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…7475777980…218

Comments

  • #2282
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Links234 wrote: »
    Yes, you have a man and a man and a woman and a woman. complementing one another.

    a man and a woman are not going to be necessarily "complementing" each other now, are they? they're not going to get on together, work well together, enjoy each other's company, want to share raising a family together by no other criteria than being opposite sex are they? no, you need the key ingredient and that's love. you don't just throw a man and a woman together and hey presto that's that 'cos one has an innie and one has an outtie.

    And you know what? that's what LGBT couples also have. LOVE. the basis for any relationship! so no, it's not a different structure, it's the same. trying to pretend it's not the same is trying to suggest that what we have in our relationships is not love, it's to say that we don't have the same feelings, the same wants and hopes and desires and needs as other human beings.

    I love my girlfriend. she completes me. she is wonderful, beautiful, sensitive, mischievous, and I love her so deeply I don't have the words to describe it. It makes me happy to see her happy and it hurts me to see her hurt. what we have is amazing, and never could have imagined it before meeting her.

    no relationships are exactly the same, but what we have is not so different that it deserves to be painted as invalid or lacking, that it deserves lesser status. it doesn't and it shouldn't.

    I agree it is. Love is the basis of a lot of relationships. It doesn't mean that all relationship structures are the same though. For example, love plays a role in friendship. Love plays a role in a mother / child relationship or a father / child relationship. Not all these relationship structures are the same though.

    I don't believe a civil union is the same thing as a marriage. It is protected legally.


  • #2283
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    philologos wrote: »
    They aren't the same thing, so why would I use the same term?

    The structure of the relationship is different. Instead of a man and his wife complementing one another, you have a man and a man and a woman and a woman.

    A man and another man can very easily complement each other. Each can bring out the best qualities in the other. Same way a women and her husband can do the same. There's nothing about that that is unique to any one sexuality.

    Or do you mean just in a purely physical sense? Because the only way that can be true is when we talk about having sex for the purposes of procreation. And you'll get no argument from me on that point. Men and women's genitalia are designed for having sex for the purposes of procreation.

    But seeing as how procreating isn't a requirement for marriage, and marriage isn't a requirement to procreate, and having sex doesn't always lead to procreation, and having sex isn't even always a requirement to procreate, it has no bearing on your point.

    Which means that gay relationships and heterosexual relationships are the same (in so far as any two relationships can be the same). Which means there's no basis for not letting both types of relationship avail of marriage.


  • #2284
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    I agree it is. Love is the basis of a lot of relationships. It doesn't mean that all relationship structures are the same though. For example, love plays a role in friendship. Love plays a role in a mother / child relationship or a father / child relationship. Not all these relationship structures are the same though.

    I don't believe a civil union is the same thing as a marriage. It is protected legally.

    but they don't have a physically (i.e. sexual) intimate relationship so a gay couple have more in common with a boyfriend+girlfriend than a father and daughter.

    so please don't downplay the relationship of gay couples.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2285
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »

    but they don't have a physically (i.e. sexual) intimate relationship so a gay couple have more in common with a boyfriend+girlfriend than a father and daughter.

    so please don't downplay the relationship of gay couples.

    I'm not downplaying anything.

    I don't think that marriage is primarily about a sexual relationship though. Perhaps that's another difference in philosophy.

    I think the structure of the relationship is fair ground for distinguishing the type of relationship that it is.

    By the by a relationship between a boyfriend / girlfriend is also not a marriage. Not from a Christian context.


  • #2286
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    you want to expand on that vague expression so we could better understand what is lacking a gay relationship that they don't complement each other?

    Well from a Christian point of view, God made men and women in His image. God saw that it wasn't fit for Adam to be alone, and created for him one who complemented him (in Genesis 2:18 it says a helper fit for him) so that they could serve God's purposes together. God created man and woman to be together, so that a man would live his family and be joined to his wife and that they would be one flesh. From the beginning this was the model of marriage. Jesus backs this up in the New Testament scripture (Mark 12, Matthew 19).

