Irish referendum

[Robert May Eng.]

Well it seems that the few Irish that still live there have voted. So now Patrick Fitzwilliam and William Fitzpatrick legally

Ireland same-sex referendum set to approve gay marriage - BBC News

Bob

 

[flatchat(Chris)]

Weil Oil Beef Hooked -- next they'll be legalising pregnant men FFS !
In the mean time it should slow down population growth

Now I'm embarrassed to have Irish heritage

or maybe same gender M mm marriage should be the norm and odd gender be illegal --the way things are going these days :uneasy:

 

[Randy V]

As the world continues to slip slowly into the abyss.....

 

[Jack]

As the world continues to slip slowly into the abyss.....

And that's the TRUTH!

 

[Charlie Farley]

Randy,

There's something just a wee bit too close to the bone in your analogy.

 

[Paul Brameld]

At least it is not compulsory, yet!!!!!!

 

[Bob Putnam]

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

And the same applies to others' sexuality.

 

[Larry L.]

No legit English dictionary (of which I'm aware) published in TRADITIONAL Western society over the past several hundred years has defined "marriage" as anything other than the union of one single MALE and one single FEMALE. PERIOD.

Now, that said, BOWING TO PRESSURE FROM THE "P.C." CROWD, I understand that said definition has been...uh...'modified' in one or two dictionaries these days to include 'gay' unions. :squint:

BULL FEATHERS.

Such unions may be "civil unions", or "civil partnerships", or whatever convenient label one wishes to attach to unions of that type (which I have no problem with BTW) - BUT, ACCORDING TO T-R-I-D-I-T-I-O-N-A-L DEFINITION, SUCH UNIONS ARE NOT "MARRIAGES" IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. PERIOD. :annoyed:

SUE ME. :veryangry:

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Pickering's take on the subject

 

[Robert May Eng.]

No legit English dictionary (of which I'm aware) published in TRADITIONAL Western society over the past several hundred years has defined "marriage" as anything other than the union of one single MALE and one single FEMALE. PERIOD.

Now, that said, BOWING TO PRESSURE FROM THE "P.C." CROWD, I understand that said definition has been...uh...'modified' in one or two dictionaries these days to include 'gay' unions. :squint:

BULL FEATHERS.

Such unions may be "civil unions", or "civil partnerships", or whatever convenient label one wishes to attach to unions of that type (which I have no problem with BTW) - BUT, ACCORDING TO T-R-I-D-I-T-I-O-N-A-L DEFINITION, SUCH UNIONS ARE NOT "MARRIAGES" IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. PERIOD. :annoyed:

SUE ME. :veryangry:

I dont think it changes much Larry, rug munchers and fudge packers have cohabited for hundredss of years. We like legislation dont we so this Irish referendum has created a pigeonhole/name/meaning/recognition for the aforementioned.:laugh:

Bob

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

One of my friends, who is gay, asked me what I thought of the idea of gay marriage.

I told him that I thought it was a great idea. Why should straight people do all the suffering, I said.

I can't speak to what it means in Ireland, but over here it is really about children and parental rights, as well as legal standing of mates. And it does mean a lot to the people involved.

Most people will acknowledge that marriage serves to stabilize societies. It doesn't seem to matter who is in those marriages, but it does make a difference to those people. I can't fathom why men would want to have sex with other men, but frankly none of this seems my business and it doesn't harm anyone, so why not? What people do in their private moments isn't my affair and I don't want it to be, but why should it be illegal?

Homosexuality was evidently tolerated in many Western societies at some points. I think those who point to the "tradition" thing are being a bit selective. And societies evolve and change, don't they? We used to execute people for stealing bread. We don't do things like that now. We used to execute people by lynching for being black; we don't do that now. What's the difference if gay people get married? Why should it make any difference to us?

 

[Larry L.]

What's the difference if gay people get married? Why should it make any difference to us?

What's the difference if Ziggy want's to marry his goat? Why should it make any difference to us?

What's the difference if Ziggy want's to marry the Andrews triplets? For that matter the Andrews triplets, the Benson twins, AND his goat? Why should it make any difference to us? What if he wants to marry his SISTER??" Equal protection" and all that, you know...

...but over here it is really about children and parental rights, as well as legal standing of mates. And it does mean a lot to the people involved.

True. And, to my knowledge, all those concerns are fully addressed/dealt with/resolved when gays enter into a "civil union" or "civil partnership" (whatever its 'title') because such agreements mirror marriage by design...so, why the i-n-s-i-s-t-a-n-c-e on the part of the LGBT community that they be "married" when all along their supposed 'concerns' were just what you mentioned before: rights and legal standing, etc.? Well, civil unions solve all that. So again I ask: Why the push for the "right" (no one has such a "right", BTW. It's not in the constitution) to be "married"? In traditional western societies, a gay union clearly is not a "marriage" according to both centuries-old tradition, and centuries-old definition (as well as other reasons/concerns). It just flat-out ISN'T. (Is the true purpose behind this push, then, simply to force churches to go against their teachings via the secular law route? Good luck with that...)

One may choose to call an elephant a jiraffe all one wants, but, according to the traditional definition (not to mention common sense), an elephant clearly isn't a jiraffe and it can never be one.

JMHO.

 

[Bob Putnam]

It wasn't that long ago that the definition of marriage wasn't between one man and one woman. Nor was the woman an equal partner in the marriage. Read the Bible. Societal norms change - when we get smarter.

 

[Robert May Eng.]

Court cases like this have in part paved the way to the referendum.
Gay snub Cornish B&B owners lose Supreme Court appeal - BBC News

Bob

 

[Larry L.]

Societal norms change - when we get smarter.

What constitutes "smart societal change" evidently is in the eye of the beholder then, innit.

What do you think our Founders' view would be on this issue? Regardless of what you may say/claim, I think you actually know the correct answer to that question...as does almost every person who reads this...certainly every Yankee anyway.

 

[Marcus]

Armageddon!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Jt_g10Jug

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Larry, you are wrong. Civil union isn't the same thing. If it were, there wouldn't be a fuss about it.

I'm going to light the fuse here, but here goes: I think most people who oppose gay marriage oppose being gay first, and gay marriage second. I take the opposite view to yours: I think marriage tends to stabilize society and create better environments for children. I'd also like to ask you when was the last time you heard of a gay couple accidentally getting pregnant? Gay couples WANT their kids 100% of the time. They go through a lot to get them. Straight couples get surprised a lot of the time- pregnant whether or not they want to be.

I'm sure I won't change your mind. But on this one, at least, you are on the wrong side of history, which is a shame, because it will just further your impression that the world is going down the tubes. On this one, you and I don't agree, because I think that anything that provides a more stable and nurturing situation for children is a plus for society. And civil union isn't all the way there, not by a long chalk.

 

[Bob Putnam]

What constitutes "smart societal change" evidently is in the eye of the beholder then, innit.

What do you think our Founders' view would be on this issue? Regardless of what you may say/claim, I think you actually know the correct answer to that question...as does almost every person who reads this...certainly every Yankee anyway.

And - at the time of the writing of the Constitution, several of the founders owned slaves, thought the Universe ended at the boundaries of our vision, and didn't anticipate that guns would ever progress past muzzle-loaders.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

And as far as the Founders go, Larry, they gave us a good beginning but far from a perfect one. Women weren't allowed to vote, men could only vote if they owned property, etc. Do you have any female children? Do you think they ought to be allowed to vote? Do you think the Founders were right about that?

 

[Larry L.]

^^^ You're both obfuscating.

Like I said, I think the both of you know the answer to my "Founders'" question and exactly the point I was making with regard to the subject at hand by asking it.