@alan. What two fathers did Jesus have?

Joseph and some guy in the sky with a beard!

Brilliant!!!!

@conor: I am all for gay marriage, adoption equal rights etc, but the first sentence of your comment is deriding people who believe in god, you can’t have it both ways Conor, be the bigger person!!!

There is a practical aspect to this debate. Historically and legally marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. The Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act 1989, the Family Law Act 1995 and the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 contain specific provisions dealing with the breakup of heterosexual married couples. It is the division of roles between a married man and a married woman, which does not apply to gay couples, is what distinguishes marriage from other forms of union. In particular, the non-financial contributions (and career opportunity cost) of the mother to the married family are recognised. Where heterosexual couples who have children choose not to marry, it is only the financial contributions which are recognised. For those reasons, marriage deserves special recognition. The invidious discrimination suffered by gay people was largely removed by the recognition of civil partnership so this debate has largely become a semantical one.

‘It is the division of roles between a married man and a married woman, which does not apply to gay couples, is what distinguishes marriage from other forms of union.’- It is if you believe in the outdated notion that men and women have specific ‘roles’ within a relationship.

‘In particular, the non-financial contributions (and career opportunity cost) of the mother to the married family are recognised’.- Again, why would automatically assume that the career cost of having children falls specifically on a woman?

‘For those reasons, marriage deserves special recognition. The invidious discrimination suffered by gay people was largely removed by the recognition of civil partnership so this debate has largely become a semantical one.’- If you believe that it is only semantics then surely you support it?

I agree that it is semantic to a degree… when the time comes (I hope!) for me to get married I want to be able to say “Will you marry me?” as opposed to “Will you be my civil partner?”

However there’s also another aspect. By far the easiest way logistically for the government to recognise gay relationships would be to include them under the system they already have – civil marriage. To go through the bother of all the extra paperwork and expense to create something equivalent, they’re sort of saying: “Well, your relationship isn’t quite the same as the others”. Personally, I believe love is love.

The division of roles is an not an archaic notion. It derives from the biological fact that women that bear children. Thus a woman’s career opportunities will be affected if she is absent from the workplace initially due to pregnancy and subsequently on maternity leave. Moreover, where a woman decides to stay at home to mind young children, which allows her husband to continue with his career, the law rightly recognises this non-financial contribution to the married family in the context of a subsequent marital breakup. These issues simply do not arise in the context of gay couples.

@Ian lighten up, its sunday the day of rest, I am a christian and I an gay as you know. If you cannot joke about yourself then you shouldn’t even bother saying anything….. I am saying that from my own perspective btw. I know you are christian and pro gay marriage. We need more people like you.

I think one of the concerns of those against gay marriage is the issue of adoption. Couples cannot adopt in a civil partnership, whereas I assume they can in a gay marriage. I don’t think any reasonable person would take issue with this, given the State’s history of looking after children, but it makes the argument about something more concrete than just semantics.

And what about fathers who decide to stay at home? This idea that men make the money and women raise the children disadvantages everyone – women who enjoy their careers, men who would quite like to be home to have dinner with their children.

Congratulations, Barry, I find your comment archaic both as a woman (who thinks childraising should be split between partners) and for my LGBT friends and family (because of this idea that your role as a parent depends on gender)

You’re right JayK, even in a civil partnership, LGBT people can’t adopt as a couple, while they can adopt as an individual, this means that the child is a legal stranger to one of their de facto parents, which can place them in a very difficult situation in the event that of berivement or if the child needs medical care and a whole host of other situations.
Since the constitution doesn’t include a definition of the family, I believe the government to be in breach of it’s constitution requirement to recognise and protect families and that the simplest way to solve that is to introduce marriage equality and grant LGBT people and our families all the rights and protections of the institution of civil marriage.

Conor just to put you in the truth. If you do follow All of church teaching then you are not in communion with the church and so cannot be Christian. You call yourself what you want but that is the truth.

That was meant to read if you do not follow church teaching…….

He said he’s a Christian. You’re making a lot of assumptions by talking about “church” teaching. I belong to a Christian church which advocates for marriage equality.

Er Barry.. It’s not always the woman who stays home.
My aunt kept her job after she had my cousin because she had a job with more prospects than my uncle, HE stayed at home and raised my cousin, HE did all the housework. That was back in the 80s, so methinks your notion of women’s roles being determined by their childbearing capacity to be a good 30 years out of date, AT LEAST.

@Nick you were the only one paying attention it seems, @bpdeasy I am a christian and proud of it, I left the archaic dogma of catholicism behind a long time ago as I can think for myself and rationalise my faith against my knowledge of science. You insult me by insinuating i belong to the godforsaken roman catholic church. I abide by christs teachings of love and understanding and compassion. Not what the men in old frocks preach.

Conor the definition of a Christian is someone who does the same works as Jesus Christ………

@bpdeasy where did your definition come from? I have never read or come across that definition ever. How can the definition you say be true? If I am to do the work of Jesus Christ that would make me a Messiah, a prophet and a miracle worker.

According to Websters Dictionary and Wikipedia this is the definition of what a Christian is;

“A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament. The term “Christian” is also used adjectivally to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense “all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like.” It is also used as a label to identify people who associate with the cultural aspects of Christianity, irrespective of personal religious beliefs or practices.”

Never thought I’d agree with you Rodrigo, but here we are! I’m getting all emotional now!
:P

Polls are necessary to gauge public opinion, however straightforward the issue.

Would you be happy for two family members to marry ? Imagine if they got divorced and re-married. We could have a situation where a child had 4 grandfathers.

Jaysus, there’s a reason why cousins and brothers and sisters don’t marry. It’s called genetics..

Well said Geraldine. Worded perfectly.

Since you hold a religious belief have u forgotten about Sodem & Gormorrah?

Marion the story of Sodom and Gommorah is completely fictional. No archeological evidence or historical records has ever been found to confirm that these two places ever existed. I know you might be a bit excited after coming in from mass but please troll elsewhere.

Ah yes Sodom and Gomorrah (no “r” in there Marion). Biblical God shows what a stick in the mud he is by destroying the two best party towns West of Babylon.

