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

steamengine · 21-04-2015 12:56AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

No child is parented the best way, every parent does something the non ideal way at some point.

You're missing my point, it's the family structure not the quality of any individual.

You appear to be against adoption, which is fine Im not going to argue about the pros and cons of adoption but it exists and opposite sex couples and single people can adopt as it is.

Definitely not, but generally a couple would adopt, because for some reason they couldn't have their own children. The child is deprived of it's birth parent as a result. That situation doesn't arise in the traditional arrangement.

You could also ask which is better for a child, parents with third level education or without? Should we deny a couple from raising a child without a degree?

Not at all.

The source of the child has no bearing on the quality of parents and with the new bill same sex couples can adopt without being married. Hence no matter the referendum children will be adopted, although adoptions in Ireland aren't that common with most being within the family.

It is interesting, but if I was a kid I would like a normal Mummy and a Daddy same as my friends , or be adopted into such a family and same sex couples can't provide that. Sorry to be blunt, but those are my views.

They way you compare whats best for the child you appear to focus on whats best, conceived by the parents or adopted by the parents. How does the source of the child be it IVF, adoption or conceived naturally alter the parenting? If me and my girlfriend would be just as capable of raising a child be it adopted, surrogacy or conceived naturally why is a same sex couple be penalized for having an adopted child?

Only as regarding the family structure, and it's only an opinion, though I was brought up in an era, of no single parentage, no gay couples, no divorce, and some adoptions, not many.

What is the consensus among psychologists and child welfare groups? These people have looked into this far more than anyone here has. What do they say about same sex vs opposite sex couples and raising children?

In the end, regardless how a person votes you'll have families made up of all sorts. Some will be male and female married couples, some will be same sex couples who are married or in a civil partnership.

The first part I don't know and the second part is as you say.

shruikan2553 · 21-04-2015 01:00AM

steamengine wrote: »

You're missing my point, it's the family structure not the quality of any individual.

Definitely not, but generally a couple would adopt, because for some reason they couldn't have their own children. The child is deprived of it's birth parent as a result. That situation doesn't arise in the traditional arrangement.

Not at all.

It is interesting, but if I was a kid I would like a normal Mummy and a Daddy same as my friends , or be adopted into such a family and same sex couples can't provide that. Sorry to be blunt, but those are my views.

Only as regarding the family structure, and it's only an opinion, though I was brought up in an era, of no single parentage, no gay couples, no divorce, and some adoptions, not many.

The first part I don't know and the second part is as you say.

Ah right, you must have missed this post which contained lots of information on the matter. Should probably read up on the topic so you can make an informed decision.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Also some reading for people who think a same sex couple cant raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting
Its wikipedia but the sources can be viewed if you want more detail on a claim in it.

Also worth noting that the methods used by same sex couples are the same ones that have been available to opposite sex couples. Any arguments about children being taken away from biological parents etc also apply to both types of couples and is an argument against that method, not of the couple themselves.

steamengine · 21-04-2015 01:20AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Ah right, you must have missed this post which contained lots of information on the matter. Should probably read up on the topic so you can make an informed decision.

Again I get the impression that I must come up with the specific 'pro same sex' answers you want. You have'nt commented on any of my replies. Do you agree with anything I've said ?

shruikan2553 · 21-04-2015 01:26AM

steamengine wrote: »

Again i get the impression that I must come up with the specific 'pro same sex' answers you want.

You didn't know what the general consensus among psychologists and child welfare groups was. How could you make a claim about ideal parenting without such knowledge?

You seem hesitant is acknowledging anything to suggest that 2 people of the same sex can raise a child just fine or that the referendum will have no effect on the children and family relationships bill.

steamengine · 21-04-2015 01:35AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

You didn't know what the general consensus among psychologists and child welfare groups was. How could you make a claim about ideal parenting without such knowledge?

You seem hesitant is acknowledging anything to suggest that 2 people of the same sex can raise a child just fine or that the referendum will have no effect on the children and family relationships bill.

