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…120121123125126…218

Comments

  • #3662
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I don't see a problem with Christians who wish to frame their opinions on social issues in secular terms, instead of Biblical. In fact, in this thread, we've often asked Christian posters to do just that. If someone is able to convey their opinion in a manner that applies to everyone, and not just members of a particular faith, then I welcome it.
    And realistically, if one wants to shape legislation that is what needs to happen. There is no issue with a politician's opinions being informed by his or her religious belief, but once that crosses over to influence his work, there is a problem. A particular religious belief if not a valid reason for a particular piece of legislation, particularly where that legislation is discriminatory in nature. In practical terms, it is difficult to justify a restriction on a class of person where that class of person can reasonably object to the restriction.

    MrP


  • #3663
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    cloudatlas wrote: »
    I haven't read through the whole thread. What I said wasn't a reply to anything. You decided to pounce on it and put words into my mouth. Good day to you have an awesome time.
    Ah, don't tun off in a huff. Read a few pages, it is actually quite interesting. What you have said is perfectly valid when it comes to how a person might want to live their life, but, when it comes to legislation it is somewhat different, or wouldn't you agree?

    MrP


  • #3664
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Zombrex wrote: »

    Can you name a single way in which the set up is different that actually changes the relationship (ie something which we would recognise with heterosexual relationships which is absent with homosexual ones)

    Children.


  • #3665
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Festus wrote: »
    Children.

    My son will be surprised to hear he doesn't exist.


  • #3666
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    My son will be surprised to hear he doesn't exist.

    if he is the result of homosexual activity then he probably doesn't

    if does help to reply in context.


  • Advertisement
  • #3667
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Which is awesome, but the bible should have no place in shaping legislation, which means if christians want to discriminate against a class of person usi g state law, they can't use the bible as justification.

    MrP

    Most basic laws are based on the Bible - murder, theft, slander, libel, lying under oath, conspiracy to theft (coveting in case some can't make the connection).

    Disallowing marriage to homosexuals is no more discrimination than laws disallowing hebephiles from marrying their prefered partner.


  • #3668
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Festus wrote: »
    if he is the result of homosexual activity then he probably doesn't

    if does help to reply in context.

    He is the offspring of homosexuals.

    But once again we are back to the fact that procreation is not a requirement of marriage, nor does homosexuality have any baring on ability to procreate plus the fact that not all heterosexuals are capable of procreating nor are any of their legal rights based on their potential to procreate at some point in their future so look - it's a red herring.


  • #3669
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    He is the offspring of homosexuals.

    really? do his mother and father live together? was he conceived naturally?

    or was he engineered?
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    But once again we are back to the fact that procreation is not a requirement of marriage, nor does homosexuality have any baring on ability to procreate plus the fact that not all heterosexuals are capable of procreating nor are any of their legal rights based on their potential to procreate at some point in their future so look - it's a red herring.

    No, it's not a "requirement" - no one is stopping a 20 year old male from marrying a 50 yr old woman.

    Nor is it a red herring. It's about society and what same sex marriage means for marriage in the context of society. if same sex marrige is allowed it means that marriage is worthless. Do same sex couples want a worthless union?


  • #3670
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Festus wrote: »
    really? do his mother and father live together? was he conceived naturally?

    or was he engineered?



    No, it's not a "requirement" - no one is stopping a 20 year old male from marrying a 50 yr old woman.

    Nor is it a red herring. It's about society and what same sex marriage means for marriage in the context of society. if same sex marrige is allowed it means that marriage is worthless. Do same sex couples want a worthless union?

    Do you ask every mother how she conceived her child?

    What exactly makes you think you have the right to ask me such personal questions?

    Do you have children - would you care to describe exactly how they were conceived on a public forum? May I ask questions and make comments?

    How he was conceived is immaterial - the fact is both of his biological parents were homosexual and both of the parents who raised him were homosexual. He is the child of homosexuals.