@ Marion… Everybody is entitled to their views but ” live and let live”

Since you hold a religious belief, maybe you should remember the history of the Church before you go on the offensive.

The Church has lost it’s moral high ground due to its bloody history, double standards and also it’s treatment of children.

Before the Church opens it’s mouth against others, it should work on repairing the damage it’s done itself and to others.

Yes, Sodom and Gomorrah. Where Lot offered his two virgin daughters to a crowd of rapists so that they wouldn’t rape angels and then was held up as a righteous man? That one?

An now Marion.. You’re the one suggesting bestiality up thread.. Please, answer me this..
Who did Cain marry?
There was Adam, Eve, And their sons Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel, who did he marry?
His mum? Or one of the “hairy people” (apes?) mentioned in, which book is it again? Enoch?

Which is your holy book advocating? Incest or bestiality?

If you’re gonna try beat people with it, then please, explain your rationale..

@Nick, yeah Lot and his family were virtuous and worthy of saving. Apart from the father of the year award he was due for offering his daughters to be gang raped! Oh and those saintly girls, virgins you know, well…until they got bored in the cave and date raped their father.

Absolutely! Get the ball rolling and move with the times

Indeed! If only we didnt have and continue to have a the same constant centre right led christian domocratic government since the foundation of the state intent on dragging their collective heels on the issues delaying such a referendum for as long as humanly posdible. :(

Woops! Not sure why that comment posted here. Either way I’m all for a referendum as I’m pretty sure the outcome will be positive

Why do we need a referendum? The constitution doesn’t prohibit same-sex marriage (at least, I can’t see where it does). It just requires a change in the law. Of course, that means gay people are relying on our politicians to do the right thing. So they probably have a long wait ahead of them.

Agreed, this “waiting for the results of the constitutional convention” line is just a stall tactic, if they had any real commitment to marriage equality, they could introduce a bill now and later introduce constitutional protects for it via referendum.
The leader of Fine Geal will not give us his own opinion on marriage equality and Labour has promised us the sun, moon and stars but so far has delivered little and in fact stopped a bill that would protect LGBT people from employment discrimination on the bases of religious ethos.
Frankly, next election, I’m voting for Fianna Fail because they are the only party with a proven record in recent years of advancing LGBT rights.

Vote No to denying children the right of mother & father.

Marion, all your posts on here are so hate filled (although that Hannibal one was hilarious you utter fool!)! What happened to you as a child to make you so vile towards your common folk?

Vote yes to protect the most vulnerable families in Ireland, families that are willing to adopt and to adopt older and special needs children who normally have little or no chance of adoption.
Marion, you say children have a right to a mother and father but I don’t see the anti-marriage equality lobby mobilizing people to make up for the massive gulf between the number of children who need to be adopted and those willing to adopt, what I do see is you attempting to deny these children loving, caring, capable parents because you believe LGBT people make inferior parents, something the anti-marriage lobby has refused to provide evidence of.
You’re clearly a member of Youth Defense or at least agree with their views so I’ll ask you this; if a poor, single mother-to-be knew that her child could be adopted by a stable, loving and well off gay couple, do you think that would make her more or less likely to consider an abortion?

There are many children born into heterosexual marriages who are denied love and care of there parents.There are good and bad in all walks of life.
are you saying that good kind loving people who happen to be”Gay” should not be allowed to adopt or otherwise bring up children???
That is so funny Marion…where do you think the the children are going to come from in these gay marriages????.

would you like me to explain….when a mummy and daddy love each other very much……….

@marion “the right to a mother and a father” so what about single parents? Do you have a problem with them too?

Yes Marion, what about widowed parents? Should they lose the right to be parents just because they don’t fit your criteria? How can you possibly be a member of Youth Defence, who constantly promote adoption over abortion, and then try to cut out a huge number of the demographic ready and willing to adopt? That makes so sense and is complete and utter hypocrisy. Since you care so much about these kids having a nice, Catholic, heterosexual family then why don’t you go and adopt the thousands of kids in care? Here you go, this should get you started!
http://www.hse.ie/go/adoption

@ David Jordan- David, it was the Green Party who got Civil Partnership onto the Programme for Government in the last administration

Yes but did FF stand in the way of civil partnership like we all know FG are doing on marriage equality.
FF have made marriage equality a policy, have FG?
Like it or not FF or FG are more then likely to, as always, lead the next government and I’d rather have the former then the latter setting the agenda as every other possible collation partner for them is pro-marriage equality and only a senior collation partner could stop it now.

My next door neighbour likes his cat perhaps he should marry him. Afterall anything goes.

Marion, that is a stupid argument. The idea that I would have to explain the idea of informed consent to an adult is laughable. Grow up.

Go back to sleep, Marion.

The word equality obviously does not equate in your language Marion

Ridiculous comment Marion. A cat couldn’t sign the registry so it could never really be married.
Think about it- they lack fingers AND opposable thumbs.

Who said “anything goes”? I mean, other than you, Marion? The question is whether two men who love each other; or two women who love each other; should be granted the same rights as a man and a woman who love each other. The only people who bring bestiality into the debate are people like you, who oppose equal rights for homosexual couples. Which – in my view – speaks volumes about your unconscious mind, and says nothing at all about homosexuality.

Marion, all your posts on here are so hate filled! What happened to you as a child?

Marion, who says anything goes? What people are doing is making this a legality to marry their partner and be offered the same right as straight people.

If your neighbour wants to marry his cat then he should apply to the court and have the law changed to allow him the chance.

Huh Marion. Ignorant much?!

Marion, you look like a foot. I think you should marry a foot instead of your cat.

Oh dear Marion, if you’re not a troll then you have a very messed up world view..
Mind you, I wonder if trolls are granted marriage equality? Perhaps you’re asking this to see if one day you’ll be permitted to marry a human?

Homosexual relationships were deemed the norm by the Greeks & the Roman empires so it’s nothing modern ir new. Hannibal succeeded because the Romans were ahem! Too busy with one another.

As in the Romans who conquered pretty much the entire known world and ruled it for centuries? Yeah, good argument.

@Marion. What? Hannibal didn’t succeed. He may have slapped the Romans about a bit for a while but in the end they burned Carthage to the ground and built that bit of an empire they had. It seems your ignorance of history is as embarrassing as your backward views on same sex marriage.

