 biological parent + Step parent
    5 Same Sex Parents
    6 Foster Home
    7 Disfunctional biological parents etc
    8 A.N.Other.

    I don't have the time or the energy to do this, as to do it accurately would mean to do a lot of reading which I don't have the time to do at the moment.

    What we do know is that a child with both mother and father fares best. Many of the other ones that you put down there are equivalent. Others are detrimental (I don't know why the heck you put down dysfunctional biological parent without putting anything else similar down for any other category).
    marienbad wrote: »
    Also do you thing it is right that the religion of children to be adopted should be limited to parents from that religion, as was enforced by the Catholic church for many years ( maybe still is ) in this country ?

    Different topic, and I don't know why as an non-Catholic I'm being asked to speak on RCC adoption policy.

    I think children should be given to the best parents. End of.


  • #466
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    My point is simply that the Government should leave marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and as the basis for the family.



    I don't have the time or the energy to do this, as to do it accurately would mean to do a lot of reading which I don't have the time to do at the moment.

    What we do know is that a child with both mother and father fares best. Many of the other ones that you put down there are equivalent. Others are detrimental (I don't know why the heck you put down dysfunctional biological parent without putting anything else similar down for any other category).



    Different topic, and I don't know why as an non-Catholic I'm being asked to speak on RCC adoption policy.

    I think children should be given to the best parents. End of.

    God you do hedge you bets philologos, and stop being so suspicious , I put down dysfuctional biological parents etc - the etc implyiing variation of the list above rather then the whole list again but with dysfunctional added.

    All I am trying to point out is that the biological parent model is not always on offer , therefore we must make choices.

    To me the best and only choice is where love and the good of the child is on offer and if that is biological, adoptive ,gay, lesbian, uncles, aunts, step-parents so be it. The practical arrangements - marriage , 2nd marriage (or living in sin as the catholic church like to calls it) Common law etc is of secondary consideration

    And I am not asking you about the role of the catholic chuch in adoption. I used that as an example whereby a religious organisation used that as a non negotiable in the adoption of children and I am asking you the same for your church.

    So do you believe religion should be a non negotiable in the adoption of children in your church ?


  • #467
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,054 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    Except it is widely regarded and backed up in terms of studies that a child with both their mother and father is better off. I dealt with this a few pages ago.
    No, you posted studies which show biological parents are preferable. Which is irrelevant in a post about gay parents adopting. Unless you think pro-gay-marriage advocates are proposing forcibly removing children from their biological parents, which is just insane. The issue is not gay parents adopting or biological parents, it's gay parents adopting or straight parents adopting, which, as far as I can see, you have posted zero studies on

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #468
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,917 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    philologos wrote: »
    I think children should be given to the best parents. End of.

    But surely that is what happens, no?

    If a child is put up for adoption, suitable couples are evaluated and the couple deemed to be the best choice to raise that child gets to adopt it.

    Same-sex couples have to go through the exact same process as hetero couples. They are put through the same evaluations, examinations and tests. So if a same-sex couple is given the chance the adopt a child, it's because they were deemed to be the best parents. And the fact they are a same-sex couple would obviously have been taken into account.

    So any same-sex couple who adopt a child were the best parents in that instance.

    Claims that hetero couples are better suited to adopt than same-sex couples instantly go out the window because it's not that simple. Each set of potential parents, whether they're same-sex or hetero, have to be judged on their own merits. If a hetero couple get a child ahead of a same-sex couple, it's because they were deemed to potentially be the best parents. If a same sex couple get a child ahead of a hetero couple, it's because they were deemed to potentially be the best parents.

    And as for the redefinition of marriage, is that more important than equality? Is redefining a word, even though it wouldn't affect anyone in any real tangible way negatively, more important than equality?


  • #469
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Penn wrote: »
    And as for the redefinition of marriage, is that more important than equality? Is redefining a word, even though it wouldn't affect anyone in any real tangible way negatively, more important than equality?

    No, because such equality becomes meaningless, robbing terms of their meaning.

    Why not redefine 'genius' so it applies to everyone? Then we'll all be equal.


  • #470
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    No, because such equality becomes meaningless, robbing terms of their meaning.

    Why not redefine 'genius' so it applies to everyone? Then we'll all be equal.

    "Genius" (in your context) is a noun applied to someone of remarkable capability in some field. To begin to apply the word "genius" to, say, anyone who has ever appeared on Big Brother (I'm being flippant, please don't dig out a contestant who is actually president of Mensa) involves changing the meaning of the word.

