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

NuMarvel wrote: »

Every other country that has decided on this issue has done so without the need for directly referring it to the people. Even in Ireland, there isn't an explicit barrier to same-sex marriage in our Constitution, we're holding a referendum partly to rule out potential legal challenges when the law is changed.

But that said, while I don't like that we are putting it to a referendum in the first place, I'm confident that the nature and morals of the Irish people are inclined towards equality, and that it will pass.

Many many countries have put the issue to the people. Gay marriage is not equality. There no biological basis for it. There no evolutionary basis for homosexual relationships full stop.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I don't think a referendum should be necessary, as it is not an issue that will effect the majority of the population or have the slightest impact on their lives. The only people it will effect is gay people who want to get married. It is no one else's business. It is a matter of human rights and equality and should just be passed. People who are 'against' gay marriage have no good reason to hold this position, and seeing any future law will not affect them, their 'anti gay marriage' stance should be irrelevant.

On that basis you oppose the 29th Amendment, 27th Amendment and the 23rd Amendment and many others? There is no human right for a man to marry a man. Just like there is no right for you to marry your sister or multiple partners. There is real tangible push at the moment to socially normalise Polygyny and Polygamy in this wave for gay marriage internally. very transparent. It will take a few decades to really get it established though. Anyway there are many proven objections to gay marriage. For instance gay marriage is bad for gays and demeans them.

robp wrote: »

Many many countries have put the issue to the people. Gay marriage is not equality. There no biological basis for it. There no evolutionary basis for homosexual relationships full stop.

On that basis you oppose the 29th Amendment, 27th Amendment and the 23rd Amendment and many others? There is no human right for a man to marry a man. Just like there is no right for you to marry your sister or multiple partners. There is real tangible push at the moment to socially normalise Polygyny and Polygamy in this wave for gay marriage internally. very transparent. It will take a few decades to really get it established though. Anyway there are many proven objections to gay marriage. For instance gay marriage is bad for gays and demeans them.

Go home, you're drunk

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Go home, you're drunk

I will do you a favour and ignore that.

robp wrote: »

I will do you a favour and ignore that.

Tbh dude you'd be doing yourself a favour to do a little bit of research on homosexuality, it's biological advantage in our evolution and why it arises very commonly in pack animals, like us.

I'll ignore the part about about marriage demeaning gay people purely out of the ignorance of the comment.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Tbh dude you'd be doing yourself a favour to do a little bit of research on homosexuality, it's biological advantage in our evolution and why it arises very commonly in pack animals, like us.

I'll ignore the part about about marriage demeaning gay people purely out of the ignorance of the comment.

Nope dude. You are referring to speculative hypotheses, or in order words guesses. It never been demonstrated that such speculated advantages translate into increased progeny. In fact there is no agreement that genes are even at play either, and although they may well be until which genes/expressions are proven to be involved. its up in the air.

robp wrote: »

Nope dude. You are referring to speculative hypotheses, or in order words guesses. It never been demonstrated that such speculated advantages translate into increased progeny. In fact there is no agreement that genes are even at play either, and although they may well be until which genes/expressions are proven to be involved. its up in the air.

So you're saying it's up in the air but make the statement that there is no biological advantage "full stop"? Bit hypocritical.

I don't work on guess, I actually study genetics and biology. Got any claims of evidence for what you're claiming though since you're quick to write off what I've written?

I'd like to hear how marriage is demeaning to gay people too.

Bannasidhe

robp wrote: »

Nope dude. You are referring to speculative hypotheses, or in order words guesses. It never been demonstrated that such speculated advantages translate into increased progeny. In fact there is no agreement that genes are even at play either, and although they may well be until which genes/expressions are proven to be involved. its up in the air.

Since when is the ability to reproduce a condition of being allowed to marry?

As for 'Just like there is no right for you to marry your sister' - like many others you seem confused as to the actual legal purpose of marriage which is to create a legal familial relationship between two individuals who are not closely related by blood. Siblings are already related so there is need for a legal mechanism to establish their relationship.

Marriage is and always has been a legal mechanism which states that as long as the marriage is valid the two individuals concerns are deemed to be family under the law and this legal relationship takes precedence over blood relationships in matters of inheritance, transfer of property, etc etc.
It is not dependent on the existence of children. In the Western World it is confined to one partner at a time - changing that has exactly nothing to do with whether people of the same gender should be allowed to marry.

