Looks like Ireland's referendum on gay marriage is a Yes.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Annee
One would think, those who support marriage, would support ALL marriages.

What is marriage? It's when 2 people decide to make a commitment to each other. To join households as one, creating a family (with or without children).

What does this do? It creates stability in a community. Families have a tendency to put down roots and use the services of their local community contributing to its economic growth.

What gender those families are is not relevant ---- as it makes no difference.

Repeating that doesn't make it true.

Actually it is factually true.

There is no need to repeat fact.

Fact supercedes unfounded ideologies.

Do you really mean unfounded? Coming from the person defending a tradition that has no history of success? At best it's a neutral history, but very possibly a negative history. And you're calling real marriage an unfounded ideology!???? LOLOLOLOLOLMFAO

I'm calling a BELIEF unfounded ideology.

Fact supecedes your unfounded beliefs.

Weird, I don't remember stating my beliefs.

Some things are obvious.

Ahhh, I see, you couldn't rebut the argument presented so you attacked the assumptions you made about me. Right on. That's smart!

a reply to: Dfairlite you get the idea

a reply to: boymonkey74

It's completely ridiculous. It's pretty worrying that people don't seem to know the difference.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Dfairlite because most countries have a legal age of consent

That age can be changed. Then, magically, just like how homosexuals are no longer sodomites, pedophiles won't be pedophiles! wooohooooo!

a reply to: Dfairlite

No the thread is about gay marriage not sodomy. The fact you think gay = sodomy just shows how little you know about the topic. I've been with my partner 8 years, there sodomy in this house though. I know a lot of people who don't do it. I also know plenty of straight couples that do it. Gay does not equal sodomy but even if it is, why are you so concerned. A gay married couple sodomising each other will have no effect on your life, marriage or anything.

I've grown bored of this. All intelligent discussion ended a page + ago. Have a good one folks.

originally posted by: Megatronus
a reply to: Dfairlite

No the thread is about gay marriage not sodomy. The fact you think gay = sodomy just shows how little you know about the topic. I've been with my partner 8 years, there sodomy in this house though. I know a lot of people who don't do it. I also know plenty of straight couples that do it. Gay does not equal sodomy but even if it is, why are you so concerned. A gay married couple sodomising each other will have no effect on your life, marriage or anything.

Good for you! have a great day!

a reply to: Dfairlite

I have a hard time believing even you believe that. The age of consent will not be changed because our society as a whole views sex with children as abhorrent. Its something that is pretty ingrained in society too. Allowed same sex marriage will lead to same sex marriage, nothing else.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Because a 13 year old doesn't have the life experience or maturity to know what they are getting into, no matter how mature they may seem, they are still growing and maturing.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Annee
One would think, those who support marriage, would support ALL marriages.

What is marriage? It's when 2 people decide to make a commitment to each other. To join households as one, creating a family (with or without children).

What does this do? It creates stability in a community. Families have a tendency to put down roots and use the services of their local community contributing to its economic growth.

What gender those families are is not relevant ---- as it makes no difference.

Repeating that doesn't make it true.

Actually it is factually true.

There is no need to repeat fact.

Fact supercedes unfounded ideologies.

Do you really mean unfounded? Coming from the person defending a tradition that has no history of success? At best it's a neutral history, but very possibly a negative history. And you're calling real marriage an unfounded ideology!???? LOLOLOLOLOLMFAO

I'm calling a BELIEF unfounded ideology.

Fact supecedes your unfounded beliefs.

Weird, I don't remember stating my beliefs.

Some things are obvious.

Ahhh, I see, you couldn't rebut the argument presented so you attacked the assumptions you made about me. Right on. That's smart!

I read some of your posts in other threads.

You support God, families are healthier raised with religion, and you consider atheists anti-theists.

You don't think debating is about winning. So, you just like to argue.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
I've grown bored of this. All intelligent discussion ended a page + ago. Have a good one folks.

So, basically that means, your arguments aren't holding up.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
I guess we need to go back to whether the state should even regulate marriage at all. Should they? If so, based on what interests?

Whether the state should regulate marriage or not is an entirely different topic. The fact is that they DO. And given that, state laws should apply to each citizen equally. According to the constitution.

Yes, society has a vested interest in having future generations.

Marriages that don't have children don't threaten future generations. Plenty of people will still be breeding. We (the childless) aren't, in any way, a threat to those who do.

Children growing up seeing that type of relationship as being equal to a real marriage will degrade their perception of marriage and its purpose.

Society has an interest in promoting marriage, family, and children.

You keep parroting talking points as if they mean something. Gay people marrying are NOT a threat to society's interest in promoting marriage, family, and children. They will all remain intact.

Not at all, not sure how you got that. I am saying that a man-woman marriage sets an example/ideal to everyone else in society regardless of whether they choose to have children or not.

It's certainly not an ideal for gay people...

But either way, there is no denying that a public school is more diverse than an all boys or all girls school.

I'm not sure about that, but regardless, the all-boys and all-girls schools are still permitted to exist without threat to public schools. Everyone gets to choose!