Frankly I don't think I'll bother now, good luck to you.

MrPudding · 21-04-2015 08:19AM

steamengine wrote: »

Frankly I don't think I'll bother now, good luck to you.

Were you ever going to bother? You are, and have been, making proclamations about what is best for the raising of s child. Someone provided a link for you, some time ago, to allow you to see what the current consensus is amongst the professional working in the relevant areas of the social sciences. You did not read this but continued to suggest the ideal situation for raising children, whilst at the same time telling us you don't actually know. You are pointed to the link again with a suggestion that before telling people what is ideal, when you have yourself admitted that you don't know, it might be useful to familiarise yourself with the position held by professionals and then you throw your toys out of the pram. To me this would suggest a person that has not intention of, or interest in finding out what the position actually is, likely because they suspect the answer may not be to there liking.

Whilst you or I might hold a view that a certain thing, or belief, holds true, that does not make it true. This is the case even when it seems to be obviously true, very often the obviously true, or the 'commen sense' answer is far from true or correct. This genuinely seems to be the case with children raised in same sex relationships. This can be difficult for the majority of people raised in opposite sex relationships to grasp. For those it is likely that each parent performed specific roles within the family, and it can be difficult to see how those roles might be fulfilled by a person of the opposite sex. I was raised in a single parent family, so I did not get that. I did not have mother roles and father roles in my upbringing, I had parent roles.

Study after study has shown that children in same sex parented families do at least as well a children in opposite sex parented families and better than single parent families. It really is extremely well supported.

If you were genuinely interested in the wellbeing of children you would be supporting ssm as the one thing that is clear is that children raised in families where the parents are married and in a loving relationship will fair better than those where the parents are not married IRRESPECTIVE of the sex of the parents. You might not like it, you might not believe it and it might seem strange and counter-intuitive to you, but it is simply how it is. Of course, if you look you will find the odd person that said their life was horrible in their same sex parented family, but there are always exceptions. There are plenty of people that had terrible childhoods with opposite sex parents, are we going to stop heterosexual marriage because of that?

And Paddy Manning, why is his opinion so important? Why does one gay man's opinion that there should be no ssm garner so much weight amongst anti-ssm people? I am Straight and I am against marriage does that mean no one should be able to get married?

MrP

katydid · 21-04-2015 08:49AM

steamengine wrote: »

It is interesting, but if I was a kid I would like a normal Mummy and a Daddy same as my friends , or be adopted into such a family and same sex couples can't provide that.

That's fine. Not all kids feel like you. There are kids growing up in same sex households NOW (marriage isn't going to change that) who have no problem with having two mums or two dads. Just like there are kids growing up in households were there is no father, or no mother.

Whether or not people of the same gender are allowed to marry isn't going to change this fact one iota.

katydid · 21-04-2015 08:51AM

steamengine wrote: »

Frankly I don't think I'll bother now, good luck to you.

You won't "bother", because you know you're backed into a corner.

You could come up with a better get out line than "I don't think I'll bother", though

Nick Park · 21-04-2015 09:07AM

marienbad wrote: »

No ,you are just looking for a loophole to allow people to make it up as they go along . That has never worked before so why expect it to do so now ? Best just to rely on the law and if we don't like it we can get to vote on it and go to court over it if we choose .

Ah, the loophole argument. Loopholes are particularly hated by those who wish to force everybody else to comply with their wishes.

I see nothing wrong with niche marketing operating as a loophole by which Jews can market kosher B&Bs, naturists can market B&Bs where you can wander round the garden naked if you want, vegetarians can market meat-free B&Bs, and where a retired couple can run a B&B that is Christian-themed, runs Bible studies, hangs Scripture texts on the walls, and where unmarried couples don't rent double rooms.

If people want to stay in such niche establishments then they know exactly what they are getting into. They are clearly marketed as catering for a minority group, and anyone who checks in and then claims to be offended is quite clearly acting the maggot. Meanwhile, the rest of us, the vast majority of paying guests, will continue to stay in accommodation which is marketed to the general public and where we don't expect to see naked people sitting in the garden, and where we can eat bacon sandwiches to our heart's content and then roger whoever we want in our room.

Such an arrangement offends nobody, makes nobody feel discriminated against or humiliated, and allows a diversity of beliefs and values. The only people, as I see it, that would get offended at such a scenario are those intolerant bigots who cannot tolerate the existence of others with different views and values.

Your ''path of reasonable accommodation '' for instance ,what does that even mean ? Do you think your path would be the same as a Muslim path ? Or an atheist path ? Or a far right path ?

That depends if they are following your path (trying to force your views on others) or my path (advocating reasonable compromises where nobody hurts anyone else but diversity is allowed and different views are tolerated).

I certainly support the right of Muslims to follow whatever path they want if they don't interfere with my freedoms. I'm perfectly happy for people to run a Muslim B&B where guests have to prostrate themselves 5 times a day, where women have to wear the veil, and where guests wouldn't be allowed to tell other guests that they need to trust Jesus to be forgiven of their sins. It certainly wouldn't be my cup of tea, but then I'm not going to dream of staying there anyway. And if I did book a room in a clearly marketed Muslim B&B, and then complain that I was being discriminated against as a Christian, then any right-thinking person would tell me to go and catch myself on.

As for atheists? No problem. Most atheists I know are far-minded, quite happy to tolerate diversity and operate a live-and-let-live policy.

I certainly find the far-right to be abhorrent. But I believe in freedom of speech. If a bunch of nuts want to run a B&B where they hang Swastikas on the wall and celebrate Hitler's birthday then they have a right to do so. I hope that there aren't sufficient similar crazies to make such a venture economically viable, but if they keep their craziness to themselves then they have every right to do so.

And remember all these people see themselves as the reasonable crowd.

And if they practise their beliefs among themselves, and don't do it in a way that harms anyone else, then that is reasonable.

Being reasonable doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with your views. It means that you don't force your views on others.

You see people aren't reasonable . If they were we wouldn't need most of our laws . Best to rely on the law I think .

False dichotomy. It is not a case of reason or the law. It is a case of the law facilitating reasonable behaviour. Most people can behave reasonably most of the time. And most of don't get bent out of shape when others disagree with us. When people become unreasonable, and try to interfere with the freedoms of others, then the law is there to protect us.

Someone booking into a B&B, with no expectation that it is anything other than a normal place of accommodation, has a perfect right to book a room for themselves and their gay partner. If they are refused a room on the grounds of sexual orientation, then that is extremely hurtful, unfair, and the law should be employed to protect gay couples from such things.

However, if someone deliberately books into a B&B that is niche marketed solely as an Islamic B&B, where travellers to Mecca stop over and where Muslim rituals are applied, and then wants to book a room as a gay couple, then they are clearly seeking confrontation. The law should not operate to protect people's feelings from being hurt when they are trying their hardest to get offended in the first place.

steamengine · 21-04-2015 09:12AM

MrPudding wrote: »

Were you ever going to bother? You are, and have been, making proclamations about what is best for the raising of s child. Someone provided a link for you, some time ago, to allow you to see what the current consensus is amongst the professional working in the relevant areas of the social sciences. You did not read this but continued to suggest the ideal situation for raising children, whilst at the same time telling us you don't actually know. You are pointed to the link again with a suggestion that before telling people what is ideal, when you have yourself admitted that you don't know, it might be useful to familiarise yourself with the position held by professionals and then you throw your toys out of the pram. To me this would suggest a person that has not intention of, or interest in finding out what the position actually is, likely because they suspect the answer may not be to there liking.

Whilst you or I might hold a view that a certain thing, or belief, holds true, that does not make it true. This is the case even when it seems to be obviously true, very often the obviously true, or the 'commen sense' answer is far from true or correct. This genuinely seems to be the case with children raised in same sex relationships. This can be difficult for the majority of people raised in opposite sex relationships to grasp. For those it is likely that each parent performed specific roles within the family, and it can be difficult to see how those roles might be fulfilled by a person of the opposite sex. I was raised in a single parent family, so I did not get that. I did not have mother roles and father roles in my upbringing, I had parent roles.