    If you believe same-sex marriage renders marriage worthless than I suggest you either don't get married or if married get divorced.


  • #3671
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47,381 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    Festus wrote: »
    or was he engineered?

    There's a Boards forum with quite a few posters who are trying to "engineer" a child because they have exhausted all other possibilities. I'm sure they'd love to hear your views on the subject over there, or do you just reserve it for easier targets like gay parents?


  • Advertisement
  • #3672
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Festus wrote: »
    really? do his mother and father live together? was he conceived naturally?

    or was he engineered?

    Mod note: Another remark such as this will result in a holiday. No child should be described as engineered, for reasons which should be obvious.

    More generally, if someone wants to talk about their family life, they may do so, but personal questions such as those above are none of anyone's business, frankly.


  • #3673
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    Mod note: Another remark such as this will result in a holiday. No child should be described as engineered, for reasons which should be obvious.

    More generally, if someone wants to tall about their family life, they may do so. Personal queens such as those above are none of anyone's business, frankly.

    freudian slip?


  • #3674
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    efb wrote: »
    freudian slip?

    Oops..

    A) 4:05 in the morning
    B) Crappy phone
    C) Edited. I hope that anyone who knows me would know that I would only use that word in relation to chess or royalty/Game of Thrones.


  • #3675
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    Oops..

    A) 4:05 in the morning
    B) Crappy phone
    C) Edited. I hope that anyone who knows me would know that I would only use that word in relation to chess or royalty/Game of Thrones.

    It didn't make sense as written so ill accept it was a typo- but what a typo!


  • #3676
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Festus wrote: »
    Children.

    We only allow heterosexual couples with children to marry? :rolleyes:

    Try again. See if you can actually answer the question this time.


  • #3677
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Festus wrote: »
    Most basic laws are based on the Bible - murder, theft, slander, libel, lying under oath, conspiracy to theft (coveting in case some can't make the connection).
    Really? So before the bible to were no proscriptions on any of these things? Somehow I think that is simply not the case. But regardless of that, you are missing the point. it is perfectly acceptable for a politician or law-maker to be influenced by the bible, or whatever ancient or modern book he happens to beleive in, but any laws he makes must be accessible and understandable to all, even those that don't follow the same book.

    Your crimes above are an excellent example of this. I am an atheist, yet I strongly agree with all of them and further, I beleive the state has an interest in prohibiting such activity.

    Murder is bad. I don't need a book or a supreme being to tell me that. I don't fancy being murdered, nor do I fancy any of my loved ones being murdered. As a result I can come to the conclusion that murder is not something I should be doing. The state has an interest in reducing murder. When a person is murdered those that know them become unhappy, lots of murder makes lots of unhappiness. Lots of unhappiness is not good for stability in society. In addition, there are costs associated with murder. If the person murdered was the breadwinner in a household then who will support them now? Also, the family of the murdered person might seek vengeance, this will also lead to instability. So as you can see it is perfectly possible to come up with rational, political reasons for not allowing the willy nilly killing of other citizen without appeals to a higher power or special book. Whilst I accept that there may be some foundation of christian values in law I don't think they are as important as you think, and those christian values are simply values that already existed in another form and were co-opted by the early christians, probably because they male sense.

    I cold go though each of the activities you have listed and give non-religious reasons why an individual, and the state itself, would be interested in having those activities restricted. And that is your problem. Where is you plausable, reasonable, political and accessible to all, irrespective of belief, reason for denying marriage to same-sex couples.
    Festus wrote: »
    Disallowing marriage to homosexuals is no more discrimination than laws disallowing hebephiles from marrying their prefered partner.
    Really? Is this a joke? Now you are saying that banning same-sex couples from getting married is no different to banning people form marrying 11 year olds? You really do come accross as quite a disgusting individual and were I a christian I would be rather embarrassed to be associated with you. Nonetheless, I will explain the different between two consenting adult being allowed to marry and one adult marrying a child, though quite why you need this explained I am not sure. We have a minimum age for marriage, as well as an age of consent for sex. children that are under these ages are considered not to be mature enough to make the decision to get married or have sex.