Hannibal actually failed in the end Marion….

Marion, you are an utter tit.

I know others have already pointed it out, Marion, but it’s worth repeating… Hannibal didn’t succeed. He won a couple of battles, but eventually lost the war. Those who appeal to history to back up their position should at least have read a bit of it.

Make sex illegal?! First the journal targets my drinking habits, then the commenters my sex life, this is turning out to be a fine Sunday morning, top of the morning to you!

No way, I literally could not function properly until I started having sex!

Have as much sex as you can!

prescribe it to people with depression! Life is short!

Sex education may resolve your issue with it

Abolish marriage and sex?

Sure i may aswell become a priest.

They’re not allowed either of them either.

Marion is not only a troll but a member and campaigner for Youth Defence, and as such is incapable of listening to reasoned argument.

So by all means red thumb away cos it IS maddening to as such ignorance and hatred toward, well, most people!..-but be filled with hope at the fact that they are a TINY looney group (don’t let the FB likes fool you, the vast majority are in US)..who haven’t a hope of influencing what is the majority tidal wave of regular, reasonable caring people of Ireland.

All you need is love! (man…) ;)

If you check her FB profile you’ll see her pic is from a pro-life march. She was also educated at a convent. Indoctrinated to the point of being brainwashed.

So trying to control women’s sexuality and control the sexuality of the LGBT community go together? Say it isn’t SO!?

I also spotted that!!! You would almost feel sorry for her, almost. I pity her for now.

Just what my straight best man said at my civil partnership.

Damn. Now I’m hungry & gay pizza sounds awesome. Is that a thing? Can we make it a thing?

Gay Gardening Centres sound Brilliant! They would be like normal Gardening Centres but with more glitter and Techno Music

As a gay horticulturalist, I would very much like to work in a gay gardening centre.

I’m joking of course but the thing is, if you tried to set up a business with a gay only staff you’d fall afoul of anti-discrimination laws but if you wanted to set up a christian business or charity or school you have the defense of protecting your ethos when you refuse to hire gay people.

“In regards of comments on incest and sibling marriage.I would suggest that there maybe serious psychological issues with such people even on a genetic level humans are primed to find stronger genes as the family gene pool would most likely lead to recessive genes and various medical conditions.”

But this recessive gene argument would not be relevant for same-sex siblings. Gay marriage is equivalent to same-sex sibling marriage.

And it’s a STRAW MAN Jesus..
Mind you, it’s apparent logic is not something you have any experience of..

Conor I support gay marriage but also believe everyone has a right to their own views…….

Eh, Mary you seem to be equating rape with consensual relationships between adults.

How biblical of you!

Marion what on earth has homosexuality and gay marriage to do with the abuse of young boys? Paedophilia and homosexuality are NOT the same thing. Get your facts straight before going around making stupid and dangerous statements. Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex, heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex – neither has ANYTHING to do with paedophilia.

*Marion, sorry.

Mary, as an expert on child abuse cases, I assume you already know, that statistically, a child is more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted by someone in the family or very close to the family. By that logic, locking your boys in the house is far more likely to result in sexual assault than allowing two consenting gay adults to marry.

Pedophiles abuse kids under 12. Not teenagers.

*Marion, woops! Also, you do realise that sexual predators are, also, heterosexual? Please see the last three sexual assault cases that have appeared in the journal. All male on female. Should we also ban heterosexual marraige?

Paedophiles abuse minors. That includes kids under 18.

Marion, does you comment have anything to do with the fact that the age of sexual consent in the Vatican city is twelve….

Marion, your comments are offensive and hurtful.
As a gay man, I can inform you that I have no intention of ever abusing another human being, my sexuality has nothing to do with whether or not I obey the law, that is my up-bringing, and I was brought up without prejudice, in the same way as my straight siblings – to know that I must never hurt another human being – gay, straight, minor, adult, whatever.
I have many nieces and nephews whom I love dearly and protect when they are with me – I don’t do that because they are my nieces and nephews – I do that because I have been trusted by somebody – no matter who – to protect these people. I do not look at them and say “well you’re gay, I’m not going to protect you”, or “you’re straight, I must protect you more”, I don’t look and say “well in 10 years time, you’re going to come out of the closet – I don’t care about you”, and as far as I’m aware, parents don’t do that either.
When those children are with me, they don’t say “well we’re gonna act up because you’re gay”, they look to me to mind, protect and keep them safe from whatever dangers are out there.
If I am ever privileged enough to have children, I will bring them up with the respect, love and care that they deserve. I would never single one over the other because of sexuality, or sex – or abuse them because I am a gay parent.
My role in a gay marriage may differ from yours in a straight marriage, however my role as a parent in a gay family does not differ from yours in a straight family.

“Marion your comments are offensive and hurtful” quick somebody get Micheal a tissue! Or better still call the wambulance his feelings have been hurt.

Cian, tis a nice Sunday morning to be bullying people isn’t it?

We need more tissues Eleen is about to cry as well.

Cian, you’ve made it clear in many of your posts that you’re influenced by your Catholic faith. Jesus the liberal hippie rabbi would in no way be impressed by your bullying.

The US statistics re 4 out of 5 clerical abuse cases being homosexual or male on male leaves an impression.

Well, that’s because you’re being selectively blinded. Clerical sex abuse, while a horrible thing, is a tiny percentage of abuse cases. Have you bothered to check the stats as to child abuse overall? Why would you only look at a small subset on them?

It’s disproportionately straight adult men on young girls. And even those abusing young boys defined themselves as straight.

So no heterosexual marriage then?

Could someone please hand me the frying pan til I clock Cian on the head with it for being such a prat?

@ tomnewman: the 4 out of 5 that you state has been embellished by yourself. They do not equate 4 out of 5 as being homosexual that’s your spin on it. They equate to adult males on underage males which is paedophilia not homosexuality. Learn the difference and get your facts straight before you spout your so called claims.

@Tom if 4 out of 5 clerical child abuse cases involved abuse by male clerics of young boys, well then it’s male clerics I’d be aware of 5 out of 5 cases of clerical child abuse involved clerics.