Study after study has shown that children in same sex parented families do at least as well a children in opposite sex parented families and better than single parent families. It really is extremely well supported.

If you were genuinely interested in the wellbeing of children you would be supporting ssm as the one thing that is clear is that children raised in families where the parents are married and in a loving relationship will fair better than those where the parents are not married IRRESPECTIVE of the sex of the parents. You might not like it, you might not believe it and it might seem strange and counter-intuitive to you, but it is simply how it is. Of course, if you look you will find the odd person that said their life was horrible in their same sex parented family, but there are always exceptions. There are plenty of people that had terrible childhoods with opposite sex parents, are we going to stop heterosexual marriage because of that?

And Paddy Manning, why is his opinion so important? Why does one gay man's opinion that there should be no ssm garner so much weight amongst anti-ssm people? I am Straight and I am against marriage does that mean no one should be able to get married?

MrP

Unfortunately Mr. Pudding, the debating style of the YES posters in here consists of collectively haranguing anyone who disagrees with the 'choreographed' message. I tried to be reasonable yesterday, spent a long time on many posts to be told my opinion was uninformed. I could ask you how a steamengine works. I link to HowStuffworks, you don't have the time to read it, and I then tell you your answer is uninformed. Such debating smacks only of point scoring and garnering 'thanks'

TBH the YES side have yet to come up with something that might impress me, certainly the accusatory stance of denying them their rights, by voting NO just does the opposite. Their 'concocting' of what my answers and attitudes 'really are' when I respond is just irritating, you will see that if care to look back at my posts and the subsequent responses.

No, I should imagine Paddy Manning's opinion is not popular in certain quarters, but democracy is about tolerating different opinions.

shruikan2553 · 21-04-2015 09:27AM

steamengine wrote: »

Frankly I don't think I'll bother now, good luck to you.

That's a shame. Was anything I said incorrect? I would rather be told than than look like a fool by telling people what the professionals say or that the children and family relationships bill doesn't involve children or family relationships.

Hopefully others won't be as closed minded and are willing to let go of their prejudices and accept facts.

You are willing to accept anything Paddy says without proof yet ignore anyone who has proof but doesn't agree with you.

pauldla · 21-04-2015 09:28AM

Democracy is about tolerating different opinions. So vote no.

katydid · 21-04-2015 09:31AM

steamengine wrote: »

Unfortunately Mr. Pudding, the debating style of the YES posters in here consists of collectively haranguing anyone who disagrees with the 'choreographed' message. I tried to be reasonable yesterday, spent a long time on many posts to be told my opinion was uninformed. .
.

Asking you to explain yourself is hardly haranguing you. It's very simple; you are bringing in arguments about surrogacy, adoption, the structure of the family etc. into this discussion and then totally failing to explain why they are relevant. On the other hand, other posters have taken your points and shown how they have no relevance to the discussion.

Repeating what you believe ad infinitum without addressing contrary points is not how debate work.

shruikan2553 · 21-04-2015 09:44AM

Has anyone managed to disprove the general consensus among professionals or that the children and family relationships bill deals with children and family relationships?

Probably the easiest way to show Im wrong and that people should vote no.

lazygal · 21-04-2015 09:51AM

steamengine wrote: »

Unfortunately Mr. Pudding, the debating style of the YES posters in here consists of collectively haranguing anyone who disagrees with the 'choreographed' message.

What choreographed message? I am married to a man and we have children. If my children are gay, I would like them to have the option of getting married if and when they meet the right person.
Nothing you've said about voting no doesn't apply to my marriage also. I could pay a surrogate, I could use donor egg, sperm and womb and have a baby that way. I could apply to adopt a child in Ireland or abroad. I could do any of these things. Why is none of that used as an argument against people like me and my husband getting married? We're already married and could afford to avail of DAHR if we wanted or needed to, like unmarried couples can too. Why is it different when gay couples want to get married?