    Men and women are different, yet they complement each other in such a way that they are one. In a way one could say that women have attributes which are generally lacking in men and vice versa. Indeed, not only do they complement one another in this way, but also biologically, and also in terms of leading a family together.

    From a traditional Christian point of view - men and women are meant to be together for life, and sexuality is meant to take place within a marriage. No doubt people will be offended by that, but in the same way that the Bible instructs me in other areas of live, it instructs me in this one too.

    Men and men and women and women from a Biblical perspective can't and don't complement one another in the same way. They weren't created fit for this purpose.


  • Advertisement
  • #2287
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,052 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    From a traditional Christian point of view - men and women are meant to be together for live, and sexuality is meant to take place within a marriage. No doubt people will be offended by that, but in the same way that the Bible instructs me in other areas of live, it instructs me in this one too.

    Men and men and women and women from a Biblical perspective can't and don't complement one another in the same way. They weren't created fit for this purpose.
    That's a reason for you to marry a woman, it's not a reason to prevent two men you have no knowledge of getting married.

    Out of curiosity, is a man better complemented by a woman who exhibits "traditionally masculine" traits, or a man who exhibits "traditionally feminine" traits?

    Also:
    28064212 wrote: »
    So what exactly is "glorifying" same-sex marriage?

    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



  • #2288
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    28064212 wrote: »
    That's a reason for you to marry a woman, it's not a reason to prevent two men you have no knowledge of getting married.

    Out of curiosity, is a man better complemented by a woman who exhibits "traditionally masculine" traits, or a man who exhibits "traditionally feminine" traits?

    Also:

    It's a reason as to why many Christians (I would say most and that the Bible backs this viewpoint up in a far better way than the very recent alternative) within their theological framework don't regard the union between two of the same gender to be the same as a marriage.

    That's what this thread is about.

    I think glorifying same-sex marriage would be promoting or advocating same-sex marriage rather than stating it in a matter of fact fashion. For example, using story books like King & King in a primary school to glorify a same-sex marriage. There have been legal lawsuits in America over the use of biased materials like these in the classroom.


  • #2289
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    philologos wrote: »
    Well from a Christian point of view, God made men and women in His image. God saw that it wasn't fit for Adam to be alone, and created for him one who complemented him (in Genesis 2:18 it says a helper fit for him) so that they could serve God's purposes together. God created man and woman to be together, so that a man would live his family and be joined to his wife and that they would be one flesh. From the beginning this was the model of marriage. Jesus backs this up in the New Testament scripture (Mark 12, Matthew 19).

    Men and women are different, yet they complement each other in such a way that they are one. In a way one could say that women have attributes which are generally lacking in men and vice versa. Indeed, not only do they complement one another in this way, but also biologically, and also in terms of leading a family together.

    From a traditional Christian point of view - men and women are meant to be together for live, and sexuality is meant to take place within a marriage. No doubt people will be offended by that, but in the same way that the Bible instructs me in other areas of live, it instructs me in this one too.

    Men and men and women and women from a Biblical perspective can't and don't complement one another in the same way. They weren't created fit for this purpose.

    That the Bible instructs you and other Christians to live in that manner and to subscribe to that definition of marriage is fine. No one is taking that away from you.

    But we are talking about civil, legal marriage. We are talking about something outside of Christian marriage. So the Bible isn't relevant to the discussion.

    Frankly, you already know this, so I'm not sure why you're trying to fall back on it to defend your position.


  • #2290
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    That the Bible instructs you and other Christians to live in that manner and to subscribe to that definition of marriage is fine. No one is taking that away from you.

    But we are talking about civil, legal marriage. We are talking about something outside of Christian marriage. So the Bible isn't relevant to the discussion.

    Frankly, you already know this, so I'm not sure why you're trying to fall back on it to defend your position.

    Actually in this thread, we've had arguments about marriage as it is understood by Christians also. This isn't just about legal arguments.