What is demeaning to Gays is being denied rights and responsibilities under the law that are available to heterosexuals.

pauldla

robp wrote: »

Nope dude. You are referring to speculative hypotheses, or in order words guesses. It never been demonstrated that such speculated advantages translate into increased progeny. In fact there is no agreement that genes are even at play either, and although they may well be until which genes/expressions are proven to be involved. its up in the air.

Are you not confusing the nature of 'guess' and 'speculative hypothesis' here?

Allow me to demonstrate. How old am I?

Now, to answer that question, I suggest that one strategy is to guess. "18! 87! 6 1/2!" The other is to read back through all my posts on boards.ie (and you should, some of them are quite wonderful), and then slowly piece together an idea of my age. Using this method, based on the evidence you've observed, you may well come to the conclusion that I am dallying somewhere around my late thirties/early forties. And you'd be right. This technique is more akin to 'speculative hyphothesis', and I trust you can note the difference.

eviltwin

robp wrote: »

Anyway there are many proven objections to gay marriage. For instance gay marriage is bad for gays and demeans them.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this a bit more?

MrPudding

robp wrote: »

Many many countries have put the issue to the people. Gay marriage is not equality. There no biological basis for it. There no evolutionary basis for homosexual relationships full stop.

On that basis you oppose the 29th Amendment, 27th Amendment and the 23rd Amendment and many others? There is no human right for a man to marry a man. Just like there is no right for you to marry your sister or multiple partners. There is real tangible push at the moment to socially normalise Polygyny and Polygamy in this wave for gay marriage internally. very transparent. It will take a few decades to really get it established though. Anyway there are many proven objections to gay marriage. For instance gay marriage is bad for gays and demeans them.

Your arguments, well, they aren't really your arguments they are tired arguments used by many bigots around the world, have been shown to be wrong countless times. Can you explain what you mean by "proven objection." If you mean an objection that is proven to exist, then I would agree, there are objections to same sex marriage. If you mean proven in the sense that they are with merit, then no, there are no proven objections.

There have been numerous legal attemps to ban or prevent same sex marriage which have used these arguments and they have failed. They have been shown to be without merit and based only on specific religious doctrine and not any social or political reasoning.

Further, allowing same sex marriage does not magically allow marriages of a polygamous, insestuous or beastial nature. It allows same sex marriage. Any other form of marriage needs to be evaluated on it own merits, or otherwise.

Do yourself a favour and do a bit of reading.

MrP

robp wrote: »

Many many countries have put the issue to the people. Gay marriage is not equality. There no biological basis for it. There no evolutionary basis for homosexual relationships full stop.

I think evolution is a bit more complex than you give it credit for. Same sex couplings have been observed in hundreds of species of mammals and birds. It presumably serves some function otherwise it wouldn't be so widespread. We live in a world where we still don't know why some people are lefthanded, so I think it's fair to say we've some way to go before we've cracked the complexities of human sexuality and evolution.

Besides which, biology and evolution aren't criteria for anyone else's right to marry, so why should it only apply to gay and lesbian couples? If a heterosexual couple's application to marry was rejected for these reasons, they'd have the State in court, and rightly so. There is no good reason for a democratic state to treat same sex couples any differently.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

So you're saying it's up in the air but make the statement that there is no biological advantage "full stop"? Bit hypocritical.

I don't work on guess, I actually study genetics and biology. Got any claims of evidence for what you're claiming though since you're quick to write off what I've written?

I'd like to hear how marriage is demeaning to gay people too.

I am saying there is no proof it is a biological advantage. At this point in time there is no reason to believe it is. It may well be or it may well be not. Some have speculated it could be but until this is shown and the mechanism that transmits it is up in the air. Furthermore, there may be no selection at all for it as it is very possible that it is just not inherited. The North Italian group (Camperio Ciani's group) that looked at this came up with no means to explain this, they showed statistically its possible which is obvious.

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think evolution is a bit more complex than you give it credit for. Same sex couplings have been observed in hundreds of species of mammals and birds. It presumably serves some function otherwise it wouldn't be so widespread. We live in a world where we still don't know why some people are lefthanded, so I think it's fair to say we've some way to go before we've cracked the complexities of human sexuality and evolution.