Kiwi in IE · 21-04-2015 10:21AM

steamengine wrote: »

It is interesting, but if I was a kid I would like a normal Mummy and a Daddy same as my friends , or be adopted into such a family and same sex couples can't provide that. Sorry to be blunt, but those are my views.

Well if I were a child who was to be adopted I would prefer someone who is in upper management at Disneyland to be my parent. Or someone who owns a sweet factory or toy store. Maybe I should be allowed to influence that only those types of people can adopt because that is my personal preference.

MrPudding · 21-04-2015 10:43AM

steamengine wrote: »

Unfortunately Mr. Pudding, the debating style of the YES posters in here consists of collectively haranguing anyone who disagrees with the 'choreographed' message.

I can see how it might seem like that is what is happening and, no doubt, in some cases that is what is happening, though I did not think there was much of it going on against you.

I think there is a lot of frustration and possibly some incredulity. Personally, I find it quite unbelievable that a person would suggest in the one hand hand they know nothing about a subject, but on the other hand make statements as to the reality of that subject, statements that go against the prevailing scientific wisdom in that area.

I certainly find it frustrating in this particular debate when people won't back up their claims, refuse to read anything that might challenge their beliefs or conflate the topic with something unrelated.

steamengine wrote: »

I tried to be reasonable yesterday, spent a long time on many posts to be told my opinion was uninformed. I could ask you how a steamengine works. I link to HowStuffworks, you don't have the time to read it, and I then tell you your answer is uninformed. Such debating smacks only of point scoring and garnering 'thanks'

Reasonable, in this context, is a subjective thing. For me reasonable would have been to say 'hold on a minute, I need some time to digest this' and then to actually read the material you were presented with, and then return to the debate as least able to discuss the subject with some new knowledge. I find it far from reasonable to simply repeat the same thing again and again without having taken the opportunity to inform oneself about the subject.

With respect to your answer being called uninformed, what word would you suggest be used to describe a answer given which goes against all evidence, evidence which the person giving the answer refuses to engage with? Whilst one might not like one's answer to be called uninformed, when that answer is, in fact, uninformed then there is little else to call it.

steamengine wrote: »

TBH the YES side have yet to come up with something that might impress me, certainly the accusatory stance of denying them their rights, by voting NO just does the opposite. Their 'concocting' of what my answers and attitudes 'really are' when I respond is just irritating, you will see that if care to look back at my posts and the subsequent responses.

No, I should imagine Paddy Manning's opinion is not popular in certain quarters, but democracy is about tolerating different opinions.

And her is one of the places where I really struggle to understand the 'no' mindset. Why do you need something to impress you? If the referendum was, for example, to allow the government to increase income tax by 20%, something which would have a profound effect on you, then the need to be impressed by the reason for voting yes seem more valid. Certainly, in my case, I would want to know why this massive increase was needed. I would need to be impressed by the reasoning, those reason would need to convince me that the hardship I would feel as a result would be balanced by the benefits realised.

In this referendum it is simply giving a right to a minority that have suffered their entire existence from discrimination, bullying, criminalisation and being treated as lessor human beings. Why on earth would you need to be impressed by the yes side to make the world a little bit more accepting of gay people? I don't get this at all. 'Yes, I can see this referendum is about giving a group of people some rights that I already enjoy. There is no rational reason for me to oppose this, and it will not have any impact, at all, whatsoever on my life, but you need to impress me or I am voting no.' Just wow.