And as a holy joe, shouldn’t you be pointing out that clerical child abuse is a small fraction of the total child sexual abuse? But making that point would force you to also point out that the vast majority of sexual abuse of children is abuse of girls by men and this would take away the opportunity for a bit of homophobia and blaming gay people for child abuse

@The Greem Monkey:

“Conor I support gay marriage but also believe everyone has a right to their own views”

Who says otherwise? #anothertantrumthrower

Rodrigo and Michael … A love – in ! Get a room fellas !

You’re welcome to join us Celtic Lady!

Good points but a couple of things worth pointing out. California voted on prop 8 the day they elected Obama so there was a high turnout of ethnic minorities who tend to be more socially and religiously conservative. Also, we don’t have to worry too much about evangelicals (mainly African) or conservative opinion from other immigrant communities (here I’m thinking about some eastern and central European, as well as Muslim countries, not exactly famed for their tolerance) because only Irish citizens can vote for the constitution

The point about immigrants is true but it should be noted that there is a steady uptake of Irish Citizenship. However, I was really referring more to activism and campaigning…. Not saying it will be a major factor, but it will be there….

I wonder if any of those who oppose at marriage here were to study logic would they continue to hold their beliefs?
There’s so many straw men on this thread I’m wondering when Edward Woodward or Nicholas Cage are gonna show up..
Then there’s the appeals to tradition, and massive landings of over quota red herrings..
Tis a pity logic isn’t part of basic education..

If people don’t want to support gay marriage, then fine. Don’t support it, that’s your right.

But they just remember that Gays and Lesbians are members of Irish Society weather you like it or not. They have been for a very long time. They go to school and college, they go to work in the community and in the cities, they pay taxes. They spend their hard earned money in your bars, and shops, help the economy grow, just like everyone else.

And now you want to deny them the same right as everyone else because you don’t like the gender of their partner?

Show me a study where it shows straight couples are better, and i’ll show you reports of where straight single men and women and couple have raped, murdered and pillaged and have behaved worse then animals.

Marriage is sacred bond between men and women? Yeah right, Britney Spears was able to get married, drunk in Vegas but got divorced 55 hours. Obviouslly she was raised to believe marriage was sacred.

In 2011 it was shown that 87,770 people were legally divorced in Ireland. Still believe marriage is sacred?

Want kids to be raised by a man and a woman? How about you start adopting the thousands of kids that are currently in care. I doubt a kid is going to care if the couple he is going to is straight or gay or lesbian. I’d imagine all they care about is that they are getting out of the care system and into a home where someone will love and care for them enough to raise them as a responsible adult.

May your dreams come true Jamie x

Hopefully not

Why is that Cian?

You worried that Jamie will end up happier then you?

I’d be worried about the psychological well-being of a child brought up in an environment of two lads walking around the house with the ar$e deliberately missing from their shiny leather trousers.

Be they a same sex couple or hetrosexual, If ANYONE walked around a child with their ar$e deliberately missing from their trousers, then action must be taken.

And considering how many children are taken off straight couple, shouldn’t you be more worried about that?

And all this talk about same sex couple undermining marriage, straight people have have more damage to marriage then same sex couples.

If marriage is so sacred, then how come i can go to Vegas and have a minister dressed up as Elvis pronounce me and my girlfriend as man and wife? We wouldn’t have people get married at casino’s or at a place called “Eli Roth’s Goretorium”.

Society recognises that the ideal situation for a child to be brought up in is with a mother and a father, and that is why special constitutional recognition is given to this family unit.

I have yet to see heterosexual couples parading down the streets of Dublin with the ar$e missing out of their pants as happens every year in Dublin during events such as “Pride”.

Their ar$e missing out of their trousers on pride? You seem to be focusing on same sex couple’s and point out what you don’t like about them. What about the bad sides of straight people.

I can see a hell of alot worse on a weekend night outside pubs and clubs. People urinating on the streets, getting sick on the streets, having sex in the streets and in public. And have seen many a straight person have no problem whip their bits out either. Does that make them better the gay people? I’ve actually seen gay and lesbian people behave a damn sight better. Yeah some go over board, but we have that with straight people aren’t so innocent.

And society is always changing and evolving, it never stays the same. This is one of those times where we decide are we going to change for the better or worse. And liek it or not, same sex couples are a part of our society, so do you want them to be a fully functioning part of our society, or deny them some right because you don’t agree.

Yes, imagine a world where heterosexual women wore skirts so short that you could sometimes see their crotches!? Luckily such a world doesn’t exist?!

Deciding that Gay Pride is “the average day of an LGBT parent” is like deciding the average heterosexual parent can be encompassed by a night out in Coppers.

Always though that was the problem with the way the media reports on pride, they always focus on the most “queer” part of the parade, they never show the LGBT policemen, the LGBT soldiers, the LGBT firemen and EMTs, the LGBT nine to fivers who you couldn’t tell were gay unless they were holding hands with their boyfriend.
But that still doesn’t excuse those who can only think of the LGBT community in terms of old stereotypes.

Yeah, cus all those straight parents are such a shining example aren’t they?

Children learn from those around them, I feel sorry for those kids who grow up with straight, bigoted parents who cant see past their own assumptions about people they REFUSE to learn anything about..

Jesus, how can you claim that “society recognises that the ideal situation for a child to be brought up in is with a mother and a father, and that is why special constitutional recognition is given to this family unit” when this poll clearly indicates that a substantial majority of the members of society do not believe this to be the case? Clearly, “society” has moved on and left people like you behind.

It is most likely that the cat will just stare at you with a baleful indifference. Unless you offer it an inducement in the form of a slice of Wedding Cake….

DJ, Cats can’t talk.

It will show its appreciation of being offered Wedding Cake in other ways…

It can’t actually accept a marriage proposal.

But don’t love your brother, at least not in a sexual way.

And certainly not the way Jesus loved John eh?
http://www.alternet.org/story/155118/was_jesus_gay_probably/

The Irish Times poll last year did indeed show that. I doubt it shows any decrease, more just inconsistency with polling techniques.

Have you read the European Court of Human Rights judgement. It is not a human right as found by the Court. You can’t change the fundamental definition of a word to legitimise your lifestyle choice.