    In fact, my major concern in respect to this legislation is the affect that it will have on people who disagree in society. The Government is free to legislate on this issue, but it should consider the liberties of those to disagree.

    I've been very clear on that issue, and I think you should read what I say first.


  • #2291
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,052 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    It's a reason as to why many Christians (I would say most and that the Bible backs this viewpoint up in a far better way than the very recent alternative) within their theological framework don't regard the union between two of the same gender to be the same as a marriage.

    That's what this thread is about.
    And again, that's a reason for Christians to only partake in heterosexual marriage. It is not a reason to prevent the homosexual marriage of people who do not share your beliefs
    philologos wrote: »
    I think glorifying same-sex marriage would be promoting or advocating same-sex marriage rather than stating it in a matter of fact fashion. For example, using story books like King & King in a primary school to glorify a same-sex marriage. There have been legal lawsuits in America over the use of biased materials like these in the classroom.
    If it was King and Queen, would that be "glorifying" heterosexual marriage? Is it glorifying monarchies and feudal systems? Is it glorifying travel? It's a book which acknowledges that same-sex attraction exists, it is not advocating anything

    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



  • Advertisement
  • #2292
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm not downplaying anything.
    yes you are. You've equated same-sex couples to mother/son bond or between friends. Anyone with a bit of grey matter between the ears knows that gay couples have a level of intimacy comparable to straight couples.
    I don't think that marriage is primarily about a sexual relationship though. Perhaps that's another difference in philosophy.
    And I never said it was either, so you can put the scarecrow back in the field. You seem to be ignoring the sexual aspect so you can bolster the "love between friends" argument you put forward.
    I think the structure of the relationship is fair ground for distinguishing the type of relationship that it is.
    Of course, but you've yet to provide a sufficient reason for a government to deny marriage to same sex couples.
    By the by a relationship between a boyfriend / girlfriend is also not a marriage. Not from a Christian context.
    Another communication breakdown. I was giving a boyfriend+girlfriend prior to marriage as an equivalent to a gay couple who aren't married. As things stand only one of these couples are allowed to marry, and we've yet to see a good reason for this.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2293
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    28064212 wrote: »
    And again, that's a reason for Christians to only partake in heterosexual marriage. It is not a reason to prevent the homosexual marriage of people who do not share your beliefs

    If it was King and Queen, would that be "glorifying" heterosexual marriage? Is it glorifying monarchies and feudal systems? Is it glorifying travel? It's a book which acknowledges that same-sex attraction exists, it is not advocating anything

    Read the objections that have been raised to it, and the legal cases that have been put forward. I'm opposed to ramming propaganda into the education system. I think that relationship structures should be only discussed in a matter of fact manner in the education system rather than using propaganda to discuss them.


  • #2294
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    Well from a Christian point of view, God made men and women in His image. God saw that it wasn't fit for Adam to be alone, and created for him one who complemented him (in Genesis 2:18 it says a helper fit for him) so that they could serve God's purposes together. God created man and woman to be together, so that a man would live his family and be joined to his wife and that they would be one flesh. From the beginning this was the model of marriage. Jesus backs this up in the New Testament scripture (Mark 12, Matthew 19).
    And that's just peachy for anyone who subscribes to that particular Christian perspective. However things aren't so rosy when you use Christian beliefs on people of different beliefs.
    Men and women are different, yet they complement each other in such a way that they are one. In a way one could say that women have attributes which are generally lacking in men and vice versa. Indeed, not only do they complement one another in this way, but also biologically, and also in terms of leading a family together.
    Kindly list say, 3 things, that a women is incapable of doing within the family that a man can do. Feel free to do vice versa if you manage to think of some examples.

    Personally, I think it's gender stereotyping horse-hockey, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
    From a traditional Christian point of view - men and women are meant to be together for life, and sexuality is meant to take place within a marriage. No doubt people will be offended by that, but in the same way that the Bible instructs me in other areas of live, it instructs me in this one too.

