Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 9 of 28 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >

Mapletree Croydon 24 May 15 7.44pm
Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.41pm Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 7.08pm Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.01pm I think you will find women in general more stoic than men. I think that's just typical of your personal feminisation. So obvioiusly, in respect to your viewpoint you may consider that a compliment. I think what you are saying is that because you were born before me, you are more macho than I am and considerably more 'tough' than women. Oh boy, you don't know many women do you? Not really know. That's strange, I just looked at you and you are a baby. So you have been feminised for a far greater proportion of your life than me. Therefore I claim to be more stoic than you, goes without saying innit. I was born when men were men and everything was in black and white.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 24 May 15 7.44pm

Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.41pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 7.08pm

Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.01pm

I think you will find women in general more stoic than men.

I think that's just typical of your personal feminisation.

So obvioiusly, in respect to your viewpoint you may consider that a compliment.

I think what you are saying is that because you were born before me, you are more macho than I am and considerably more 'tough' than women. Oh boy, you don't know many women do you? Not really know.

That's strange, I just looked at you and you are a baby. So you have been feminised for a far greater proportion of your life than me. Therefore I claim to be more stoic than you, goes without saying innit. I was born when men were men and everything was in black and white.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 24 May 15 7.51pm
Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.41pm Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 7.08pm Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.01pm I think you will find women in general more stoic than men. I think that's just typical of your personal feminisation. So obvioiusly, in respect to your viewpoint you may consider that a compliment. I think what you are saying is that because you were born before me, you are more macho than I am and considerably more 'tough' than women. Oh boy, you don't know many women do you? Not really know. Hahaha...Listen to you Mr Henpecked. And to just set you right on a technical level. If what you were saying were correct then the meanings of masculinity and femininity would be reversed in the popular conscience.....Which even you implicitly recognise. Though 'toughness' has different guises so really this is just a bit of knockabout. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

24 May 15 7.51pm

Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.41pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 7.08pm

Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.01pm

I think you will find women in general more stoic than men.

I think that's just typical of your personal feminisation.

So obvioiusly, in respect to your viewpoint you may consider that a compliment.

I think what you are saying is that because you were born before me, you are more macho than I am and considerably more 'tough' than women. Oh boy, you don't know many women do you? Not really know.

Hahaha...Listen to you Mr Henpecked.

And to just set you right on a technical level. If what you were saying were correct then the meanings of masculinity and femininity would be reversed in the popular conscience.....Which even you implicitly recognise.

Though 'toughness' has different guises so really this is just a bit of knockabout.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 24 May 15 7.56pm
Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.44pm That's strange, I just looked at you and you are a baby. So you have been feminised for a far greater proportion of your life than me. Therefore I claim to be more stoic than you, goes without saying innit. I was born when men were men and everything was in black and white. What's this obsession with posters looking on my profile....Stop looking at me....I feel violated. I'm 45.....The photo was taken when I was 44....Also I reckon I've probably had more women than you. I recall one particular occasion when I shagged a bird in the bathroom while also brushing my teeth....Admittingly a while back now. Got anything close to that have yea Maple....Eh? Bangs chest in King Kong fashion. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 7.57pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

24 May 15 7.56pm

Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.44pm

What's this obsession with posters looking on my profile....Stop looking at me....I feel violated.

I'm 45.....The photo was taken when I was 44....Also I reckon I've probably had more women than you.

I recall one particular occasion when I shagged a bird in the bathroom while also brushing my teeth....Admittingly a while back now.

Got anything close to that have yea Maple....Eh?