MrP

tommy2bad · 21-04-2015 11:23AM

Mr P, in fairness when it comes to a change like they way we define marriage the resistance to change is huge. Throes not affected by the status quo can't see a reason to change, for them their is no problem.
They see no discrimination in not having marriage for gay people, it's just the way it is. They don't discriminate against gay people, they don't hate gay people, they just don't think about it that way.
Once change is proposed they fear change because it might affect them, it doesn't have to be a real threat just a niggling concern because for them things are fine as they are.
That's why they need to be impressed as to the need for change, they need to be persuaded that the risk they perceive ( no matter that that risk is no more than a sneaky feeling) is worth taking, that the benefits of change will gain more than change will cost them.
This aplies to both the gay and straight opponents, both are comfortable with the " way things are" it's change itself they maybe not fear but see no need for.
Because a yes vote will change things, it wouldn't be worth doing if it didn't. That change will be for the better imnsho, it will give the same validity and recognise the value to society stable relationships give to society and offer the same support to them regardless of sexual orientation.
In essence this referendum is about whether the state values marriage for its own sake or whether it values marriage only as a quaint relic of auld decency as it slowly redraws relationships into a selection of options.
Ironically it's the gay agenda that's defending the institute of marriage.

steamengine · 21-04-2015 11:37AM

MrPudding wrote: »

I can see how it might seem like that is what is happening and, no doubt, in some cases that is what is happening, though I did not think there was much of it going on against you.

I think there is a lot of frustration and possibly some incredulity. Personally, I find it quite unbelievable that a person would suggest in the one hand hand they know nothing about a subject, but on the other hand make statements as to the reality of that subject, statements that go against the prevailing scientific wisdom in that area.

I certainly find it frustrating in this particular debate when people won't back up their claims, refuse to read anything that might challenge their beliefs or conflate the topic with something unrelated.

Reasonable, in this context, is a subjective thing. For me reasonable would have been to say 'hold on a minute, I need some time to digest this' and then to actually read the material you were presented with, and then return to the debate as least able to discuss the subject with some new knowledge. I find it far from reasonable to simply repeat the same thing again and again without having taken the opportunity to inform oneself about the subject.

With respect to your answer being called uninformed, what word would you suggest be used to describe a answer given which goes against all evidence, evidence which the person giving the answer refuses to engage with? Whilst one might not like one's answer to be called uninformed, when that answer is, in fact, uninformed then there is little else to call it.

And her is one of the places where I really struggle to understand the 'no' mindset. Why do you need something to impress you? If the referendum was, for example, to allow the government to increase income tax by 20%, something which would have a profound effect on you, then the need to be impressed by the reason for voting yes seem more valid. Certainly, in my case, I would want to know why this massive increase was needed. I would need to be impressed by the reasoning, those reason would need to convince me that the hardship I would feel as a result would be balanced by the benefits realised.

In this referendum it is simply giving a right to a minority that have suffered their entire existence from discrimination, bullying, criminalisation and being treated as lessor human beings. Why on earth would you need to be impressed by the yes side to make the world a little bit more accepting of gay people? I don't get this at all. 'Yes, I can see this referendum is about giving a group of people some rights that I already enjoy. There is no rational reason for me to oppose this, and it will not have any impact, at all, whatsoever on my life, but you need to impress me or I am voting no.' Just wow.

MrP

A perfect example of words being put in my mouth. How do you know I don't have a rational reason ? Or a reason which came about for rational reasons. I do have a reason and a democratic right to vote NO if I so wish.

If you read my posts you will see I have not sought to make any statements but only offered personal opinions in response to questions, persistent questioning at that. I really only come at this from the mainstream Christian point of view. As you are aware the mainstream churches are against same sex marriage and I agree with that stance. So take it up with them.

Unlike some I'm not into continually carving pieces out of the Bible to suit the latest populist cause. Unfortunately on issues like this and abortion, everyone gets wound up to high 'Doh'. Everyone needs to cool it.

steamengine · 21-04-2015 11:48AM

lazygal wrote: »

What choreographed message? I am married to a man and we have children. If my children are gay, I would like them to have the option of getting married if and when they meet the right person.
Nothing you've said about voting no doesn't apply to my marriage also. I could pay a surrogate, I could use donor egg, sperm and womb and have a baby that way. I could apply to adopt a child in Ireland or abroad. I could do any of these things. Why is none of that used as an argument against people like me and my husband getting married? We're already married and could afford to avail of DAHR if we wanted or needed to, like unmarried couples can too. Why is it different when gay couples want to get married?