    Men and men and women and women from a Biblical perspective can't and don't complement one another in the same way. They weren't created fit for this purpose.
    ^^ Problems for Christians to contend with, not a government.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2295
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    philologos wrote: »
    I think glorifying same-sex marriage would be promoting or advocating same-sex marriage rather than stating it in a matter of fact fashion. For example, using story books like King & King in a primary school to glorify a same-sex marriage. There have been legal lawsuits in America over the use of biased materials like these in the classroom.

    Does it glorify same sex marriage? Or does it tell a story about a prince who meets the love of his life, who happens to also be a man, gets married and lives happily ever after?

    If it was a story about a prince who meets the love of his life, who happens to be a woman, gets married, and lives happily ever after, would you be jumping up and down about schools glorifying heterosexual marriage?

    What if it was a it was a story about a prince who meets the love of his life, who happens to be a man, and lives happily ever after, but doesn't get married, would you be less exercised?


  • #2296
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    And that's just peachy for anyone who subscribes to that particular Christian perspective. However things aren't so rosy when you use Christian beliefs on people of different beliefs.

    Kindly list say, 3 things, that a women is incapable of doing within the family that a man can do. Feel free to do vice versa if you manage to think of some examples.

    Personally, I think it's gender stereotyping horse-hockey, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

    ^^ Problems for Christians to contend with, not a government.

    This thread is on the Christianity forum. If you don't want to discuss the ins and outs of the Christian position on this you probably shouldn't post on this thread.

    You're also ignoring what I've said about the legal position at least 5 times now.


  • #2297
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,052 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    Read the objections that have been raised to it, and the legal cases that have been put forward. I'm opposed to ramming propaganda into the education system. I think that relationship structures should be only discussed in a matter of fact manner in the education system rather than using propaganda to discuss them.
    I read them, and I don't believe any of the counter-arguments have any merit. If you want to actually put forward your own case, I'll answer your points. If you wanted to answer the ones I put forward, a discussion might even break out:
    If it was King and Queen, would that be "glorifying" heterosexual marriage? Is it glorifying monarchies and feudal systems? Is it glorifying travel? It's a book which acknowledges that same-sex attraction exists, it is not advocating anything

    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



  • #2298
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    yes you are. You've equated same-sex couples to mother/son bond or between friends. Anyone with a bit of grey matter between the ears knows that gay couples have a level of intimacy comparable to straight couples.

    No I didn't. Read my posts. Show me the part of my post where I explicitly say they are the same thing?
    koth wrote: »
    And I never said it was either, so you can put the scarecrow back in the field. You seem to be ignoring the sexual aspect so you can bolster the "love between friends" argument you put forward.

    I genuinely don't believe that marriage is primarily about sex. That's my honest position.
    koth wrote: »
    Of course, but you've yet to provide a sufficient reason for a government to deny marriage to same sex couples.

    All can be married. It just happens to have a definition.
    koth wrote: »
    Another communication breakdown. I was giving a boyfriend+girlfriend prior to marriage as an equivalent to a gay couple who aren't married. As things stand only one of these couples are allowed to marry, and we've yet to see a good reason for this.

    Both are able to formalise their relationships. It's just that the relationship structures are different.


  • #2299
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    28064212 wrote: »
    I read them, and I don't believe any of the counter-arguments have any merit. If you want to actually put forward your own case, I'll answer your points. If you wanted to answer the ones I put forward, a discussion might even break out:

    I'm perfectly entitled to look to what has happened elsewhere in this discussion. I'll post as I please within the remit of the charter. That's the only criterion.


  • #2300
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    philologos wrote: »
    In fact, my major concern in respect to this legislation is the affect that it will have on people who disagree in society. The Government is free to legislate on this issue, but it should consider the liberties of those to disagree.

    I've been very clear on that issue, and I think you should read what I say first.
    philologos wrote: »
    You're also ignoring what I've said about the legal position at least 5 times now.