Bangs chest in King Kong fashion.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 7.57pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG Stoke 24 May 15 8.00pm
Quote cornwalls palace at 24 May 2015 7.11pm Quote ZIGnZAG at 24 May 2015 3.06pm Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 24 May 2015 2.48pm Quote ZIGnZAG at 24 May 2015 2.38pm You know exactly what I mean by wrong. Why do you think being gay is acceptable. Why do you think I should have to accept it. And how the hell do you think I should be questioning my own sexuality just because I have a different opinion on the matter to you. Does embracing homosexuality confirm ones own sexual stance, whatever that may be!? All because two adults consent to something doesn't mean it's ok. You think it s wrong that's your prerogative Millions don't that's there's You appear to believe in organised religion Millions don't. You base your moral code on a series of books that is your prerogative Guess what millions don't. You are neither right or wrong, just that in Ireland more disagree than agree with you. Gee wiz, you must have missed my first post. I am not religious. If you ask me all religion does is cause wars. I just think it is wrong to tell religious people what they should have to accept. Most people don't like them doing it to others/ non believers, so why is it ok to force things on them. What the feck is organized religion anyway!? What series of books are you assuming I base my moral code on (my mother would be proud to think I even had one) The only series I'm taking in at the minute is breaking bad, the whole concept of that program is wrong. But I do enjoy watching it. So..... I don't smoke crystal meth, but there's a sh!te load of people who do. I'm not trying to say I'm right. I'm voicing my opinion that gay marriage is wrong. ..a gay person thinks exactly as you, even the things you don't realise gay people think about! sexually they see humans of the same sex as themselves as very attractive and as pleasurable as you do with a human of the opposite sex..they did not when born ask (as you like to imagine) to have these pleasurable thoughts brought into their lives as they grew up into adulthood...shock horror! Writing your opinion that gay marriage is wrong is admitting your ignorance of my above letters. No it's not. Not every person thinks the same either. Gay or not. That's you being ignorant, not me. I get "gay" people think they were "born" that way. Peodophiles probably think they were "born" that way too. As do murderers, rapists and so on. Should we change the laws for all of these people, because hey, there people too, they have "rights". No, we most definitely should not.
Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG

Stoke 24 May 15 8.00pm

Quote cornwalls palace at 24 May 2015 7.11pm

Quote ZIGnZAG at 24 May 2015 3.06pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 24 May 2015 2.48pm

Quote ZIGnZAG at 24 May 2015 2.38pm

You know exactly what I mean by wrong.
Why do you think being gay is acceptable. Why do you think I should have to accept it. And how the hell do you think I should be questioning my own sexuality just because I have a different opinion on the matter to you. Does embracing homosexuality confirm ones own sexual stance, whatever that may be!?

All because two adults consent to something doesn't mean it's ok.

You think it s wrong that's your prerogative
Millions don't that's there's
You appear to believe in organised religion
Millions don't.
You base your moral code on a series of books that is your prerogative
Guess what millions don't.
You are neither right or wrong, just that in Ireland more disagree than agree with you.

Gee wiz, you must have missed my first post. I am not religious. If you ask me all religion does is cause wars.
I just think it is wrong to tell religious people what they should have to accept. Most people don't like them doing it to others/ non believers, so why is it ok to force things on them.
What the feck is organized religion anyway!?
What series of books are you assuming I base my moral code on (my mother would be proud to think I even had one) The only series I'm taking in at the minute is breaking bad, the whole concept of that program is wrong. But I do enjoy watching it.
So..... I don't smoke crystal meth, but there's a sh!te load of people who do.

I'm not trying to say I'm right. I'm voicing my opinion that gay marriage is wrong.

..a gay person thinks exactly as you, even the things you don't realise gay people think about! sexually they see humans of the same sex as themselves as very attractive and as pleasurable as you do with a human of the opposite sex..they did not when born ask (as you like to imagine) to have these pleasurable thoughts brought into their lives as they grew up into adulthood...shock horror!

Writing your opinion that gay marriage is wrong is admitting your ignorance of my above letters.

No it's not.

Not every person thinks the same either. Gay or not. That's you being ignorant, not me.

I get "gay" people think they were "born" that way. Peodophiles probably think they were "born" that way too. As do murderers, rapists and so on.
Should we change the laws for all of these people, because hey, there people too, they have "rights".
No, we most definitely should not.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 24 May 15 8.02pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 7.56pm Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.44pm That's strange, I just looked at you and you are a baby. So you have been feminised for a far greater proportion of your life than me. Therefore I claim to be more stoic than you, goes without saying innit. I was born when men were men and everything was in black and white. What's this obsession with posters looking on my profile....Stop looking at me....I feel violated. I'm 45.....The photo was taken when I was 44....Also I reckon I've probably had more women than you. I recall one particular occasion when I shagged a bird in the bathroom while also brushing my teeth....Admittingly a while back now. Got anything close to that have yea Maple....Eh? Bangs chest in King Kong fashion. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 7.57pm) You have got to be joking. I grew up in the 70s.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 24 May 15 8.02pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 7.56pm

Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.44pm

What's this obsession with posters looking on my profile....Stop looking at me....I feel violated.