    So whilst a hebephile can't marry the 11, 12, 13 or 14 year old he want to the primary reason for that is protection of the child. Before the age of consent for sex a person is considered to be unable to consent. Therefore, if you have sex with a person under the age of consent, even though the person is a willing participant, then that is rape. Similarly, if you marry someone below the age of 18, without an exemption order, then that is an offence. These restrictions are there to protect people from activities the state does not believe they are ready to take part in.

    Same sex marriage equality is about two consenting adults, that know exactly what they are doing, getting married.

    Perhaps you would like to further clarify your likening of homosexuals to a child molester, which is what most people would see a hebephile as...

    MrP


  • #3678
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Festus wrote: »
    Most basic laws are based on the Bible - murder, theft, slander, libel, lying under oath, conspiracy to theft (coveting in case some can't make the connection).

    Do you seriously think that before the bible there were no basic laws? seriously?


  • #3679
    Quatermain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭Quatermain


    Most basic laws are based on the Bible - murder, theft, slander, libel, lying under oath, conspiracy to theft (coveting in case some can't make the connection).

    Code of Ur-Nammu - c. 2100–2050 BC.
    Laws of Eshnunna - 1930 BC.
    Code of Hammurabi - 1772 BC.
    Hittite Cuneiform Laws - ca. 1650–1100 BCE.
    Draco's Constitution of Athens - 622 BC.

    Etc, etc, etc...


  • #3680
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Links234 wrote: »
    Do you seriously think that before the bible there were no basic laws? seriously?

    You know I really think some people genuinely believe that :mad:

    Not only was there law before the Bible, there was complex legal systems before the Bible, stuff containing what we would recognise today as things like contract law and corporate law.

    The idea that "most basic laws are based on the Bible" is so stupid and ignorant it barely requires a response. But that idea has annoyed me so much I'm going to give one anyway. The mosaic laws did have unique features for the time and place they arose (though not in wider Earth history), but they actually were about the focus (over focus) on the laws regarding the correct way to relate to God, rather than society. That was relatively new for the time, though arguably not in anyway better as a legal system. Most civilisations at the time were concerned with producing detailed laws to govern society with, where as the Mosaic laws were concerned with how to please God, leaving the detail very fuzzy. How best to please God is a feature that modern laws wouldn't even recognise, so the idea that our modern laws and legal traditions follow on from the mosaic laws is, again, stupid and ignorant. If anything since the wide spread adoption of Christianity western society has actually been moving back to a legal tradition that the ancient neighbours of Israel had already realised was required to actually have a functioning society.

    This idea that has been propagated by Christianity over the last 2,000 years that humanity was basically living in caves until good old Moses received the laws to structure and run society is so freaking frustrating. The Israelites were the backwards ones, not their neighbours.

    rant over :mad:


  • #3681
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Quatermain wrote: »
    Code of Ur-Nammu - c. 2100–2050 BC.
    Laws of Eshnunna - 1930 BC.
    Code of Hammurabi - 1772 BC.
    Hittite Cuneiform Laws - ca. 1650–1100 BCE.
    Draco's Constitution of Athens - 622 BC.

    Etc, etc, etc...

    Never let, you know, history and facts and reality get in the way of a good faith based premise :p


  • Advertisement
  • #3682
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Never let, you know, history and facts and reality get in the way of a good faith based premise :p

    You mean facts like the fact that the Fénechas (better known as the Brehon Laws) pre-date Christianity and are considered by scholars to be among the oldest systems of verifiable jurisprudence in the world?

    Edit to add: I have found only two references to male homosexuality in the Fénechas both are in reference to marriage and state that if a husband is unable to sexually satisfy his wife due to being homosexual or impotent she may divorce him (there were 11 recognised grounds for a woman to divorce her husband). If the husband was aware that he was homosexual prior to marriage to a woman she could keep the 'house' as part of the divorce as he fraudulently entered into the contract. This tells us Gaelic society was aware of homosexuality and had no issue with it. The legal issue was with a man not fulfilling the terms of the marriage contract. Note: It is clear the inability to sexually satisfy were the grounds for divorce - it makes no mention of procreation. There seem to be no references to lesbianism presumably possibly because it is easier for a woman to 'fake it' or more likely because men did not need any legal grounds to divorce beyond the fact that they wanted to.


  • #3683
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You mean facts like the fact that the Fénechas (better known as the Brehon Laws) pre-date Christianity and are considered by scholars to be among the oldest systems of verifiable jurisprudence in the world?

    Edit to add: I have found only two references to male homosexuality in the Fénechas both are in reference to marriage and state that if a husband is unable to sexually satisfy his wife due to being homosexual or impotent she may divorce him (there were 11 recognised grounds for a woman to divorce her husband). If the husband was aware that he was homosexual prior to marriage to a woman she could keep the 'house' as part of the divorce as he fraudulently entered into the contract. This tells us Gaelic society was aware of homosexuality and had no issue with it. The legal issue was with a man not fulfilling the terms of the marriage contract. Note: It is clear the inability to sexually satisfy were the grounds for divorce - it makes no mention of procreation. There seem to be no references to lesbianism presumably possibly because it is easier for a woman to 'fake it' or more likely because men did not need any legal grounds to divorce beyond the fact that they wanted to.

    I'm quite sure Bannasidhe, that there are plenty of historical facts etc. and tales of years gone by, sure there are plenty in Scripture too.

    My concern is not so much with 'blocking' another, but with the legal issues concerning 'marriage' between a male and female and their children.

    I might add that I don't see how a marriage between parents could be considered special at all if 'marriage' is 'not' special!! or considered something that is the same legally for every single person who cannot conceive a child together, and I don't mean any slur by saying that.

    If 'marriage' is for people who love eachother merely and only considered from a persons sexual preference than why couldn't polygamy be considered too if it suits the people as regards their sexual preferences and not as regards their offspring? Is polygamy ok too? What is 'family'? Is it not a biological parent, but a parent who finds other partners, or several or anything else, and how can the law cover these people? and why should it cover only some people that a parent introduces and not all?

    I just don't understand this. I can't see why anybody would disregard 'marriage' between biological parents ( whether they can, or find out that they can't conceive ) as something that is merely 'superficial' stuff, and NOT something that is very very important, and should be considered as important and a responsible thing before introducing dependent children.

    I know things don't always work out 'perfecto' in marriage - but I don't see why the building block of society, the 'family' should be compromised just because things don't always work out for some.


  • #3684
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    lmaopml, so many presumptions in your post that it's hard to answer properly. First;
    I don't see how a marriage between parents could be considered special at all if 'marriage' is 'not' special!!
    How dose allowing same sex marriage compromise the 'special' status of marriage, and what makes you think it has a 'special' status other than what is in the Constitution?
    Is polygamy ok too?
    Different issue, polygamy is all to often associated with abuse. Apart from that I don't see a logical reason to outlaw it, in fact it's legal in several countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy#Countries_that_recognize_polygamous_marriages
    What is 'family'? Is it not a biological parent, but a parent who finds other partners, or several or anything else, and how can the law cover these people?
    The law already covers many permutations of family, married, married with children, natural, and adopted, married with step children and so on. Not getting your point here.
    but I don't see why the building block of society, the 'family' should be compromised
    The presumption here being that 'family' is a male and female with their biological offspring. Which it isn't and never was defined as such. Nither is marriage synonymous for family.


  • #3685
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    lmaopml wrote: »
    I'm quite sure Bannasidhe, that there are plenty of historical facts etc. and tales of years gone by, sure there are plenty in Scripture too.

    My concern is not so much with 'blocking' another, but with the legal issues concerning 'marriage' between a male and female and their children.

    I might add that I don't see how a marriage between parents could be considered special at all if 'marriage' is 'not' special!! or considered something that is the same legally for every single person who cannot conceive a child together, and I don't mean any slur by saying that.

    If 'marriage' is for people who love eachother merely and only considered from a persons sexual preference than why couldn't polygamy be considered too if it suits the people as regards their sexual preferences and not as regards their offspring? Is polygamy ok too? What is 'family'? Is it not a biological parent, but a parent who finds other partners, or several or anything else, and how can the law cover these people? and why should it cover only some people that a parent introduces and not all?

    I just don't understand this. I can't see why anybody would disregard 'marriage' between biological parents ( whether they can, or find out that they can't conceive ) as something that is merely 'superficial' stuff, and NOT something that is very very important, and should be considered as important and a responsible thing before introducing dependent children.

    I know things don't always work out 'perfecto' in marriage - but I don't see why the building block of society, the 'family' should be compromised just because things don't always work out for some.

    The law has already decided that the protections of marriage are not the preserve of those who have children. Married couples with no children, for whatever reason (and it's not always because "things don't work out"), are recognised by our Constitution as a family. What's more, married couples where only one, or neither, of the couple has a biological link to the children, are also recognised as families. You can't deny marriage equality to gay couples because they can't or won't have biological children, when hetero couples in the same situation can marry. If you want marriage and family to be exclusive to couples and their biological children, you're already too late.


  • #3686
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    lmaopml, so many presumptions in your post that it's hard to answer properly. First;

    How dose allowing same sex marriage compromise the 'special' status of marriage, and what makes you think it has a 'special' status other than what is in the Constitution?


    Well, Tommy I guess because the 'Married' couple as a family fall into certain legal obligations towards eachother and their offspring. These are presumed prior to and of course after children come about.

    Different issue, polygamy is all to often associated with abuse. Apart from that I don't see a logical reason to outlaw it, in fact it's legal in several countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy#Countries_that_recognize_polygamous_marriages

    Quite frankly Tommy, I don't care where it's considered 'legal' marriage in other countries - I live in this one in the west, and in this one, we always protect the nuclear family that consists of the biological parents and their offspring.

    However, I think it's pretty cool that you can see why it's not inconsistent with the redefinition of marriage - and think that polygamy should come under the heading of marriage too. I think that's really honest, that you think it's 'ok'.

    The law already covers many permutations of family, married, married with children, natural, and adopted, married with step children and so on. Not getting your point here.


    The presumption here being that 'family' is a male and female with their biological offspring. Which it isn't and never was defined as such.

    Tommy, it takes a male and female to have a child and the law covers this, married or no ( in saying that it has a way to go as far as a fathers rights are concerned ) - it's more 'tight' when the couple are 'married' - and the reason is not because the couple are thinking about having sex every single moment and their own sexuality, but because as a result of their union they will most likely want to have children, and it's not 'about' them anymore, but about their dependents - the 'family'. That's why people 'marry'....

    If you are talking about the various types of 'families' I think it's perfectly fine to argue for 'rights' etc. etc. and so on within their remit, just like the 'ex partner' has to outside of a marriage...but I don't understand the need to re-define it!

    It sound's like destroying it's meaning altogether until it means nothing except what a parent decides they would like it to mean no matter...


  • #3687
    Sin City
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    I think polygamy is frowned upon is probably to do with jelsousy and not being able to give yourself to one partner 100 % and the divorce/widowed aspect of dividing up assets

    Trust me, most men would probably be in favour of polygamy

    Then you can get into some of the cults who allow polygamy and can use it to abuse


  • #3688
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Oh for God's sake, polygamy is a non runner, ever, and as a counter argument to same sex marriage is about as valid as claiming that we can all marry our cats now.