    "Marriage" is a concept. The meaning of "marriage" is not changing. The people to whom the concept may be applied/attributed/accessed is changing.


  • #471
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    I think children should be given to the best parents. End of.

    As do most of the rest of us. That is not what is in contention. You have an unfortunate habit of phrasing your positions deliberately to try and paint the "other side" as if they are somehow against the same ideals you have. For example in the abortion debate you keep saying you are only fighting for the rights of children. As if pro-choice people are not. Of course they are, they just differ in when they think a child is a child and hence has those rights.

    Here too you try to paint it as if you are fighting for the best parents for a child. As if people supporting gay marriage and adoption somehow want to give children to the worst parents. This is not so and is just another one of your usual linguistic propaganda tricks you are so well known for trying to pull.

    We ALL want to give children to the best parents. So let us not pretend otherwise. The difference of opinion however lies in your repeated ad nausea assumption that the "best" parents are by definition one man and one women. An assumption you not only refuse to back up... ever... but you run away from answering questions about it such as the very simple question of:

    IF you list the things a child actually needs for a healthy and successful upbringing.... (Love, education, food, protection, security, stability and so forth).... can you find one thing on such a list that by definition one parental configuration performs better than another.... be it single parents, straight parents, gay parents or other configurations such as the user who replied to you recently.... who you also ignored as per usual and ran away... who has the first of a planned number of children and lives in a full time relationship with two women.

    I think the reason you run so readily from that question is that you know as well as we do that the answer is "No". There is nothing on such a list that is somehow by definition performed better by any one parental configuration over another. Many Single parents for example perform them much better than many straight married couples. And Vice Versa.

    So you run from thread to thread away from the question simply declaring to anyone who will listen that the configuration of one man and one woman is the "ideal". An "ideal" that seems to exist only in your head but that you cling on to preciously because it quite literally is the only mantra you have to back up your Religiously motivated anti homosexual stance.


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,917 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    PDN wrote: »
    No, because such equality becomes meaningless, robbing terms of their meaning.

    Why not redefine 'genius' so it applies to everyone? Then we'll all be equal.

    That's not the same thing. Redefining the word genius so it applies to everyone negates the need for the word. Redefining marriage to include same sex marriage doesn't do that. Besides which, being a genius is not generally considered to be a right.

    I really can't see why equality is a bad thing? Why should I have the right to marry the person I love just because I'm male and she's female, yet someone else can't marry the person they love because they're of the same sex? I'll go one step further, why should I have the right to marry someone I don't love but same sex couples can't marry? I could go out, find a woman and within a few days get married, then decide it was a bad idea and split up. I have the ability to abuse this right that I was given simply because I'm attracted to women, yet same sex couples who want to make a lifelong commitment to each other don't even have that right to begin with.

    Let me modify my earlier question: Is redefining the word marriage to include same sex marriage, more important than equal human rights regardless of sexual orientation? What's the difference between me, and someone who is attracted to a person of their own sex? Heterosexual people don't all act one way. Homosexual people don't all act one way. We are all individuals with our own differences. Some people are just attracted to people of their own sex. Should they be refused rights such as marriage (in a non religious context) simply for that reason? Is same-sex love between two consenting adults really such a big deal?


  • #473
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Penn wrote: »
    Let me modify my earlier question: Is redefining the word marriage to include same sex marriage, more important than equal human rights regardless of sexual orientation? What's the difference between me, and someone who is attracted to a person of their own sex? Heterosexual people don't all act one way. Homosexual people don't all act one way. We are all individuals with our own differences. Some people are just attracted to people of their own sex. Should they be refused rights such as marriage (in a non religious context) simply for that reason? Is same-sex love between two consenting adults really such a big deal?

    It's my understanding that PDN isn't denying anyone the rights to enter into unions. I gather the bone of contention is the use of the word marriage - which in the context of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other worldviews has a very specific meaning.


  • #474
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    It's my understanding that PDN isn't denying anyone the rights to enter into unions. I gather the bone of contention is the use of the word marriage - which in the context of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other worldviews has a very specific meaning.

    Yes and you already dis-agree with what the word marriage means

    You ( I presume) define it as a union between a man and a woman - any man and any woman- except incestuous unions.

    Catholics define as a union between a specific man and a specific woman and so long as either/or is still alive no other union is marriage.

    And the variations continue .

    There is no christian monolothic definition of marriage. So the term is a continuously evolving term and gay union is the next step in the process.