I'm 45.....The photo was taken when I was 44....Also I reckon I've probably had more women than you.

I recall one particular occasion when I shagged a bird in the bathroom while also brushing my teeth....Admittingly a while back now.

Got anything close to that have yea Maple....Eh?

Bangs chest in King Kong fashion.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 7.57pm)

You have got to be joking. I grew up in the 70s.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 24 May 15 9.10pm
Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.21pm Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 6.04pm Live and let live. And for those that think otherwise....it is not homosexuals who are not normal but your good selves. Unfortunately, you won't have the intelligence or self-awareness to see that but hey, ho! Kermit at his finest - if you do not agree with him you are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. Presumably he must think that the vast majority of Muslims are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. But hey-ho. Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.29pm) Anyone who thinks the Koran/Bible/Torah is actually the word of God can't be classified as totally sane, rational or reasonable, surely? Have you ever met a God botherer who seems totally level headed? Not bad people the vast majority but still not the full ticket. And certainly not able to think outside the religious box for fear of the same God. Do you think differently, then? Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 24 May 15 9.10pm

Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.21pm

Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 6.04pm

Live and let live.

And for those that think otherwise....it is not homosexuals who are not normal but your good selves. Unfortunately, you won't have the intelligence or self-awareness to see that but hey, ho!

Kermit at his finest - if you do not agree with him you are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. Presumably he must think that the vast majority of Muslims are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. But hey-ho.

Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.29pm)

Anyone who thinks the Koran/Bible/Torah is actually the word of God can't be classified as totally sane, rational or reasonable, surely? Have you ever met a God botherer who seems totally level headed? Not bad people the vast majority but still not the full ticket. And certainly not able to think outside the religious box for fear of the same God.

Do you think differently, then?

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 24 May 15 9.26pm
Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 9.10pm Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.21pm Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 6.04pm Live and let live. And for those that think otherwise....it is not homosexuals who are not normal but your good selves. Unfortunately, you won't have the intelligence or self-awareness to see that but hey, ho! Kermit at his finest - if you do not agree with him you are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. Presumably he must think that the vast majority of Muslims are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. But hey-ho. Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.29pm) Anyone who thinks the Koran/Bible/Torah is actually the word of God can't be classified as totally sane, rational or reasonable, surely? Have you ever met a God botherer who seems totally level headed? Not bad people the vast majority but still not the full ticket. And certainly not able to think outside the religious box for fear of the same God. Do you think differently, then? Good answer! As you suspect, I broadly share the view on religions that you have expressed. But your blanket condemnation of everyone who has reservations about the gay intrusions into the rights of people to decline to assist in promoting the likes of same sex marriage is unreasonable, as is condemning people merely because they disapprove of certain things not necessarily on religious grounds.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

24 May 15 9.26pm

Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 9.10pm

Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.21pm

Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 6.04pm

Live and let live.

And for those that think otherwise....it is not homosexuals who are not normal but your good selves. Unfortunately, you won't have the intelligence or self-awareness to see that but hey, ho!

Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.29pm)

Do you think differently, then?

Good answer! As you suspect, I broadly share the view on religions that you have expressed. But your blanket condemnation of everyone who has reservations about the gay intrusions into the rights of people to decline to assist in promoting the likes of same sex marriage is unreasonable, as is condemning people merely because they disapprove of certain things not necessarily on religious grounds.