The definition? Who’s definition? I thought marriage was “the union of two SOULS joined in holy matrimony”?

Paul what are you saying?? and what is a youth “defencer”

The above statements were made by a supporter of Youth Defence; I should think my point perfectly obvious.

P.

Would it not be a Youth Defender ?

Two animal marriage links:

http://damoclesbda.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/a-budgie-marries-a-cat/
http://www.marryyourpet.com/

Hey, some woman married the Eiffel Tower.. It’s clear that “marriage” isn’t really that sacred an institution..

Marriage is between a man and a woman no matter how much the gay lobby trying to carry out their weird social experiment try to distort the definition.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, except in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden and some US states, all of whom have reported a remarkable lack of the fabric of society ripping apart.

Jesus, the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman is an appeal to tradition
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

Unless we allow full marriage rights to homosexual couples and then see how it goes your statement is based upon assumption alone, as it does not state in our constitution that marriage is a man and a woman. It’s simply because that is what you are *used to*. It appears you fear change. And reason..

EP, there is an interesting breakdown of the county-by-county vote in the Proposition 8 referendum here…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#County_breakdown

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

If you’re going to use research to back up your opinion, you should at least choose respected research methods and a respected journal.

This study shows by far the best outcomes are with married heterosexual couples who are both biological parents of the child. ” But the NFSS also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day. ”

The pro-gay research you have chosen has been shown numerous times to have insufficient self-selected sample sizes. It does not compare with the vast amount of data available from the currently normal traditional family unit of a mother and father.

Actually, most of the children in the study you cite were raised by their biological mothers (and so a sizeable group of them went through a family breakdown.) You’re fibbing a bit to describe it as comparing those raised in stable same sex homes as those raised in stable heterosexual homes.

There is a vast amount of data amongst heterosexual families and if you hadn’t noticed, they provide for a wide variety of outcomes.

All that study proved was that it was best for children to grow up in a stable household then a broken one, they were not comparing like with like in that study, they compared the biological children of bisexual women who had left there origional male partner and later entered into a same-sex relationship with the biological children of heterosexual couples that had experanced no unheaval.
A better study would have compared children adopted by Heterosexual couples to those adopted by homosexual couples. Its clear that the person conducting the study decided before hand what results he wanted and then designed the study to get them.

Lol!

I was hoping no-one would spot that!!

LGBT. Transgender – People who mutilate their sexual organs. How many other disorders are going to be present in the LGBT abbreviation in 20 years?

LGBTAKFIWIKIAKFUEIF? God knows what weird mental disorders people are proposing children be exposed to.

I dunno Jesus. I think it’s far more detrimental to expose children to bigotry.

Firstly, you don’t enjoy the same rights as a married couple, acting as next of kin, inheritance, hospital admittance when they’re sick, immigration rights, etc.
Second, in a marriage you can adopt as a couple, but as civil partners you can only adopt as an individual, meaning your child is a legal stranger to one of you, which has many problem for example if you’re berived or the child is sick or some kinds of school functions and so on.
Third, there are a number of tax issues.
Finally, just dignity, ask yourself would you rather be in a civil partnership rather then a marriage, even if they had the same rights?

Gay marriage means do you support homosexuals adopting children and bringing them up in that type of environment.

http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html hope this helps…

And what kind of environment is that O’Shea? Caring, loving, accepting, providing and willing to fight tooth and nail for the good of their families.

Yeah Jesus the cheek of them bringing kids up in an environment where 2 people love each other enough to get married, where they teach their kids to be tolerant of others and not judge others based on their sexuality.

Thing is Jesus, Gays and Lesbians are full members of society. They go to school, they work, they pay their taxes, they help this country prosper.

Shouldn’t they enjoy the same rights as everyone else? The right not be judged on their sexuality, have the same rights as everyone else? Or are you happy expecting them to do the same work as everyone else, but have less rights just because they want to be with someone of the same gender?

I mean if they can’t enjoy the same rights as everyone else, does that mean we can make sure that other sections of society can’t enjoy certain rights?

I totally support gay adoption..
In case you hadn’t noticed Jesus, there’s an awful lot of kids out there who need parents.. They don’t care about sexual preferences because as kids they don’t have any prejudices. All they want is a home, some adults to care for them, protect them and love them. Why would you deny them that?

All adoptive parents are screened (or at least they should be), so it’s the ability to parent that should be the ONLY determining factor. Your gender makes no difference to that whatsoever.

Yeah its scary people like you believe that nonsense.

I notice that their list of “victims” consists of a small number of bigots who lost their jobs and adoption agencies that put creed before the good of the children in their care and chose to close rather then adapt, here’s a list of real victims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people

It’s hard to argue with the cold facts when they are spelled out like that.

Cousins can marry. And in the church too!

And what about people who are so in love with animals or children shouldnt they be allowed to marry as well?

Since neither of them can give legal consent, your argument is beyond stupid.

Using the same logic, is civil marriage not enough for heterosexual couples?

For god sake cian, that argument is beyond redundant. A child or “animal” can not consent. This is irrelevant to religious freaks like Marion. It’s a question of do we live in a democracy? Yes? Than as equals, gays should b allowed to marry

Why do straight people need marriage? Is the civil partnership bill not enough for them either? And in some countries family members can actually get married.

And as for marrying your pet, im not sure about the law about marrying them, but if you get caught having sex with them, then i know you end up in court over it, and even if you don’t get to court over it, you can be sure you won’t be able to live it down as the one who got caught with your pants down.

And as for you comment about people who are in love with children, if they have any kind of sexual contact with them, then that is considered sexual abuse, and that carries a prison term. As regards getting married to them, this may help you out;

“From August 1, 1996 (under the Family Law Act, 1995) the minimum age at which a person, ordinarily resident in the State, may contract a marriage valid in Irish law is eighteen years of age; whether the marriage takes place in Ireland or elsewhere. This provision also applies where one party to the proposed marriage is over 18 years of age and the other is under 18, and to all non-residents who are marrying in the State. All persons aged under 18 must obtain the permission of the Circuit Family Court or the High Court to get married.”