The choreographed message is blaming the 'NO' side for discriminating against gays. Practically every YES supporter has come out with it - just by chance ??? The laws of unintended consequences or just that, I don't feel in any way responsible for a referendum, I had no hand, act or part, in initiating.

Each to his or her own, our views on marriage differ.

21-04-2015 11:50AM

steamengine wrote: »

A perfect example of words being put in my mouth. How do you know I don't have a rational reason ? Or a reason which came about for rational reasons. I do have a reason and a democratic right to vote NO if I so wish.

If you read my posts you will see I have not sought to make any statements but only offered personal opinions in response to questions, persistent questioning at that. I really only come at this from the mainstream Christian point of view. As you are aware the mainstream churches are against same sex marriage and I agree with that stance. So take it up with them.

Unlike some I'm not into continually carving pieces out of the Bible to suit the latest populist cause. Unfortunately on issues like this and abortion, everyone gets wound up to high 'Doh'. Everyone needs to cool it.

What is the rational reason?

steamengine · 21-04-2015 11:51AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Well if I were a child who was to be adopted I would prefer someone who is in upper management at Disneyland to be my parent. Or someone who owns a sweet factory or toy store. Maybe I should be allowed to influence that only those types of people can adopt because that is my personal preference.

Excellent, Christian values are more spiritual and less material though.

steamengine · 21-04-2015 12:00PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What is the rational reason?

Possibly not rational in your book. I hold the traditonal Christian viewpoint that marriage is between one man and a woman.

21-04-2015 12:02PM

steamengine wrote: »

Possibly not rational in your book. I hold the traditonal Christian viewpoint that marriage is between one man and a woman.

Okay. Do you have a rational reason for opposing same sex marriage?

Kiwi in IE · 21-04-2015 12:03PM

steamengine wrote: »

Excellent, Christian values are more spiritual and less material though.

So because you believe that your belief system is superior, it is alright that it is forced on everyone via legislation, even though not everyone shares your beliefs?

steamengine · 21-04-2015 12:04PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

They also have nothing to do with this referendum as it isn't church marriages which are being altered.

Now Doctor, this is a Christian forum and I'm taking the opportunity to express things from my Christian point of view. You do know the Catholic Church for one is recommending a NO vote. So it has everything to do with the referendum, in some peoples eyes.

Bannasidhe · 21-04-2015 12:05PM

steamengine wrote: »

Possibly not rational in your book. I hold the traditonal Christian viewpoint that marriage is between one man and a woman.

Which 'traditional Christian viewpoint'?

The Lutheran Church of Sweden apparently doesn't share your definition as it's bishops voted overwhelmingly to perform same-sex marriage in their churches - and this was an internal initiative not requested by the Swedish State.

Kiwi in IE · 21-04-2015 12:07PM

steamengine wrote: »

Possibly not rational in your book. I hold the traditonal Christian viewpoint that marriage is between one man and a woman.

Well that's great. Your marriage can be between one man and one woman then. Why should the 'traditional Christian viewpoint' be forced on the entire population just because that is what you believe? Personally it suits me best that my marriage is man/woman too because I am straight. But I realise this does not apply to everybody.

steamengine · 21-04-2015 12:10PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So because you believe that your belief system is superior, it is alright that it is forced on everyone via legislation, even though not everyone shares your beliefs?

But I'm not responsible for the unintended consequences, and you pre-suppose the outcome which could very well be YES. Hey that's democracy.

steamengine · 21-04-2015 12:15PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which 'traditional Christian viewpoint'?

The Lutheran Church of Sweden apparently doesn't share your definition as it's bishops voted overwhelmingly to perform same-sex marriage in their churches - and this was an internal initiative not requested by the Swedish State.

The beauty of a la carte Christianity, seek out a church that matches your beliefs. Plenty do it - look I'm merely pointing out what I believe in.

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

Comments