Alert a moderator to this post

EaglesEaglesEagles 24 May 15 9.30pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 1.57pm I'm not exactly a fan of what's happened but I think it's important to make a distinction between homosexuality, incest, and peadophilia. Homosexuality involves consent between partners. Peadophilia....Sex with children....By definition doesn't involve informed consent......Though I'm not one of those who rattles on about fifteen year olds being the same as five year olds like some do. Incest.....Can often involve abuse....In cases where it doesn't the children from these unions have much higher chances of deformities. There's good reason not to allow close genetic unions. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 2.04pm) [I'd just like to qualify that I am not an advocate of incest I am fully against it.] But regarding the logic applied to the rights of gay couples, I don't think that you can say there is a good reason to not allow 'close genetic unions'. - For a start, marriage in statute has nothing to do with childrearing, nor do advocates of equality in gay marriage profess right to childbearing, it is about equality and a union of love to them. - Based on the logic that the powers at be use, I could propose this question: 'Who are you to deny someone's right to marriage on grounds (childbearing) which aren't a key facet of the union?' - Surely two close relatives can love each other just as much as anyone else and make that official through marriage. - There is no guarantee that any children produced will be deformed and childbearing isn't a necessary quality of marriage. - Also who is to say that a loving related couple couldn't make a sick child's life worthwhile and be good parents? - Homosexual incestuous relationships are one form of marriage which wouldn't have that increased risk of deformity. The point of this is that according to current law I can't see why marriage should not be an extended right accorded to incestuous couples. Yes, they're in a tiny minority but isn't that the point of the 'Big Society'. If there was a larger group of incestuous persons I think it would pass in an instant. To compare a type of consenting relationship to paedophilia (in the vast majority of cases) is misleading. [Again, I don't like or advocate for incestuous relationships or marriage, I'm just trying to work out how laws are formed and their basis] I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.
Alert a moderator to this post

EaglesEaglesEagles

24 May 15 9.30pm

Send a Private Message to EaglesEaglesEagles

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 1.57pm

I'm not exactly a fan of what's happened but I think it's important to make a distinction between homosexuality, incest, and peadophilia.

Homosexuality involves consent between partners.

Peadophilia....Sex with children....By definition doesn't involve informed consent......Though I'm not one of those who rattles on about fifteen year olds being the same as five year olds like some do.

Incest.....Can often involve abuse....In cases where it doesn't the children from these unions have much higher chances of deformities.

There's good reason not to allow close genetic unions.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 2.04pm)

[I'd just like to qualify that I am not an advocate of incest I am fully against it.]

But regarding the logic applied to the rights of gay couples, I don't think that you can say there is a good reason to not allow 'close genetic unions'.

- For a start, marriage in statute has nothing to do with childrearing, nor do advocates of equality in gay marriage profess right to childbearing, it is about equality and a union of love to them.

- Based on the logic that the powers at be use, I could propose this question:
'Who are you to deny someone's right to marriage on grounds (childbearing) which aren't a key facet of the union?'

- Surely two close relatives can love each other just as much as anyone else and make that official through marriage.

- There is no guarantee that any children produced will be deformed and childbearing isn't a necessary quality of marriage.
- Also who is to say that a loving related couple couldn't make a sick child's life worthwhile and be good parents?
- Homosexual incestuous relationships are one form of marriage which wouldn't have that increased risk of deformity.

The point of this is that according to current law I can't see why marriage should not be an extended right accorded to incestuous couples. Yes, they're in a tiny minority but isn't that the point of the 'Big Society'. If there was a larger group of incestuous persons I think it would pass in an instant. To compare a type of consenting relationship to paedophilia (in the vast majority of cases) is misleading.

[Again, I don't like or advocate for incestuous relationships or marriage, I'm just trying to work out how laws are formed and their basis]

I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 24 May 15 9.37pm
Quote derben at 24 May 2015 9.26pm Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 9.10pm Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.21pm Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 6.04pm Live and let live. And for those that think otherwise....it is not homosexuals who are not normal but your good selves. Unfortunately, you won't have the intelligence or self-awareness to see that but hey, ho! Kermit at his finest - if you do not agree with him you are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. Presumably he must think that the vast majority of Muslims are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. But hey-ho. Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.29pm) Anyone who thinks the Koran/Bible/Torah is actually the word of God can't be classified as totally sane, rational or reasonable, surely? Have you ever met a God botherer who seems totally level headed? Not bad people the vast majority but still not the full ticket. And certainly not able to think outside the religious box for fear of the same God. Do you think differently, then? Good answer! As you suspect, I broadly share the view on religions that you have expressed. But your blanket condemnation of everyone who has reservations about the gay intrusions into the rights of people to decline to assist in promoting the likes of same sex marriage is unreasonable, as is condemning people merely because they disapprove of certain things not necessarily on religious grounds. I was criticising those who think gay people are not normal human beings. Nothing more. I believe they have the right to disagree with uncomfortable situations for them within reason but not for something which is based in hateful bigotry and violent homophobia. And what right do they have to make out they, homosexual people, are somehow sub-human? My original point stands. They are the ones that are lacking in 'normality' and other things. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 24 May 15 9.37pm

Quote derben at 24 May 2015 9.26pm

Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 9.10pm

Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.21pm

Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 6.04pm

Live and let live.