Besides which, biology and evolution aren't criteria for anyone else's right to marry, so why should it only apply to gay and lesbian couples? If a heterosexual couple's application to marry was rejected for these reasons, they'd have the State in court, and rightly so. There is no good reason for a democratic state to treat same sex couples any differently.

There is a big difference between the human nuclear family and same sex interaction reported in wild animals. In fact very rarely is a preference for the same sex demonstrated in wild animals. Animals in cavity cannot be used to understand behaviour in most cases as their artificial environment may disrupt their normal behaviour. Same sex pairing does not whatsoever prove the individual has a preference for their own sex. No more than marrying a women with blond hair prove a preference for blond hair. Interestingly but not so relevant in birds the species, which show low parental investment exhibit higher frequencies of male homosexual behaviour (Bisexual would be a more appropriate term as they do both) More parental involvement = less homosexual behaviour.

Democratic states should treat same sex couples differently precisely because they are different. I keep hearing this argument 'marriage isn't about reproduction'. Well actually it is, and always has been. Yes, there are infertile couples out there but most have some chance of treating infertility. We only hear this reproduction argument due to the huge erosion of marriage in the last 50 years.

Gay marriage demeans homosexuals in its attempt to transform gay culture into straight culture. It attempts to reinvent a social institution in their name even though plenty are not so keen about it.

robp wrote: »

I am saying there is no proof it is a biological advantage. At this point in time there is no reason to believe it is. It may well be or it may well be not. Some have speculated it could be but until this is shown and the mechanism that transmits it is up in the air. Furthermore, there may be no selection at all for it as it is very possible that it is just not inherited. The North Italian group (Camperio Ciani's group) that looked at this came up with no means to explain this, they showed statistically its possible which is obvious.

There is a big difference between the human nuclear family and same sex interaction reported in wild animals. In fact very rarely is a preference for the same sex demonstrated in wild animals. Animals in cavity cannot be used to understand behaviour in most cases as their artificial environment may disrupt their normal behaviour. Same sex pairing does not whatsoever prove the individual has a preference for their own sex. No more than marrying a women with blond hair prove a preference for blond hair. Interestingly but not so relevant in birds the species, which show low parental investment exhibit higher frequencies of male homosexual behaviour (Bisexual would be a more appropriate term as they do both) More parental involvement = less homosexual behaviour.

Democratic states should treat same sex couples differently precisely because they are different. I keep hearing this argument 'marriage isn't about reproduction'. Well actually it is, and always has been. Yes, there are infertile couples out there but most have some chance of treating infertility. We only hear this reproduction argument due to the huge erosion of marriage in the last 50 years.

Gay marriage demeans homosexuals in its attempt to transform gay culture into straight culture. It attempts to reinvent a social institution in their name even though plenty are not so keen about it.

What a load of shíte. I'm gay. Marriage does not demean me. The thing that does demean me is not being allowed to marry for no good reason at all. Don't act like you're doing me a favour.

Also I never take anyone seriously when they talk about "gay culture". They just sound clueless.

robp wrote: »

Democratic states should treat same sex couples differently precisely because they are different. I keep hearing this argument 'marriage isn't about reproduction'. Well actually it is, and always has been. Yes, there are infertile couples out there but most have some chance of treating infertility. We only hear this reproduction argument due to the huge erosion of marriage in the last 50 years.

Saying marriage isn't about reproduction isn't an argument, it's a fact. Civil marriage laws make no reference to reproduction; there's no assessment of a couple's ability or desire to have children, and there's no upper age limit on marriage. If you think marriage is really about reproduction you should be objecting to the hundreds of elderly people who get married every year.

And by the way, treating people differently because of their differences is contrary to the basic democratic principles of fairness and equality. Being treated the same despite our differences is one of the fundamental tenets of equality, and we only diverge from that when just cause can be shown. Using reproduction as a reason to justify differing treatment in marriage doesn't hold up because it's not used as a reason to deny marriage to heterosexual couples.

robp wrote: »

Gay marriage demeans homosexuals in its attempt to transform gay culture into straight culture. It attempts to reinvent a social institution in their name even though plenty are not so keen about it.

Firstly, what the heck is "straight culture"?

Secondly, if you're going to talk about demeaning gay people, you should probably read over your own contributions first, because they are far more demeaning.