And if they wanted to marry someone under 18, “Persons aged under 18 must obtain the permission of the Circuit Family Court or the High Court to get married.”

That being said, do you really see the courts allowing an adult marry a child? Can you see the courts allowing a 35 yr old marry a 14 yr old? or younger? You’d probably be arrested before you even left the court room.

Should we allow people to marry multiple partners?

What’s wrong with the civil partnership bill as it stands and can it not simply be amended?

Marriage as it stands is a special union between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN it’s a tradition dating back centuries and is the basis for a strong nuclear family which leads to a better society. Allowing the gays to marry weakens this.

Marrying multiple partners is a seperate issues. The issue here is same sex couple’s marrying. No need to change the issue.

And marriage being a special union between a man and a woman? If marriage is so special we wouldn’t have so many people getting divorced would we. Hetrosexual couples have already weakened marriage, and i don’t believe same sex couple will make things any worse.

Though i’d love to hear how you think they will weaken marriage. By not having kids? Not all straight couples are able to have kids as it is. By getting divorced? Well already have straight people doing that. Deviant behaviour? Already have straight people doing that too. By the loods of it, hetrosexual’s are already undermining marriage and have been doing a good job of it so far.

As for Traditions, not all traditions have survived into current times. What makes marriage so different. I would have thought ANY couple be they straight or same sex would lead to a better society and help it push forward, not denying them equal right because others don’t like the fact they are same sex. Being same sex should be the least of your worries. Shouldn’t you be more worried about them being happy and not rushing into it?

Cian, that’s rubbish. If we are to have marriage stay as it was centuries ago than we wouldn’t need a woman’s consent for marriage, just her fathers.

What is wrong with civil partnerships? The gays were mad for it, it was passed and now they want more. As I said marriage is key to the structure of the nuclear family which is the ideal enviornment to raise children and cultivate a strong society. 2 blokes raising a child is not right the poor child would be so confused and subject to ridicule. If gays want to get married and have kids then change back to being straight.

How is a key structure? If a man and a woman is an “ideal environment” as you put it, then why don’t you run along and start worrying about all the straight people getting divorced, worry about all the kids being taken off straight couples and put into care, try and have straight people adopt the kids that are currently in care.

As it stands single people, be they gay or straight are allowed adopt and foster kids. If a straight couple is an ideal environment for them, then shouldn’t you be worrying about that?

So why are you focusing on same sex couple’s getting married, when you should be focusing on all the issues straight people have caused instead. Or is same sex issues easier for you to start on?

And as regards the nuclear family, which definition are you going by? some only allow only biological children that are full-blood siblings, somes allow for a step-parent and a mixture of stepchildren and adopted children.

And apparently “The concept that a narrowly defined nuclear family is central to stability in modern society has been promoted by modern social conservatives in the United States, and has been challenged as historically and sociologically inadequate to describe the complexity of actual family relations.”

So you are following the nuclear family model as determined bu American social conservatives. Well guess what, this ain’t the States, this is Ireland you are in, so how about we decide what happens here and not follow what other countries decide is an ideal family unit.

Children of interracial couples were often subject to ridicule. Does that mean we should outlaw it? No, because in the long run, children will always be teased and most good people will teach their children that homophobic bullying is totally unacceptable.

As to why civil unions aren’t good enough, you’ve yet to answer as to why you think you and other heterosexual people want more than a civil union. Instead, you’ve gone off into some waffles as a marriage as a long-standing, unchanging tradition.

Between one man and one woman, is it? Someone hasn’t read their Bible recently. And this might not matter to you as a man, but I’m pretty happy that marriage has changed so enormously that I’m no longer property of a husband not can he legally rape or beat me. Marriage is constantly evolving. This idea of an equal marriage between two loving partners for companionship is incredibly recent. Why should it not evolve again?

“change back to being straight”? You really have no clue what you’re talking about.

It would imply that Cian thinks he could easily choose and become gay. You know, if it’s all a choice…

The Nuclear family? Doesn’t sound very ideal for any environment.

Change back to being striaght? Good god. I thought society had moved past those days. You’d be much better served to keep some of your thoughts to yourself. “Better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you’re an idiot, than to open it and remove all doubt.”

Cian, we don’t need your straw men thanks, or your homophobia for that matter.. Bestiality, Polygamy and incest have NOTHING to do with this issue.

Why do homosexuals want marriage? Because at present only married couples and single people can adopt. Meaning that if one or the other is a parent, their partner cannot adopt or have any legal standing in their role as parent and this puts the CHILD at risk.

That’s just one of the reasons..
As for kids getting bullied, like I said on another article, kids aren’t homophobic. When kids are born they don’t know anything, they learn from those around them and the only reason a child would bully another child because of the sexuality of their parents is if they learned that homophobia from somewhere. So how about we stop teaching homophobia? There’s no rational explanation for it besides fear of something that’s different. If you wish to live the rest of your life in fear then that’s your choice, just be aware that fear is the mind killer. It leads to poor decision making and that’s evident with your comments here..

@Jesus O Shea –

Hey Jesus O Shea,
You are totally gay,
Hear all who are here say,
‘Hey Jesus it’s ok!’ :D

X x

LOL @ the attempt to derail. This is about 2 persons.

Personally I have no issue with people marrying multiple partners (with consent of course) and when that comes to be an issue ill support it.

But lets stick to the topic at hand mmmmmmmmmmk?

The criteria is not simply “people who love each other” it’s also about equality. Since polygamy is not permitted to any groups in society your argument fails.

It’s not about human rights. It’s about the rights of the child being maintained, and the right to have the best chance of being brought up in natural, stable family unit which has stood the test of time.

Natural, stable family?

Like the 87,770 who were legally divorced in Ireland? And the 116,194 people who have been identified as separated?

And if the rights of the child you are so worried about, isn’t it more important that they go with a family who will care from them, regardless of their sexuality?

Gay and lesbian are part of this society, and like it or not they deserve the exact same rights as everyone else. Who the hell are you to say they don’t deserve them?

And yet, I’m confident it would pass, so where does that leave us?