And for those that think otherwise....it is not homosexuals who are not normal but your good selves. Unfortunately, you won't have the intelligence or self-awareness to see that but hey, ho!

Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.29pm)

Do you think differently, then?

I was criticising those who think gay people are not normal human beings. Nothing more. I believe they have the right to disagree with uncomfortable situations for them within reason but not for something which is based in hateful bigotry and violent homophobia. And what right do they have to make out they, homosexual people, are somehow sub-human?

My original point stands. They are the ones that are lacking in 'normality' and other things.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 24 May 15 9.49pm
Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 9.37pm Quote derben at 24 May 2015 9.26pm Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 9.10pm Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.21pm Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 6.04pm Live and let live. And for those that think otherwise....it is not homosexuals who are not normal but your good selves. Unfortunately, you won't have the intelligence or self-awareness to see that but hey, ho! Kermit at his finest - if you do not agree with him you are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. Presumably he must think that the vast majority of Muslims are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. But hey-ho. Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.29pm) Anyone who thinks the Koran/Bible/Torah is actually the word of God can't be classified as totally sane, rational or reasonable, surely? Have you ever met a God botherer who seems totally level headed? Not bad people the vast majority but still not the full ticket. And certainly not able to think outside the religious box for fear of the same God. Do you think differently, then? Good answer! As you suspect, I broadly share the view on religions that you have expressed. But your blanket condemnation of everyone who has reservations about the gay intrusions into the rights of people to decline to assist in promoting the likes of same sex marriage is unreasonable, as is condemning people merely because they disapprove of certain things not necessarily on religious grounds. I was criticising those who think gay people are not normal human beings. Nothing more. I believe they have the right to disagree with uncomfortable situations for them within reason but not for something which is based in hateful bigotry and violent homophobia. And what right do they have to make out they, homosexual people, are somehow sub-human? My original point stands. They are the ones that are lacking in 'normality' and other things. Glad you have clarified your original blanket statement "Live and let live. And for those who think otherwise ...". I should think the vast majority of those who disapprove of homosexuality, and those that disapprove of the intrusions into peoples' liberties, by the fruits of gay pressure groups, are also against "hateful bigotry" and "violent homophobia" and do not consider anyone sub-human. The later is usually the preserve of anti-Semites of the past and present.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

24 May 15 9.49pm

Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 9.37pm

Quote derben at 24 May 2015 9.26pm

Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 9.10pm

Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.21pm

Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 6.04pm

Live and let live.

And for those that think otherwise....it is not homosexuals who are not normal but your good selves. Unfortunately, you won't have the intelligence or self-awareness to see that but hey, ho!

Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.29pm)

Do you think differently, then?

My original point stands. They are the ones that are lacking in 'normality' and other things.

Glad you have clarified your original blanket statement "Live and let live. And for those who think otherwise ...". I should think the vast majority of those who disapprove of homosexuality, and those that disapprove of the intrusions into peoples' liberties, by the fruits of gay pressure groups, are also against "hateful bigotry" and "violent homophobia" and do not consider anyone sub-human. The later is usually the preserve of anti-Semites of the past and present.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 24 May 15 10.05pm
Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 24 May 2015 9.30pm Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 1.57pm I'm not exactly a fan of what's happened but I think it's important to make a distinction between homosexuality, incest, and peadophilia. Homosexuality involves consent between partners. Peadophilia....Sex with children....By definition doesn't involve informed consent......Though I'm not one of those who rattles on about fifteen year olds being the same as five year olds like some do. Incest.....Can often involve abuse....In cases where it doesn't the children from these unions have much higher chances of deformities. There's good reason not to allow close genetic unions. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 2.04pm) [I'd just like to qualify that I am not an advocate of incest I am fully against it.] But regarding the logic applied to the rights of gay couples, I don't think that you can say there is a good reason to not allow 'close genetic unions'. - For a start, marriage in statute has nothing to do with childrearing, nor do advocates of equality in gay marriage profess right to childbearing, it is about equality and a union of love to them. - Based on the logic that the powers at be use, I could propose this question: 'Who are you to deny someone's right to marriage on grounds (childbearing) which aren't a key facet of the union?' - Surely two close relatives can love each other just as much as anyone else and make that official through marriage. - There is no guarantee that any children produced will be deformed and childbearing isn't a necessary quality of marriage. - Also who is to say that a loving related couple couldn't make a sick child's life worthwhile and be good parents? - Homosexual incestuous relationships are one form of marriage which wouldn't have that increased risk of deformity. The point of this is that according to current law I can't see why marriage should not be an extended right accorded to incestuous couples. Yes, they're in a tiny minority but isn't that the point of the 'Big Society'. If there was a larger group of incestuous persons I think it would pass in an instant. To compare a type of consenting relationship to paedophilia (in the vast majority of cases) is misleading. [Again, I don't like or advocate for incestuous relationships or marriage, I'm just trying to work out how laws are formed and their basis] You have a point. I did frame marriage in terms of child-bearing....It is an intrinsic part of how I view marriage but you're right that's my perspective and not a legal one. Maybe the reality that there is an increased risk of child deformaties would be brought in legally to stop it.....But it would probably lose if viewed rationally...Many people with conditions have increased risk of passing those on yet can still marry. Yes, in terms of incestous marriage I don't see the logical objection in situations where abuse hasn't taken place. Outside of emotional rants I don't see any logical objection to it other than it has a stigma and is taboo......Something that homosexuality knows quite a lot about. It doesn't fit my world view of course but then again neither did the hijacking of the word marriage.....The society I grew up in has changed significantly.....It's too touchy feely for me......Still: 'Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it'. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 10.06pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