    @lmaopml, I'm kinda seeing where your coming from but as I'v pointed out marriage is prescriptive not descriptive. It isn't based on what is a family but on what we define as a valid marriage. Ok now you'll go back to polygamy and say so why not polygamy. My point is that our definition of what constitutes marriage is just that, a definition. Changing the definition to include couples of the same sex won't change what is already defined by marriage, it will add to it.
    This isn't a zero sum game where marriage is less for one couple if another couple can avail of it.

    I actually agree that once we allow same sex marriages then marriage becomes something else, what I disagree with is the presumption that it becomes something lessened. It will in fact become something better as now it will reflect the love the marriage is based on not the sexual probabilistic of procreation.


  • #3689
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Oh for God's sake, polygamy is a non runner, ever, and as a counter argument to same sex marriage is about as valid as claiming that we can all marry our cats now.

    I wouldn't be quite so sure -
    @lmaopml, I'm kinda seeing where your coming from but as I'v pointed out marriage is prescriptive not descriptive. It isn't based on what is a family but on what we define as a valid marriage. Ok now you'll go back to polygamy and say so why not polygamy. My point is that our definition of what constitutes marriage is just that, a definition. Changing the definition to include couples of the same sex won't change what is already defined by marriage, it will add to it.
    This isn't a zero sum game where marriage is less for one couple if another couple can avail of it.

    Neither Tommy am I saying that if people love eachother that it isn't 'love' - I'm saying that 'Marriage' is different because it is not about only a couple and their love but also their children.
    I actually agree that once we allow same sex marriages then marriage becomes something else, what I disagree with is the presumption that it becomes something lessened. It will in fact become something better as now it will reflect the love the marriage is based on not the sexual probabilistic of procreation.

    Thanks Tommy, I think it becomes something different too, that's why I feel so strongly, not because I have a 'hatred' or any such thing for others - I think we will not be witnesses of it right here and now either, that's something we leave to the next people..

    I come from a different stock that thinks that marriage is long and hard sought after throughout time, it's not to be messed with, it's important because it involves taking responsibility for children, and for a couple too, even during dry times etc - and is the cornerstone of the family.

    I think this is important - I can't help but think it shouldn't be easily reduced to merely a contract between people who are lovers just now..but not tomorrow. It's not about just 'sex'.

    Sex is great, I love it, but kids are more important than that - no apologies.


  • #3690
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    lmaopml;
    I think this is important - I can't help but think it shouldn't be easily reduced to merely a contract between people who are lovers just now..but not tomorrow. It's not about just 'sex'.
    Well that boat sailed a long time ago, marriage is now a contract with an undefined expiration date. Divorce did that, not same sex unions.


  • Advertisement
  • #3691
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Neither Tommy am I saying that if people love eachother that it isn't 'love' - I'm saying that 'Marriage' is different because it is not about only a couple and their love but also their children.



    Thanks Tommy, I think it becomes something different too, that's why I feel so strongly, not because I have a 'hatred' or any such thing for others - I think we will not be witnesses of it right here and now either, that's something we leave to the next people..

    I come from a different stock that thinks that marriage is long and hard sought after throughout time, it's not to be messed with, it's important because it involves taking responsibility for children, and for a couple too, even during dry times etc - and is the cornerstone of the family.

    I think this is important - I can't help but think it shouldn't be easily reduced to merely a contract between people who are lovers just now..but not tomorrow. It's not about just 'sex'.

    Sex is great, I love it, but kids are more important than that - no apologies.

    Gay couples can and do have children. There are hundreds of children in Ireland right now being raised by gay couples. Those children are being denied the protections of that marriage brings, because their parents can't get married. If you believe marriage is about protecting the family with children, then it has to apply to all families with children, not just the ones with heterosexual parents.


Advertisement