Bannasidhe

robp wrote: »

Democratic states should treat same sex couples differently precisely because they are different. I keep hearing this argument 'marriage isn't about reproduction'. Well actually it is, and always has been. Yes, there are infertile couples out there but most have some chance of treating infertility. We only hear this reproduction argument due to the huge erosion of marriage in the last 50 years.

Gay marriage demeans homosexuals in its attempt to transform gay culture into straight culture. It attempts to reinvent a social institution in their name even though plenty are not so keen about it.

That highlighted bit - wrong.

Marriage has always been about alliance (the creation of a legal familial bond), property and inheritance.

Not married heterosexual couples can breed together- what they cannot do is bequeath property from one to the other without a hefty tax bill as in the eyes of the law they are strangers. Nor is any child resulting from the relationship automatically considered to be the legal child of the biological father.

Tell me more about Gay Culture.
Did the success of Bronski Beat demean them?

What about Stephen Gately - was he demeaned by have girls fancy him?

Do stop telling us gays what demeans us and try listening for a change.

MrPudding

robp wrote: »

I am saying there is no proof it is a biological advantage. At this point in time there is no reason to believe it is. It may well be or it may well be not. Some have speculated it could be but until this is shown and the mechanism that transmits it is up in the air. Furthermore, there may be no selection at all for it as it is very possible that it is just not inherited. The North Italian group (Camperio Ciani's group) that looked at this came up with no means to explain this, they showed statistically its possible which is obvious.

So, let me summarise what you seem to be saying here. You are of the opinion that there is no evidence, either way, that same sex attraction has a biological advantage. So, as there is no evidence we can't say there might be an advantage, but you can say that there isn't one? How does that work? Surely the lack of evidence either way means that if we can't say there might be an advantage you can't say for sure, as you seem to be, that there isn't one...?

robp wrote: »

There is a big difference between the human nuclear family and same sex interaction reported in wild animals. In fact very rarely is a preference for the same sex demonstrated in wild animals. Animals in cavity cannot be used to understand behaviour in most cases as their artificial environment may disrupt their normal behaviour.

Who says it is only observed in captive animals? As previously suggested, do yourself a favour and read something other than pamphlets and Alive!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
http://www.livescience.com/3697-sex-behavior-animals.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

robp wrote: »

Same sex pairing does not whatsoever prove the individual has a preference for their own sex. No more than marrying a women with blond hair prove a preference for blond hair.

Does that mean that my invariable preference for the opposite sex does not prove I am straight?

robp wrote: »

Interestingly but not so relevant in birds the species, which show low parental investment exhibit higher frequencies of male homosexual behaviour (Bisexual would be a more appropriate term as they do both) More parental involvement = less homosexual behaviour.

Interestingly, one of the articles I posted above talks about same-sex coupled birds raising chicks. Single females will lay eggs in a male couple nest, and there is evidence that the same sex couples make better parents. Also, can you post some evidence of your more parental involvement = less homosexual behaviour please? That sounds interesting.

robp wrote: »

Democratic states should treat same sex couples differently precisely because they are different. I keep hearing this argument 'marriage isn't about reproduction'. Well actually it is, and always has been. Yes, there are infertile couples out there but most have some chance of treating infertility. We only hear this reproduction argument due to the huge erosion of marriage in the last 50 years.

Can you please provide evidence to back up this claim? Not looking for anything too demanding, if this is the case then presumably you could just post up the guidelines for civil marriage which will, presumably, have a section detailing the requirement to have children in order for the marriage to be valid.

robp wrote: »

Gay marriage demeans homosexuals in its attempt to transform gay culture into straight culture. It attempts to reinvent a social institution in their name even though plenty are not so keen about it.

No, it is neither. It is simply an attempt to give a significant minority of the population with access, should they choose to access it, to an institution that represents the strongest public, societal indication of one person's love for another.

MrP

j80ezgvc3p92xu

I am a Roman Catholic who has read enough of the Bible to notice that homosexuality is held to be sinful and abhorrent by God. There is a major referendum coming up next year, which may result in redefining the Christian concept of marriage by including homosexuality within its ambit. I am wondering are there any Christian organisations which will be actively campaigning for the "no" vote? The Catholic Church itself is eerily silent on the topic lately.

Mod: Merged with the megatread.

eviltwin

It won't redefine Christian marriage, only civil marriage which the church don't recognise anyway. Churches will not be forced to marry gay couples.

Bridget Whining Knitter wrote: »

I am a Roman Catholic who has read enough of the Bible to notice that homosexuality is held to be sinful and abhorrent by God. There is a major referendum coming up next year, which may result in redefining the Christian concept of marriage by including homosexuality within its ambit. I am wondering are there any Christian organisations which will be actively campaigning for the "no" vote? The Catholic Church itself is eerily silent on the topic lately.

Those <SNIP> , Iona, will be loud enough for everyone

I'm guessing the church is eerily silent because the referendum has nothing to do with them

Benny_Cake

Everyone - it should be possible to get a point across without namecalling. Keep it civil or don't bother posting.

Benny_Cake

Bridget Whining Knitter wrote: »

I am a Roman Catholic who has read enough of the Bible to notice that homosexuality is held to be sinful and abhorrent by God. There is a major referendum coming up next year, which may result in redefining the Christian concept of marriage by including homosexuality within its ambit. I am wondering are there any Christian organisations which will be actively campaigning for the "no" vote? The Catholic Church itself is eerily silent on the topic lately.

Mod: Merged with the megatread.

Given the effects that the scandals and so on have had it's likely that the Catholic church will remain largely silent on this. Everyone knows where it stands anyway. Plus the RCC doesn't recognise civil marriage anyway (at least among Catholics).

There will be some groups campaigning against it - COIR, Iona, perhaps some fundamentalist Protestant groups. Personally, if no church is going to be forced to or prevented from performing same-sex marriages I don't see the issue.

PopePalpatine

Bridget Whining Knitter wrote: »

I am a Roman Catholic who has read enough of the Bible to notice that homosexuality is held to be sinful and abhorrent by God. There is a major referendum coming up next year, which may result in redefining the Christian concept of marriage by including homosexuality within its ambit. I am wondering are there any Christian organisations which will be actively campaigning for the "no" vote? The Catholic Church itself is eerily silent on the topic lately.

Youth Defence should be up your alley.

Kiwi in IE

Bridget Whining Knitter wrote: »

I am a Roman Catholic who has read enough of the Bible to notice that homosexuality is held to be sinful and abhorrent by God. There is a major referendum coming up next year, which may result in redefining the Christian concept of marriage by including homosexuality within its ambit. I am wondering are there any Christian organisations which will be actively campaigning for the "no" vote? The Catholic Church itself is eerily silent on the topic lately.

Mod: Merged with the megatread.

But my marriage is not a 'Christian marriage' because I am an atheist, therefore marriages other than the 'Christian concept of marriage' already exist!

eviltwin wrote: »

It won't redefine Christian marriage, only civil marriage which the church don't recognise anyway. Churches will not be forced to marry gay couples.

This can't be emphasised enough. Churches will not, and can not, be forced to marry gay couples, because they can not be forced to marry anyone. The Constitution is clear that the practice of their faith is solely their affair. A priest could refuse to marry the most devout Catholic couple in Ireland, and that couple would have no recourse under the law.

The marriage of gay couples will be a lot like the marriage of divorced people. The Catholic Church doesn't recognise it, they're not obliged to marry them, and the Christian definition of marriage is still of a man and a woman for life to the exclusion of all others; it's entirely a civil affair.

Jellybaby1

Regarding the recent controversy about the gay couple ordering a cake from a Christian baker. I have a serious question. We have bought Halal meat regularly and we are not Moslem. Do Halal butchers sell non-Halal meat, and do Kosher stores sell non-Kosher products? Because if they don't, then does that mean that non-Moslem and non-Jewish customers can then take those shop owners to court? Its crazy!

MrPudding

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Regarding the recent controversy about the gay couple ordering a cake from a Christian baker. I have a serious question. We have bought Halal meat regularly and we are not Moslem. Do Halal butchers sell non-Halal meat, and do Kosher stores sell non-Kosher products? Because if they don't, then does that mean that non-Moslem and non-Jewish customers can then take those shop owners to court? Its crazy!

I think you are confused. If the butcher refused to sell to you because you were a Christian, then you could take then to court. Are you tryi g to suggest one could sue a shop for refusing to sell you something that they don't stock?

MrP

Jellybaby1

I'm not suggesting anything. I am merely trying to make sense of the situation.