24 May 15 10.05pm

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 24 May 2015 9.30pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 1.57pm

I'm not exactly a fan of what's happened but I think it's important to make a distinction between homosexuality, incest, and peadophilia.

Homosexuality involves consent between partners.

Incest.....Can often involve abuse....In cases where it doesn't the children from these unions have much higher chances of deformities.

There's good reason not to allow close genetic unions.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 2.04pm)

[I'd just like to qualify that I am not an advocate of incest I am fully against it.]

But regarding the logic applied to the rights of gay couples, I don't think that you can say there is a good reason to not allow 'close genetic unions'.

- For a start, marriage in statute has nothing to do with childrearing, nor do advocates of equality in gay marriage profess right to childbearing, it is about equality and a union of love to them.

- Based on the logic that the powers at be use, I could propose this question:
'Who are you to deny someone's right to marriage on grounds (childbearing) which aren't a key facet of the union?'

- Surely two close relatives can love each other just as much as anyone else and make that official through marriage.

[Again, I don't like or advocate for incestuous relationships or marriage, I'm just trying to work out how laws are formed and their basis]

You have a point.

I did frame marriage in terms of child-bearing....It is an intrinsic part of how I view marriage but you're right that's my perspective and not a legal one.

Maybe the reality that there is an increased risk of child deformaties would be brought in legally to stop it.....But it would probably lose if viewed rationally...Many people with conditions have increased risk of passing those on yet can still marry.

Yes, in terms of incestous marriage I don't see the logical objection in situations where abuse hasn't taken place.

Outside of emotional rants I don't see any logical objection to it other than it has a stigma and is taboo......Something that homosexuality knows quite a lot about.

It doesn't fit my world view of course but then again neither did the hijacking of the word marriage.....The society I grew up in has changed significantly.....It's too touchy feely for me......Still:

'Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it'.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 10.06pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

