APART FROM RELIGIOUS BELIEFS what are the arguments against gay marriage?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 28-05-2013 11:00AM

Bluefox21 wrote: »

Ha true and to be honest avoiding the church part would be an absolute 'blessing' in disguise!

As an aside, Is the church part a major issue? Again in my opinion id prefer not to get married in a church but realise many people still do.

I don't think so. I mean, I would never endorse an idea that forced a religion to marry people against said religions preachings, but I don't see why it should be stopped in a secular environment.

Kev_2012 · 28-05-2013 11:02AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Doplh: "Oh, man you kissed a girl"
Kearney: "That is so gay!"

(Names might be the wrong way around...)

EXACTLY like that! Or in the 40 year old virgin :
David: You know how I know you're gay? ...
David: You like Coldplay

Clareboy · 28-05-2013 11:17AM

Just a few simple questions about a gay marriage

At the wedding - which of the men plays the part of the bride?

If they adopt children - which man plays the part of the mammy?

Doctor Strange · 28-05-2013 11:20AM

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Well considering I would be talking to my friends and nobody else and with absolutely no intention of offending someone else, then why not? Sure anybody could take offence to anything. I could say the word "c*nt" and to be honest I couldn't give a sh1t if it offended someone because it's only a word and I'm not trying to put anyone down with it.

Are you not able to take a joke or something?

Why use homo though? Why not a traditional Irish "Ya big gob****e"? I'm able to take a joke, I just don't see the point in using a sexuality as an insult.

Corkfeen · 28-05-2013 11:22AM

Clareboy wrote: »

Just a few simple questions about a gay marriage

At the wedding - which of the men plays the part of the bride?

If they adopt children - which man plays the part of the mammy?

I think you've posted 3 times in this topic and each time all you've managed to do is be immature and offensive..... Not a great reflection upon your argument style.

Kev_2012 · 28-05-2013 11:26AM

Corkfeen wrote: »

Clareboy wrote: »

Just a few simple questions about a gay marriage

At the wedding - which of the men plays the part of the bride?

If they adopt children - which man plays the part of the mammy?

I think you've posted 3 times in this topic and each time all you've managed to do is be immature and offensive..... Not a great reflection upon your argument style.

kylith · 28-05-2013 11:27AM

Terry1985 wrote: »

I'm all for increasing the rights of biological parents no matter what orientation, but fail to see why we should pander to liberals and pretend that gay couples are equal to heterosexual couples in the grand scheme of things. For a nature point of view, 'they're not doing it right'... why pretend it's a correct long term behavior and give it the facade of public acceptance?

How do you know that they're not doing it right? For all you know the adoption of unwanted/orphaned children is exactly why homosexuality evolved in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned if the child is fed, clothed, loved, and cared for then the parents are doing it right.

Penn · 28-05-2013 11:27AM

Clareboy wrote: »

Just a few simple questions about a gay marriage

At the wedding - which of the men plays the part of the bride?

If they adopt children - which man plays the part of the mammy?

Wedding: Neither. They're both grooms.

Children: Neither. They're both fathers.

You're right. Those were simple questions.

Kev_2012 · 28-05-2013 11:42AM

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

Why use homo though? Why not a traditional Irish "Ya big gob****e"? I'm able to take a joke, I just don't see the point in using a sexuality as an insult.

I don't think I've ever said gobsh1te in my life, I don't intend on starting.
2 of my friends have gay siblings and they would say it too without any problem because they know it's only part of the craic like. Nobody has ever visibly taken offence by it whenever its been said, and to be honest I've seen gay people insult straight people calling them homos as well! Again, all part of a joke.

Now I'd understand if it was said in a sinister way but it's not.

Another example, I was born in England (I have a Limerick accent and my parents are Irish and I'm living here since I was 3, just for a bit of background). My friends always slag me because I was born there, (prod, english bastard etc.etc.), should I start complaining over this because they are xenophobic comments? No, because it's only of craic and I'm not a dry balls. People are far too sensitive these days.

Lyaiera · 28-05-2013 11:44AM

kylith wrote: »

How do you know that they're not doing it right? For all you know the adoption of unwanted/orphaned children is exactly why homosexuality evolved in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned if the child is fed, clothed, loved, and cared for then the parents are doing it right.

I actually read something about that a while ago. It was to do with gender rolls in ancient civilisations. They found that they weren't as rigid as we were lead to believe. There was often women going on hunting parties and men foraging and looking after the children. It wasn't typical, but it did happen. It was seen as a valuable tool for tribes for both genders to cross over into the typical roll of the other gender.

Obviously there are no records from then, but the archaeological evidence shows that burials and the like often attributed the person to the roll they had in their life. So women being buried with hunting weapons and men being buried with gathering and "homemaking" tools. The idea of rigid gender rolls is a societal thing and wasn't seen as absolute going back even millenia.

Ravelleman · 28-05-2013 11:45AM

Manach wrote: »

what exactly is the stopping point for this new arrangements, if same sex couples can get married what is the rational limits to who can.

This is a bogus argument though as the law still states what the limits of who can and can't get married are. It's not an absolute change in the law concerning marriage to make it a free-for-all. It is an expanded definition. The idea that the likes of legal incest or other unions probited by law could follow is silly as that is an entirely different issue.

Grayson · 28-05-2013 11:55AM

Terry1985 wrote: »

And polygamy was mainly allowed because certain relatively wealthy males could support more than one wife.
In cultures where this was allowed it tended to upset the available male /female ratio.
I'm not saying that's a problem with lbgts, just that polygamy was typically reserved for men who could support multiple families.

Not always. In the original days of islam men were obliged to because there were many widows who needed husbands to support them. And a man could only do it if he could provide a separate house etc for each wife. You could see that it was originally designed to help women (Although it has been abused over the years)

Wheras in mormonism, they appeared to allow it because their founder wanted to shag lots of women.

Historically there have been loads of reasons why it was allowed. And not all were bad.

1ZRed · 28-05-2013 11:59AM

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

Why use homo though? Why not a traditional Irish "Ya big gob****e"? I'm able to take a joke, I just don't see the point in using a sexuality as an insult.

Why not? I don't see the harm between mates and I wouldn't find homo offensive. I often call my mates pussyboys and gheyboys because they often do things that have me slagging their credibility as the stereotypical straight lad. It's harmless and I'm only messing with them.

Daith · 28-05-2013 12:06PM

Clareboy wrote: »

If they adopt children - which man plays the part of the mammy?

How do you define the role of a mammy?

kylith · 28-05-2013 12:07PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I actually read something about that a while ago. It was to do with gender rolls in ancient civilisations. They found that they weren't as rigid as we were lead to believe. There was often women going on hunting parties and men foraging and looking after the children. It wasn't typical, but it did happen. It was seen as a valuable tool for tribes for both genders to cross over into the typical roll of the other gender.

Obviously there are no records from then, but the archaeological evidence shows that burials and the like often attributed the person to the roll they had in their life. So women being buried with hunting weapons and men being buried with gathering and "homemaking" tools. The idea of rigid gender rolls is a societal thing and wasn't seen as absolute going back even millenia.

Very interesting. I do think that it's possible that in prehistory people just shagged whichever gender they wanted and nobody gave a damn one way or the other.

I came across an article about a year ago which postulated that homosexuality is very beneficial to hunter-gatherer societies. The reasoning is thus: in a 'typical' family (say mum, dad, and 4 kids) unit there would be two adults contributing food and 6 people eating the food. If there was a homosexual couple in the same society that would be two people contributing food, and only two people eating it, meaning that groups with some non-breeding pairs (gay people) could feed themselves better than groups made up of only breeding pairs (straight people) because of an increased ratio of hunters to eaters.

Lyaiera · 28-05-2013 12:10PM

kylith wrote: »

Very interesting. I do think that it's possible that in prehistory people just shagged whichever gender they wanted and nobody gave a damn one way or the other.

I came across an article about a year ago which postulated that homosexuality is very beneficial to hunter-gatherer societies. The reasoning is thus: in a 'typical' family (say mum, dad, and 4 kids) unit there would be two adults contributing food and 6 people eating the food. If there was a homosexual couple in the same society that would be two people contributing food, and only two people eating it, meaning that groups with some non-breeding pairs (gay people) could feed themselves better than groups made up of only breeding pairs (straight people) because of an increased ratio of hunters to eaters.

Yeah. It seems that prejudice about gender and sexuality wasn't as important as finding a meal to feed yourself.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 28-05-2013 01:18PM

Daith wrote: »

How do you define the role of a mammy?

Why would you want to?

endacl · 28-05-2013 01:20PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Why would you want to?

Excellent question.

Cody Pomeray · 28-05-2013 01:23PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Why would you want to?

endacl wrote: »

Excellent question.

He was simply asking another poster, Clareboy, who referred to the role of a mother.

Daith · 28-05-2013 01:33PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

He was simply asking another poster, Clareboy, who referred to the role of a mother.

Yes exactly! Hence using the rare "quote" function :P

Gbear · 28-05-2013 01:43PM

kylith wrote: »

Very interesting. I do think that it's possible that in prehistory people just shagged whichever gender they wanted and nobody gave a damn one way or the other.

I came across an article about a year ago which postulated that homosexuality is very beneficial to hunter-gatherer societies. The reasoning is thus: in a 'typical' family (say mum, dad, and 4 kids) unit there would be two adults contributing food and 6 people eating the food. If there was a homosexual couple in the same society that would be two people contributing food, and only two people eating it, meaning that groups with some non-breeding pairs (gay people) could feed themselves better than groups made up of only breeding pairs (straight people) because of an increased ratio of hunters to eaters.

My dad posited a hypothesis that it might be analagous to sickle cell anaemia.
If you inherit 1 SCA gene from a parent you suffer less from Malaria. If you inherit the gene from both parents you get SCA and die fairly young.

So it could be that there are genes associated with homosexuality that are themselves beneficial. For the sake of simplicity we'll say there's 2.
If you have 1 of the gay genes you're more intelligent (most of the gays I've met have seemed to be of above average intelligence - that would have to be tested to see if it actually applies in general).
If you inherit both it changes your sexuality, which would seem counter-productive from an evolutionary point of view. As long as the benefits of possessing 1 of the genes outweighs the evolutionary downsides of homosexuality, the gene would endure.

seamus · 28-05-2013 01:53PM

Gbear wrote: »

My dad posited a hypothesis that it might be analagous to sickle cell anaemia.
If you inherit 1 SCA gene from a parent you suffer less from Malaria. If you inherit the gene from both parents you get SCA and die fairly young.

So it could be that there are genes associated with homosexuality that are themselves beneficial. For the sake of simplicity we'll say there's 2.
If you have 1 of the gay genes you're more intelligent (most of the gays I've met have seemed to be of above average intelligence - that would have to be tested to see if it actually applies in general).
If you inherit both it changes your sexuality, which would seem counter-productive from an evolutionary point of view. As long as the benefits of possessing 1 of the genes outweighs the evolutionary downsides of homosexuality, the gene would endure.

The processes governing sexuality are so complicated that we'll probably never find a "gay gene". There are likely dozens of genes which may govern this, and millions of possible genetic combinations, so two gay men may be gay for different reasons, and the cause of male and female homosexuality may be completely different.

So far all they've been able to do is draw links between various traits and say that gay people tend to share them. For example, they found that the female relatives of gay men tend to be more fertile and have more children. At the simplest level it could be said that in the case of whatever gene is at work there, the resulting gay male offspring is incidental since that's offset by improved fertility in the female line.

Bannasidhe · 28-05-2013 01:55PM

Gbear wrote: »

My dad posited a hypothesis that it might be analagous to sickle cell anaemia.
If you inherit 1 SCA gene from a parent you suffer less from Malaria. If you inherit the gene from both parents you get SCA and die fairly young.

So it could be that there are genes associated with homosexuality that are themselves beneficial. For the sake of simplicity we'll say there's 2.
If you have 1 of the gay genes you're more intelligent (most of the gays I've met have seemed to be of above average intelligence - that would have to be tested to see if it actually applies in general).
If you inherit both it changes your sexuality, which would seem counter-productive from an evolutionary point of view. As long as the benefits of possessing 1 of the genes outweighs the evolutionary downsides of homosexuality, the gene would endure.

I not sure I like this comparison to an illness or a mutation.