  • #475
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    It's my understanding that PDN isn't denying anyone the rights to enter into unions. I gather the bone of contention is the use of the word marriage - which in the context of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other worldviews has a very specific meaning.

    I don't think anyone is denying that. What is been disputed is that the religions 'own' the term marriage when, in fact, the State does and licences religious organisations to officiate - i.e use the term. BUT the religious part of a, for example, church wedding has no legal status. It is symbolic. The only aspect which is legally valid is when the happy couple signs the civil register in the presence of a recognised civil registrar - who is this instance also happens to be a cleric.


  • #476
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,917 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Penn wrote: »
    Let me modify my earlier question: Is redefining the word marriage to include same sex marriage, more important than equal human rights regardless of sexual orientation? What's the difference between me, and someone who is attracted to a person of their own sex? Heterosexual people don't all act one way. Homosexual people don't all act one way. We are all individuals with our own differences. Some people are just attracted to people of their own sex. Should they be refused rights such as marriage (in a non religious context) simply for that reason? Is same-sex love between two consenting adults really such a big deal?

    It's my understanding that PDN isn't denying anyone the rights to enter into unions. I gather the bone of contention is the use of the word marriage - which in the context of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other worldviews has a very specific meaning.

    As pointed out, marriage in the context of Christianity, Islam, Judaism et al may have a specific meaning which they don't want to change, and I would agree with these religions right to not allow such marriages in their religion, but marriage is not exclusive to those religions. Marriage outside of those religions removes the religious aspect from the debate.


  • #477
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    marienbad wrote: »
    Yes and you already dis-agree with what the word marriage means

    You ( I presume) define it as a union between a man and a woman - any man and any woman- except incestuous unions.

    Catholics define as a union between a specific man and a specific woman and so long as either/or is still alive no other union is marriage.

    And the variations continue .

    There is no christian monolothic definition of marriage. So the term is a continuously evolving term and gay union is the next step in the process.

    In the context of traditional Christianity marriage is defined a union between man and woman. So given your above post there is no difference between what you assume I believe and what you state is official Catholic dogma. Divorce is not of relevance to this discussion.

    I'm personally fine with gay unions being referred to as marriage but I also understand why some people think that using the word marriage in this context is an oxymoron.


  • #478
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    but I also understand why some people think that using the word marriage in this context is an oxymoron.

    So do I but I could argue that some people think the term 'Christian Love' is an oxymoron given some of the hate fuelled vitriolic vilification spouted by those who call themselves Christians. Yet, we have not had pages of discussion on this apparent redefinition of 'love'.


  • #479
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    In the context of traditional Christianity marriage is defined a union between man and woman. So given your above post there is no difference between what you assume I believe and what you state is official Catholic dogma. Divorce is not of relevance to this discussion.

    I'm personally fine with gay unions being referred to as marriage but I also understand why some people think that using the word marriage in this context is an oxymoron.

    Of course divorce is relevant - it is you brought up the different religions and how they are unified in the concept of marriage. There is no such unity- the definition varies from church to church.

    According to the catholic church anyone (even not of their religion)in a second union is living in sin.

    You are trying to present a monolithic definition of marriage where no such definition exists, and that is before we even get to the Mormons or Islam etc.

    So do you think catholics in a second union should be happy to be only accorded ''union'' status and not marriage status ?


  • #480
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    So do I but I could argue that some people think the term 'Christian Love' is an oxymoron given some of the hate fuelled vitriolic vilification spouted by those who call themselves Christians.

    Thankfully on this Forum we discuss Christianity, not the stuff that might run through the disordered heads of 'some people'.


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    marienbad wrote: »
    Of course divorce is relevant - it is you brought up the different religions and how they are unified in the concept of marriage. There is no such unity- the definition varies from church to church.

    According to the catholic church anyone (even not of their religion)in a second union is living in sin.

    You are trying to present a monolithic definition of marriage where no such definition exists, and that is before we even get to the Mormons or Islam etc.

    So do you think catholics in a second union should be happy to be only accorded ''union'' status and not marriage status ?

    I mentioned this in a previous thread, but according to the Bible (Mark 10), anyone who divorces and remarries isn't just living in sin. They're committing adultery and therefore breaking one of the Ten Commandments.

    Can those who are using the Bible to oppose same sex civil marriage can confirm they are equally as fervent about stopping civil marriages involving divorced men or women? Because, in 2009 alone, 2,056 civil marriages involved at least one divorced person (CSO).


Advertisement