Where do single parent adoptions fit into your idyllic view of what entails familial stability? Or how about single parents? Maybe those should be outlawed too. As it stands, a gay single man can adopt a child and yet society hasn’t caved in on itself. Allowing gay married couples to adopt probably won’t change much other than certain rights and responsibilities towards the child (presumably custody and the likes).

Just because things sometimes go wrong with marriage, does not mean that marriage as a concept becomes invalidated.

The European Court of Human Rights has found that gay marriage is not a human right. A marriage is between a man and a woman. A man cannot “marry” another man, dog, horse, sheep, his son etc. There are separate terms for such unions. Perhaps we need a new term for gay marriage?…Garr(b)iage?

O’Shea why don’t you drop the red herrings of insest and beastary, both of which the marriage equality lobby has not called for, stop misrepresenting court rulings (the court found that it couldn’t be considered a right at this time) and admit that you have a personal disliking for LGBT people and because of that hatred, you believe that LGBT people should have less rights then you and their families less protections then yours.

It’s nothing to do with rights. It’s to do with the gay lobby trying to put a weird, unnatural, deviant distortion on the meaning of the word marriage which is between a man and a woman.

in attempt to legitimatise their lifestyle choice.

Your reply just illustrates by point, you hate us so much you can’t even consider this an issue of rights. I challenge you to show one way that allowing me to marry a man will hurt you in anyway.
You can throw around the “its unnatural” line as much as you want but I don’t think anyone should use that argument while airborne, in a car, in a house or while on the internet.

Being gay is not a lifestyle choice, being a christian fundamentalist is.

It was only a matter of time before the bigot card was pulled out. When all else fails, pull out the homophobia card. Just like using the racist card on any reasonable debate on immigration.

If the suit fits O’Shea…
Frankly, I haven’t seen anything from you that would sugest you’ve justifications for your views beyond your own personal problems with gay people.

Jesus, you are a deluded, irrational, illogical bigot.
You have spewed nothing but prejudiced bile on here, littered with logical fallacies – as I and others have pointed out.
You choose to hate and demean that which you cannot understand, which shows how utterly lacking in compassion you are. Funny that, because compassion should be the single most important quality a parent or partner should possess. If anything you are merely proving that perhaps there are straight people who should not be permitted to adopt or marry.

“It’s nothing to do with rights. It’s to do with the gay lobby trying to put a weird, unnatural, deviant distortion on the meaning of the word marriage which is between a man and a woman.”

Well seeing as how you bring animals into this so much, remember that homosexuality is also found in the animal kingdom, who proves that homosexuality is natural.

Weird and Deviant? Define Weird and Deviant. Though if i remember inter-racial marriage was called “Weird and Deviant”. So was certain types of music. And dancing. Times moved on, people grew up, saw sense.

“Just because things sometimes go wrong with marriage, does not mean that marriage as a concept becomes invalidated.”

Well you are the one calling marriage “sacred” If all the people who got married called it “sacred”, they wouldn’t have gotten divorced, would they. They would still be married. Not get drunkenly married and get divorced 55 hours later. How sacred can marriage really be.

“It’s about the rights of the child being maintained” – Yeah and a fine job has been done so far. If the rights of the kids are truly what matters, we would have not had so many kids been taken into care, so missing, be abused, die in care. Or even worse, kids being left in horrific conditions because people would rather they be left with the family, instead of putting them with a family who would actually care for them

I would rather the child be taken out of that situation and placed with a gay couple any day of the damn week.

So before you start throwing mud at the gay and lesbian community, try and remember that the straight community ain’t so pure and that all that will happen as a result of gay marriage is one simple thing…

Gays will get married. The world won’t explode. Life will continue. The sea’s won’t be running with rivers of blood.

Not to mention the fact that Jesus Christ had 2 Fathers and 1 Mother and He didn’t do too bad for himself did he?

@damien Knox: Damien Jesus does not have two dads, where did you get that from ?

Let’s see he had Joseph, who was married to his mother Mary, and then He had his other Father who apparently came down and got Mary pregnant.

So doesn’t that mean he has 2 dads?

Unless i’m mistaken somehow, please correct me if i’m wrong.

Damien with all due respect I am firm supporter of the LGBT community and wish them every success in their quest for equality, however I am also a firm believer in god for which I have been derided for by some members of this group but i am plenty capable of dealing with that, to answer your question Joseph is not the father of Jesus, check out the holy trinity. Regards Ian

Ian, would Joseph not have been essentially like a step father then? Or an adoptive father? Did Joseph not help raise him, protect him, and do all of the things expected of a father?

It seems quite unfair to not give the character due credit..

@shanti om: yes shanti Joseph was his step dad as you put it but not his father but I am sure he was perfectly ok with two males in his life and a mother the lucky sod.

Agreed Ian, he had a non traditional family, with the influence of two fathers and turned out to be considered a leader by many.
It would be ridiculous for anyone to suggest that two fathers would have no females in their lives to contribute to the early life of a child, aunts, grandmothers, cousins, nieces and friends would be bound to include females.
I can’t understand why anyone thinks two men or two women cannot do as good a job as a woman and a man, in so many ways we really are not that different.

@shanti om: two males are more than capable of loving,caring, instilling morals etc etc etc. they will have the same basic human instincts towards the child to love nourish and protect. Cain and Jesus o Shea that have been commenting on here are in my opinion very insecure in their own skin.

“Of course, the purpose of marriage is about providing a stable family unit with a mother and father for well-being and ideal upbringing of children.” Really? Since when? It was a property agreement for hundred of years conducted for inheritance purposes – if men controlled a woman, they could be certain of paternity for inheritance reasons. I’m guessing your a man, because marriage has not been historically such a rosy institution for women. Luckily times have changed. You also fail to account for couples who don’t want children or elderly couples marrying. Why bother, if there are no kids?

“Separately, it’s obvious to me that in spite of homosexuals desperately trying to argue for gay marriage, the vast majority of them have absolutely no intention of ever getting married and committing to one same-sex partner.” – Based on what, exactly? And even if true, how can you use it justify denying rights to those who do want to get married?

If you feel so strongly against it, why waste your time arguing when you’re obviously the minority? It only shows how you have little to do except spread pointless hate. If that’s how you want to spend your life then I genuinely pity you.