    You've been challenged on the legal positions and the liberties of others being infringed by several posters, and you've ignored each of those posts. Maybe people will start addressing your comments when you start extending the same courtesy to others.


  • #2301
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    You've been challenged on the legal positions and the liberties of others being infringed by several posters, and you've ignored each of those posts. Maybe people will start addressing your comments when you start extending the same courtesy to others.

    Not being convinced by the arguments made != ignoring.


  • Advertisement
  • #2302
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,052 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm perfectly entitled to look to what has happened elsewhere in this discussion. I'll post as I please within the remit of the charter. That's the only criterion.
    Did I say you couldn't post as you please? Did I ask you to stop posting? Did I say you had to post according to my rules?

    I'm asking you to put forward an argument that supports your position and your statements. You don't have to do it, but don't expect your position to be taken remotely seriously if you're not willing to engage

    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



  • #2303
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    No I didn't. Read my posts. Show me the part of my post where I explicitly say they are the same thing?
    So you were introducing the love between friends as something unrelated to the discussion about gay marriage?
    I genuinely don't believe that marriage is primarily about sex. That's my honest position.
    Never said otherwise. I said that you were ignoring the sexual aspect of a gay relationship so that your comparison regarding love between friends would seem to hold more water.
    All can be married. It just happens to have a definition.
    And marriage as a definition already encompasses gay marriage. Married gay couples exist in the world, ergo marriage isn't restricted to hetero couples only.
    Both are able to formalise their relationships. It's just that the relationship structures are different.

    Only one relationship isn't given the same legal rights and responsibilities as the other. And once they do, they should be both sit under the umbrella of marriage.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2304
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    So you were introducing the love between friends as something unrelated to the discussion about gay marriage?

    This is why it gets frustrating when you read stuff into my posts that just isn't there.

    My point was to say that there are many different relationship structures based on love. They are not all the same.

    This position doesn't require me to say that they are even all equivalent, or to equate any of them. It is just a matter of fact statement that there are varying types of relationship structures between people, not all of them are marriage.
    koth wrote: »
    Never said otherwise. I said that you were ignoring the sexual aspect of a gay relationship so that your comparison regarding love between friends would seem to hold more water.

    Which I've not said anything about? Why are you so interested to read stuff that I've never said into my posts?
    koth wrote: »
    And marriage as a definition already encompasses gay marriage. Married gay couples exist in the world, ergo marriage isn't restricted to hetero couples only.

    No it doesn't. Only in a minority of jurisdictions worldwide.

    I've pointed this out to you several times.
    koth wrote: »
    Only one relationship isn't given the same legal rights and responsibilities as the other. And once they do, they should be both sit under the umbrella of marriage.

    Actually, it is given the same legal rights in the country where I am in at present. Which bears the point, why is it necessary to redefine marriage when there is a means of formalising relationships with full legal rights already?


  • #2305
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    28064212 wrote: »
    Did I say you couldn't post as you please? Did I ask you to stop posting? Did I say you had to post according to my rules?

    I'm asking you to put forward an argument that supports your position and your statements. You don't have to do it, but don't expect your position to be taken remotely seriously if you're not willing to engage

    Pointing to tangible examples elsewhere, is exactly what does give arguments credibility from my point of view.

    If I posted arguments which had no basis in reality then I wouldn't expect you to take that seriously. The fact of the matter is that the concerns that I have are based on evidence from elsewhere.


  • #2306
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    This is why it gets frustrating when you read stuff into my posts that just isn't there.

    My point was to say that there are many different relationship structures based on love. They are not all the same.

    This position doesn't require me to say that they are even all equivalent, or to equate any of them. It is just a matter of fact statement that there are varying types of relationship structures between people, not all of them are marriage.

    Which I've not said anything about? Why are you so interested to read stuff that I've never said into my posts?
    Because you introduce something and it wasn't clear what your point was. Love isn't the same for everyone. Of course not, but that doesn't justify not allowing gay couples to marry.
    No it doesn't. Only in a minority of jurisdictions worldwide.