And no - homosexuals are not all above average intelligence, 'they' are just like heterosexuals in that some of 'them' are 'less', most are average and some are 'more' intelligent.

crazy cabbage · 28-05-2013 02:01PM

seamus wrote: »

The processes governing sexuality are so complicated that we'll probably never find a "gay gene". There are likely dozens of genes which may govern this, and millions of possible genetic combinations, so two gay men may be gay for different reasons, and the cause of male and female homosexuality may be completely different.

So far all they've been able to do is draw links between various traits and say that gay people tend to share them. For example, they found that the female relatives of gay men tend to be more fertile and have more children. At the simplest level it could be said that in the case of whatever gene is at work there, the resulting gay male offspring is incidental since that's offset by improved fertility in the female line.

Have a very good friend that is gay and has done some research into this.

They have found being gay could be a product of the enviroment. By that i mean that they have looked into this in a animal kindum and found that when a population of animals gets too big for its enviroment, the amount of 'gay' members of that animals population will increase.

They have hypopotised that this could be that the two gay monkeys or whatever would help raise children in their comunity or their siblings children.

All this i heard from a friend so dont know how true it is and dont care (i mean that in the nicest way possilbe) enough to look it up.

It clearly isn't a completly nature element. There has to be a nuture element aswell i would think.

Gbear · 28-05-2013 02:09PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I not sure I like this comparison to an illness or a mutation.

Everything is a mutation - arms, aptitude at maths, colour vision, fear.
Things are "good" from a procreation perspective or "bad". That has nothing to do with any morality.

1ZRed · 28-05-2013 02:18PM

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Have a very good friend that is gay and has done some research into this.

They have found being gay could be a product of the enviroment. By that i mean that they have looked into this in a animal kindum and found that when a population of animals gets too big for its enviroment, the amount of 'gay' members of that animals population will increase.

They have hypopotised that this could be that the two gay monkeys or whatever would help raise children in their comunity or their siblings children.

All this i heard from a friend so dont know how true it is and dont care (i mean that in the nicest way possilbe) enough to look it up.

It clearly isn't a completly nature element. There has to be a nuture element aswell i would think.

That doesn't apply to us in our society. There's no way of the baby knowing this without a trigger, if that theory is plausible (there's thousands of other causes and factors, not just the one, imo), a lack of food could be that trigger to cause an increase of homosexuality. Since we have all the food we want or need, without shortage, in our developed world the trigger wouldn't happen that's why that theory wouldn't really stand up.

kylith · 28-05-2013 02:21PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Yeah. It seems that prejudice about gender and sexuality wasn't as important as finding a meal to feed yourself.

Ah yes, the old, and true, "more important things to be worrying about" argument.

BrensBenz · 28-05-2013 02:33PM

Basically, it boils down to "I don't want....whatever, therefore NOBODY can have....whatever."

Lyaiera · 28-05-2013 02:55PM

kylith wrote: »

Ah yes, the old, and true, "more important things to be worrying about" argument.

Yeah. Why should anyone go about fabricating prejudice with no basis. I'd much rather be playing with my toes or clicking a pen.

ScumLord · 28-05-2013 03:04PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I actually read something about that a while ago. It was to do with gender rolls in ancient civilisations. They found that they weren't as rigid as we were lead to believe. There was often women going on hunting parties and men foraging and looking after the children. It wasn't typical, but it did happen. It was seen as a valuable tool for tribes for both genders to cross over into the typical roll of the other gender.

Obviously there are no records from then, but the archaeological evidence shows that burials and the like often attributed the person to the roll they had in their life. So women being buried with hunting weapons and men being buried with gathering and "homemaking" tools. The idea of rigid gender rolls is a societal thing and wasn't seen as absolute going back even millenia.

The Catholic church has a lot to do with corrupting our view of the past. Women had very high roles in the past often becoming the leaders of their peoples. There are records of women priests and bishops in the early Christian church too. Women's roles were often given more value in the past with Spartan women that died in childbirth being given similar honors to a man that died in battle.

Religion and civilization are human constructs that are relatively new, our modern life is the departure from the norm not the other way around.

APART FROM RELIGIOUS BELIEFS what are the arguments against gay marriage?

Comments