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

And people will still be permitted to have families. And all those other things are perfectly legal.

Thank you for PERMITTING us to have families - like we ALWAYS have. You are a good little government progressive.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

That does not describe my family. Mine is man, woman, dogs, together. What YOUR family consists of is YOUR choice. What MY family consists of is MY choice. Let FREEDOM ring!

Good for you and your husband and your dog.

That's not what we're discussing here. The fundamental building blocks of society are at stake, and your little happy situation is NOT what constitutes it. You are the abnormality. The family has sustained civilization for eons - your choice not to participate in it does not change the fact that it IS the norm, and it IS what sustains life.

You are not the norm.

Faux marriage is NOT the norm, and it will NOT sustain our civilization. You know this, but you're too obstinate to own up to it.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Marriage protects MANY things aside from children.

That's all touchy-feely, but it is not the PRIMARY purpose of marriage. Children, and their successful rearing IS the PRIMARY purpose for marriage.

That is the norm. You and your wonderful situation, and the sodomites and their lovely situations are NOT what sustains society. In fact they contribute to the destruction of society.


And that, darling, answers your last question.

originally posted by: Seamrog
the sodomites and their lovely situations are NOT what sustains society.

Sodomites? What century are you from?Hahaha brilliant! Cheers for the laugh Ezekiel!

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Seamrog
the sodomites and their lovely situations are NOT what sustains society.

Sodomites? What century are you from?Hahaha brilliant! Cheers for the laugh Ezekiel!

What a shocker...THAT is what you key in on.


You keep focusing on your crotch and all things thereof.


Carry on.

originally posted by: Seamrog
What a shocker...THAT is what you key in on.

Yep because that made me laugh, quite a lot.
The rest of your post I just dismissed as the ravings of an ultra conservative/religious type.
Apologies if you are not but that is my interpretation from what I have read in this thread.
I wish you well though, your opinion is irrelevant now the vote has been decided.

I guess you'll have to start looking at Islamic nations soon as the few places who support your anti same sex marriage stance.
Good luck with that

Nancy F. Cott (born November 8, 1945) is an American historian and professor who has taught at Yale and Harvard universities, and has mainly specialized in gender topics in the US in the 19th and 20th centuries. She has testified on same-sex marriage in several US states.

Cott has helped write Amicus curiae briefs on same-sex marriage in several states since 1999. These have included challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Cott testified as an expert witness in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger in California. Cott has pointed out that the Christian tradition of monogamous marriage only dates back to the time of Christ, and was not strongly enforced by Catholic ecclesiastical law until 1400 or 1500. Protestants, including the founders of the US, have historically seen marriage as a civil concern, mainly concerning child support. Views on marriage continue to change, with higher divorce rates, different views on the role of marriage and the legalization of interracial marriage.

Cott says she has come to favor same-sex marriages, "as a result of my historical research and study." In her view, “if gender symmetry and equality and the couples’ own definition of spousal roles are characteristic of marriage, then same-sex couples seem perfectly able to fulfill those roles."When testifying in January 2010 in the challenge to California Proposition 8 (2008), which banned same sex marriage, she was asked to comment on the defense assertion that "the purpose of the institution of marriage, the central purpose, is to promote procreation and to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable and enduring unions." She responded that, "It rather reminded me of the story about the seven blind men and the elephant, in that each of them is feeling the animal at some side of it; and the one that feels the trunk says, oh, this animal is just like a snake."

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Seamrog

"That's all touchy-feely, but it is not the PRIMARY purpose of marriage. Children, and their successful rearing IS the PRIMARY purpose for marriage. 

That is the norm. You and your wonderful situation, and the sodomites and their lovely situations are NOT what sustains society. In fact they contribute to the destruction of society. "


Not every marriage has children, many of us gays don't do sodomy many straights do. Gay couples do not contribute to the destruction of society, it's a ridiculous thing to say with absolutely no proof backing it up. Sodomites? Seriously? Its not 1903 any more the worlds moving on and becoming a more inclusive less bigoted place.

Marriages sole purpose is a union of two people. The fact some have children is by the by. Not all couples the get married want kids and not all couple that have kids want to get married. Marriage is simply a union nothing more nothing less.

So what I'm reading here is this.

Some people don't like the idea of others being happy and being treated as equals, so they try and introduce pedophillia and beastiality into the argument to justify their bigotry.

That's an epic fail.

Others believe that their bigotry is justified because of their belief in a religious system, taken from books written by men 2000+ years ago and not giving any thought to the fact that a divine entity could - if it disapproved of it so vehemently - choose to simply remove homosexuality from existence and none of us would know any different. In other words, they presume to speak for a God that has not spoken or chosen to act for his/her/it's self.

That displays a level of arrogance that is breathtaking, especially as they espouse to worship that entity.

The conclusion I draw is that arguments against gay marriage are hollow, shallow and - ultimately - pointless.

originally posted by: neformore
The conclusion I draw is that arguments against gay marriage are hollow, shallow and - ultimately - pointless.

And off topic. This is about Ireland legitimizing gay marriage. But the Lord Horde just has to have their say.