    I've pointed this out to you several times.
    I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about the word marriage, whereas it seems you're talking about the legal definition of marriage.

    But even taking that onboard, an Irish gay couple for example could go to one of those jurisdictions and get married. I'm not aware of anything barring them from doing so.

    The question then has to be why can't Ireland offer them that service?
    Actually, it is given the same legal rights in the country where I am in at present. Which bears the point, why is it necessary to redefine marriage when there is a means of formalising relationships with full legal rights already?
    And in Ireland doesn't so that is a reason for gay couples to be allowed marry here. To do otherwise is to say the are in a 2nd class relationship.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2307
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,052 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    Pointing to tangible examples elsewhere, is exactly what does give arguments credibility from my point of view.

    If I posted arguments which had no basis in reality then I wouldn't expect you to take that seriously. The fact of the matter is that the concerns that I have are based on evidence from elsewhere.
    Which argument? "children's books showing family situations different from traditional marriage are pornography"? Why are they good arguments? I've already said I disagree with the arguments on that page, and subsequently asked questions which aren't addressed on that page. Your didn't respond in any way relating to it

    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



  • #2308
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    Because you introduce something and it wasn't clear what your point was. Love isn't the same for everyone. Of course not, but that doesn't justify not allowing gay couples to marry.

    We treat different relationship structures differently. They are not all the same. That is my point.
    koth wrote: »
    I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about the word marriage, whereas it seems you're talking about the legal definition of marriage.

    The common definition is:
    The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

    Although I suspect some people will redefine the dictionary before long too.
    koth wrote: »
    But even taking that onboard, an Irish gay couple for example could go to one of those jurisdictions and get married. I'm not aware of anything barring them from doing so.

    This still doesn't mean that it is right to redefine marriage as other nations have done.
    koth wrote: »
    The question then has to be why can't Ireland offer them that service?

    I don't comment on Irish law because I am no longer under that law. The question isn't whether or not they can do this. The question is whether or not they should do this.
    koth wrote: »
    And in Ireland doesn't so that is a reason for gay couples to be allowed marry here. To do otherwise is to say the are in a 2nd class relationship.

    See above.


  • #2309
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    philologos wrote: »
    Not being convinced by the arguments made != ignoring.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying you are unconvinced by the arguments put forward, and therefore you are ignoring posts?

    Or is ! meant to be /, and you're trying to say that you're not ignoring posts but that you're just unconvinced by what's said?

    Because if it's the latter, I'm not saying that you're unconvinced, I'm saying you're flat out ignoring posts. The fact that you've referred me back to your comments about the legal positions etc, showed you haven't read my replies to those comments. If you have, you should at the very least state in your own words why you are unconvinced.


  • #2310
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    We treat different relationship structures differently. They are not all the same. That is my point.

    The common definition is:
    The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

    Although I suspect some people will redefine the dictionary before long too.

    This still doesn't mean that it is right to redefine marriage as other nations have done.
    But none of the reasons given have been why it is bad to allow to gay people to marry. It's been things such as "well the government might penalise a religious group for not providing gay marriage, even though they have put it in draft form that religions have to opt in."

    Then we had the slippery slope thrown in, "but it'll be incest and polygamy next".

    I don't comment on Irish law because I am no longer under that law. The question isn't whether or not they can do this. The question is whether or not they should do this.

    See above.
    Of course they should. Why should a religious group get to impose their doctrine on people of other groups?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #2311
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    philologos wrote: »
    We treat different relationship structures differently. They are not all the same. That is my point.

    You're certainly right that the love and relationship that a person has with their parents and siblings is different from that with their friends, which is different again to that with their romantic partner. Anyone can tell you that from their own experience. There's research on it too.

    But you haven't explained how gay couples have a different relationship from heterosexual couples. You've mentioned men and women complementing each other, but you base that on the Bible which isn't relevant to anyone outside the Christian faith.


Advertisement