EaglesEaglesEagles 24 May 15 10.21pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 10.05pm Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 24 May 2015 9.30pm Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 1.57pm I'm not exactly a fan of what's happened but I think it's important to make a distinction between homosexuality, incest, and peadophilia. Homosexuality involves consent between partners. Peadophilia....Sex with children....By definition doesn't involve informed consent......Though I'm not one of those who rattles on about fifteen year olds being the same as five year olds like some do. Incest.....Can often involve abuse....In cases where it doesn't the children from these unions have much higher chances of deformities. There's good reason not to allow close genetic unions. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 2.04pm) [I'd just like to qualify that I am not an advocate of incest I am fully against it.] But regarding the logic applied to the rights of gay couples, I don't think that you can say there is a good reason to not allow 'close genetic unions'. - For a start, marriage in statute has nothing to do with childrearing, nor do advocates of equality in gay marriage profess right to childbearing, it is about equality and a union of love to them. - Based on the logic that the powers at be use, I could propose this question: 'Who are you to deny someone's right to marriage on grounds (childbearing) which aren't a key facet of the union?' - Surely two close relatives can love each other just as much as anyone else and make that official through marriage. - There is no guarantee that any children produced will be deformed and childbearing isn't a necessary quality of marriage. - Also who is to say that a loving related couple couldn't make a sick child's life worthwhile and be good parents? - Homosexual incestuous relationships are one form of marriage which wouldn't have that increased risk of deformity. The point of this is that according to current law I can't see why marriage should not be an extended right accorded to incestuous couples. Yes, they're in a tiny minority but isn't that the point of the 'Big Society'. If there was a larger group of incestuous persons I think it would pass in an instant. To compare a type of consenting relationship to paedophilia (in the vast majority of cases) is misleading. [Again, I don't like or advocate for incestuous relationships or marriage, I'm just trying to work out how laws are formed and their basis] You have a point. I did frame marriage in terms of child-bearing....It is an intrinsic part of how I view marriage but you're right that's my perspective and not a legal one. Maybe the reality that there is an increased risk of child deformaties would be brought in legally to stop it.....But it would probably lose if viewed rationally...Many people with conditions have increased risk of passing those on yet can still marry. Yes, in terms of incestous marriage I don't see the logical objection in situations where abuse hasn't taken place. Outside of emotional rants I don't see any logical objection to it other than it has a stigma and is taboo......Something that homosexuality knows quite a lot about. It doesn't fit my world view of course but then again neither did the hijacking of the word marriage.....The society I grew up in has changed significantly.....It's too touchy feely for me......Still: 'Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it'. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 10.06pm) Your position is wholly right in my opinion. But then again it's just my opinion. We have the rightly to conscientiously object. The problem is that some, obviously not all people who disagree with us can be aggressive and belittle us as anti-progressive and against freedom. It's a shame, but by familiarising ourselves with the form which arguments for gay marriage take we can help display that we're not small-minded bigots even though persons (on both sides actually) can be. What I've discovered through research is that marriage law doesn't really involve the concept of love at all. It's a shame really, although probably a necessary one for legal purposes. There aren't really grounds for activists to use it as an argument point though. I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.
Alert a moderator to this post

EaglesEaglesEagles

24 May 15 10.21pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 10.05pm

Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 24 May 2015 9.30pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 1.57pm

I'm not exactly a fan of what's happened but I think it's important to make a distinction between homosexuality, incest, and peadophilia.

Homosexuality involves consent between partners.

Incest.....Can often involve abuse....In cases where it doesn't the children from these unions have much higher chances of deformities.

There's good reason not to allow close genetic unions.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 2.04pm)

[I'd just like to qualify that I am not an advocate of incest I am fully against it.]

But regarding the logic applied to the rights of gay couples, I don't think that you can say there is a good reason to not allow 'close genetic unions'.

- For a start, marriage in statute has nothing to do with childrearing, nor do advocates of equality in gay marriage profess right to childbearing, it is about equality and a union of love to them.

- Based on the logic that the powers at be use, I could propose this question:
'Who are you to deny someone's right to marriage on grounds (childbearing) which aren't a key facet of the union?'

- Surely two close relatives can love each other just as much as anyone else and make that official through marriage.

[Again, I don't like or advocate for incestuous relationships or marriage, I'm just trying to work out how laws are formed and their basis]

You have a point.

I did frame marriage in terms of child-bearing....It is an intrinsic part of how I view marriage but you're right that's my perspective and not a legal one.

Yes, in terms of incestous marriage I don't see the logical objection in situations where abuse hasn't taken place.

Outside of emotional rants I don't see any logical objection to it other than it has a stigma and is taboo......Something that homosexuality knows quite a lot about.

'Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it'.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 10.06pm)

Your position is wholly right in my opinion. But then again it's just my opinion.

We have the rightly to conscientiously object. The problem is that some, obviously not all people who disagree with us can be aggressive and belittle us as anti-progressive and against freedom.

It's a shame, but by familiarising ourselves with the form which arguments for gay marriage take we can help display that we're not small-minded bigots even though persons (on both sides actually) can be.

What I've discovered through research is that marriage law doesn't really involve the concept of love at all. It's a shame really, although probably a necessary one for legal purposes. There aren't really grounds for activists to use it as an argument point though.

I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 9 of 28 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors