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…151152154156157…218

Comments

  • #4592
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    I would love to get involved in this discussion but I cannot as I am on hinault's ignore list as will most of you quite shortly.


  • #4593
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    She says that the referendum is about children, as she advocates for the YES side.

    I'll ask again...so?


  • #4594
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    lazygal wrote: »
    Why is the bible a reliable source for a referendum on marriage equality? Do you also avoid women who are menstruating as I am.right now?

    In terms of marriage, the religion of the Old Testament and later Christianity teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman.


  • #4595
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    katydid wrote: »
    A. The gospels are part of the Bible... How does the bible advocate for male/female spouses?

    St Matthews Gospel chapter 19.


  • #4596
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    hinault wrote: »
    In terms of marriage, the religion of the Old Testament and later Christianity teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman.

    Thats great, what is stopping Christians from marrying as one man and one woman?

    This is a republic, not land being taken over by IS


  • Advertisement
  • #4597
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    katydid wrote: »
    I'll ask again...so?

    So why not?

    You're saying that McAleese isn't supporting a YES vote?


  • #4598
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    hinault wrote: »
    In terms of marriage, the religion of the Old Testament and later Christianity teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman.

    But this referendum is about civil marriage. I had a civil marriage ceremony. Why can't our gay friends have the same?


  • #4599
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    So why not?

    You're saying that McAleese isn't supporting a YES vote?

    No....

    I'm ASKING YOU what the relevance of what she believes in regards to children has to her voting yes. She can believe what she wants, but it's simply untrue.

    So, are you going to answer, or keep prevaricating?


  • #4600
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    steamengine wrote: »
    That's a pity. How do you mean 'repulsive' - in what way ?

    I do not have any desire to view any part of that video again. I left it after 16 minutes feeling the need to wash. A few of the highlights of mr manning's performance were
    Using children as pawns to forward his argument for a no vote.
    Putting forward the view that children will be wrenched from their parents
    Describing surrogacy as third party prostitution.

    He is just a vile person.


  • #4601
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    lazygal wrote: »
    But this referendum is about civil marriage. I had a civil marriage ceremony. Why can't our gay friends have the same?

    This referendum is about many issues. This referendum seeks to re-define marriage. It seeks to change the definition of the family (where applicable).


  • Advertisement
  • #4602
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    katydid wrote: »
    No....

    I'm ASKING YOU what the relevance of what she believes in regards to children has to her voting yes. She can believe what she wants, but it's simply untrue.

    So, are you going to answer, or keep prevaricating?

    The basis for her justifying her advocacy for YES vote is predicated on children.

    That's her claim.

    I'm not required to justify McAleese's claim.


  • #4603
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    The basis for her justifying her advocacy for YES vote is predicated on children.

    That's her claim.

    I'm not required to justify McAleese's claim.
    That's her choice. It doesn't make her right.

    Is there some point to this?


  • #4604
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    katydid wrote: »
    That's her choice. It doesn't make her right.

    Is there some point to this?

    It's her basis for voting YES.
    That's all that I'm pointing out to you.


  • #4605
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    hinault wrote: »
    This referendum is about many issues. This referendum seeks to re-define marriage. It seeks to change the definition of the family (where applicable).

    No it doesn't. It's about gay couples being able to get married like me and my husband did. Children were never mentioned by anyone to do with registration or carrying out our marriage. What's the difference between me and my husband getting married and our gay friends getting married?


  • #4606
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    This referendum is about many issues. This referendum seeks to re-define marriage. It seeks to change the definition of the family (where applicable).

    It's about ONE issue. One issue only.

    How does it seek to change the definition of the family? The family is not defined by marriage. Or are you saying that a single parent with children don't constitute a family?


  • #4607
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    hinault wrote: »
    This referendum is about many issues. This referendum seeks to re-define marriage. It seeks to change the definition of the family (where applicable).

    If marriage is being redefined what changes will a currently married couple go through?


  • #4608
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    It's her basis for voting YES.
    That's all that I'm pointing out to you.

    Again, I'll ask. SO?

    I'm not Mary McAleese, I've no interest in her reasons for voting yes.


  • #4609
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    lazygal wrote: »
    No it doesn't. It's about gay couples being able to get married like me and my husband did. Children were never mentioned by anyone to do with registration or carrying out our marriage. What's the difference between me and my husband getting married and our gay friends getting married?

    Hi Lazygal

    Please ask our resident genius what he means by "It seeks to change the definition of the family (where applicable)."

    He refuses to answer me or indeed anyone to whom he was unable to provide any remotely sensible answers on points raised in the past.


  • #4610
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,160 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    hinault wrote: »
    In terms of marriage, the religion of the Old Testament and later Christianity teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman.

    If you're going to accept what the Old Testament is saying, surely you won't mind me mentioning that rape victims were forced to marry their victims according to Deuteronomy 22:28-9? How about female POWs, who are described as the spoils of war according to Deuteronomy 21:11-4?


  • #4611
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    lazygal wrote: »
    No it doesn't. It's about gay couples being able to get married like me and my husband did. Children were never mentioned by anyone to do with registration or carrying out our marriage. What's the difference between me and my husband getting married and our gay friends getting married?

    The difference is that you're presumably female and your husband is presumably male.

    We're still able to make that presumption until the referendum gets passed.


  • Advertisement
  • #4612
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    If you're going to accept what the Old Testament is saying, surely you won't mind me mentioning that rape victims were forced to marry their victims according to Deuteronomy 22:28-9? How about female POWs, who are described as the spoils of war according to Deuteronomy 21:11-4?

    You cannot argue with the pope.


  • #4613
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    katydid wrote: »
    It's about ONE issue. One issue only.

    How does it seek to change the definition of the family? The family is not defined by marriage. Or are you saying that a single parent with children don't constitute a family?

    The family is defined in the Constitution and marriage is defined in the constitution.

    Pass the referendum and the family and marriage are automatically re-defined.


  • #4614
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    In terms of marriage, the religion of the Old Testament and later Christianity teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman.

    It references marriage in terms of a man and a woman, as no other type of marriage was not an option.

    That doesn't mean other forms of marriage are condemned. They are simply not mentioned. It certainly doesn't mean the Bible "advocates" for heterosexual marriage.


  • #4615
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    katydid wrote: »
    I've no interest in her reasons for voting yes.

    Others might be interested in why she's advocating for a YES vote.


  • #4616
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    The family is defined in the Constitution and marriage is defined in the constitution.

    Pass the referendum and the family and marriage are automatically re-defined.
    I'll ask the question again; are you saying that a single parent with children is not a family?


  • #4617
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    katydid wrote: »
    It references marriage in terms of a man and a woman, as no other type of marriage was not an option.

    That doesn't mean other forms of marriage are condemned. They are simply not mentioned. It certainly doesn't mean the Bible "advocates" for heterosexual marriage.

    If Jesus advocated for other types of "marriages", do you not think that it would have occurred to Christ to advocate for these other "marriage" varieties?


  • #4618
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    katydid wrote: »
    I'll ask the question again; are you saying that a single parent with children is not a family?

    I'm saying that a single parent who's not in a homosexual, with a child/children, is a family.


  • #4619
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    hinault wrote: »
    I'm saying that a single parent who's not in a homosexual, with a child/children, is a family.

    Are you saying that a same sex couple with a child/children, is not a family?

    Someone else ask this please. I am on his ignore list.


  • #4620
    3wayswitch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 310 ✭✭3wayswitch


    hinault wrote: »
    The basis for her justifying her advocacy for YES vote is predicated on children.

    That's her claim.

    I'm not required to justify McAleese's claim.

    You're really taking one point out of context. Before she made the comment about children she said:
    "same-sex marriage is a human rights issue", and she and her husband, Martin, believe that everyone should be able to "love someone for life" and have that love recognised "at the highest level of Irish society".

    That is what she is justifying her advocacy for YES vote on. The only reason she mentioned children after this was as a response to the no campaigners who keep trying to tie children into the referendum debate, to which she replied:
    the children yet unborn, the gay children yet unborn - we want them to be born into a world where if they fall in love with someone they can express that love fully.

    That is very different to what you were trying to imply her motivations were.


  • Advertisement
  • #4621
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    3wayswitch wrote: »
    You're really taking one point out of context. Before she made the comment about children she said:

    That is what she is justifying her advocacy for YES vote on. The only reason she mentioned children after this was as a response to the no campaigners who keep trying to tie children into the referendum debate, to which she replied:

    That is very different to what you were trying to imply her motivations were.

    McAleese said
    "It is a debate about children, people have been saying it’s about children - and we believe it to be about Ireland’s gay children and about their future and about the kind of future we want for Ireland. We want, in the words of the proclamation: ‘The children of a nation to be cherished equally’.

    “The adult children, the children yet unborn, the gay children yet unborn - we want them to be born into a world where if they fall in love with someone they can express that love fully,

    http://www.newstalk.com/Mary-McAleese:-Samesex-referendum-is-about-children--gay-children


Advertisement