Jesus, i don’t need to grasp at straws. The fact that these places exists already undermines marriage. And if marriage is so sacred, then we wouldn’t have so many people rush into marriage and get divorced, would we. Marriage has’t been sacred in god knows how long.

Many of the irish wedding traditions for example are no longer followed. Why is that? Maybe because times have changed and people have moved on.

As regards putting too much weight on the ceremony, i’m sorry, but thats the point where they get married! It’s supposed to be the most important part of the whole thing! If it’s not, they why is it such big business? We wouldn’t need a priest or anyone else, i could just get some stranger on the street to marry us.

And if marriage is to provide a stable family unit, then single people or unmarried couples should not be allowed to foster or adopt kids in the first place. And if most gay people have no intention of ever getting married, then they are just like straight people who don’t want to get married, but at least straight people have the option there if they want to.

” You fail to account for couples who don’t want children or elderly couples marrying. Why bother, if there are no kids?”

That’s like saying why bother having crash barriers on a motorway and airbags in a car – I just drove 30 miles and did not need them.

It’s a couples choice if they want to have children after getting married. If they do choose to have children, the ideal family unit of a mother and father will be in place to ensure the greatest chance of a psychologically healthy upbringing for the child. This has stood the test of time and is backed up by centuries of evidence throughout numerous cultures.

@Damien

“As regards putting too much weight on the ceremony, i’m sorry, but thats the point where they get married! It’s supposed to be the most important part of the whole thing! If it’s not, they why is it such big business?”

Once again, I think you have a very distorted view of marriage if you think that a wedding ceremony which lasts a few hours is the most important point of it. I am starting to wonder if this is why you are such a strong advocate of gay marriage – you want to get dressed up in a nice suit for a hours with your boyfriend and throw a party?

I love people who claim “it’s proved”. Please provide me research which indicates that children do better in a nuclear family rather than raised amongst a large groups of extended families, groups of women raising children together or same sex couples. Go on….

The marriage ceremony is supposed to be important. If you going to get married then the ceremony is an important part of it.

And i am a strong advocate of Same-Sex marriage because itis pretty simple. They deserve the same right to get married like everyone else. If you want gays and lesbians to be a productive member of society, then you afford them the exact same right that straight have.

If they want to put on a suit and have a party, that’s fine. That’s no different to the way things have been so far, be they gay or straight. They can do that already. Look at any wedding parties or wedding receptions already and you’ll see that happen already. Hell, people do that on stag nights already.

A huge amount of research indicates that no other parental arrangement, from single mothers to cohabitation to gi ves as many social, economic and emotional advantages as being raised by two biological parents joined in a lifelong commitment.

Funny how you can’t provide a single citation for that.

Jesus, you’d swear straight marriage was some sort of shining example to be lived up to. IT’S NOT.
Maybe your real reason for opposition is that you’re afraid that homosexuals might put heterosexual marriage to shame. They’ve been waiting for it for so long that there’s a chunk who wish to get married have stayed committed to each other longer than many of today’s straight marriages..
And as for the psychological effect on the kids – all evidence shows that this is not a problem.. We just gotta stop illogical homophobic numbskulls like yourself from spreading your twisted propaganda to kids, because that’s the ONLY place they get it from.

That was California’s choice.

And if they were truly trying to defend marriage, maybe they should do something about the high divorce rate and having people get married by a guy dressed up as elvis or in Eli Roth’s Goretorium*

Don’t believe me about the last one? http://goretorium.com/gethitched

Straight people sure have done a great job so far keeping marriage sacred alright.

Someone obviously bought you a”chucky doll” and now he is your hero.!!

That implies that you think being gay is a choice. If you weren’t so “righteous”, could you choose to be gay? If so, it might explain why you fear them so much, or your own hidden homosexual feelings. If not you’re a hypocrite. Either way you’re a muppet troll

Actually a single gay man or woman can already adopt children. It’s only when they are married when they can’t

And what gay social experiment are you on about?

And where do they say that the Constitution already provides for two brothers to marry each other.

The law already states that close relatives cannot marry, close family as in a child, a sibling or a parent, so there is no possibly way they can get married via the Constitution

That was in response to a poster above who said two people who can give consent should be allowed to marry. of course, as you have pointed out, this is not so. There are abominable situations where marriage must be banned.

You don’t actually get to just claim that it’s an “abominable” situation which must be banned. You actually have to back that up with facts. There’s no proof that being raised by an LGBT couples harms children nor does it any way harm the participants.

If a related couple or a polygamous couple want to argue that they should be able to get married, I’ll happily listen to their case and let them to try to make a convincing argument. That’s how society works. But at the minute, it’s not something a segment of society is advocating for.

An untested arrangement of homosexual parents does not have the same status as an arrangement at the heart of cultures all around the world throughout the ages. And that is why the proposer of a new arrangement has to be able to offer evidence of the safety of bringing up a child in such a deviant arrangement. That is why the burden of proof is on you. The sample sizes of upbringing of children are currently so small as to be insignificant. And it would be beyond unethical to test the validity of such an unusual arrangement by using children as guinea pigs in the great big weird gay social experiment.

“centuries of cultures all around the world” – Are you actually arguing that all cultures have used nuclear families? It’s actually an incredibly rare arrangement. Many cultures had children raised by large extended families and many others had children raised by groups of women. Please provide your citation as to why the nuclear family is most successful.

Someone’s got a little bit of paranoid delusions haven’t they? “The big gay experiment”, lol..

Why is incest banned? Because of the little genetics issue. DUH!!

Ugh! How many serial killers, rapists, paedophiles, criminals in general, gay people are born to straight parents? I would hazard a guess and say the vast majority of them as, if their parents were gay there would have been uproar as the gay community would have been held accountable etc etc. All of these kinds of people are born to straight people. A gay parent isn’t a guarantee that a child will be gay no more than a straight parent is a surety that the child will be straight or a functioning member of society. Also from the above list it’s clear straight parents can bring up some nasty children who go on to murder, rape, commit crime etc. Why are people so against gay parents when straight parents are hardly shining examples when we look at things like paedophiles and people who commit other heinous crimes? I’m not seeing the points in people’s arguments against gay marriage or gay adoption.

That’s most likely because they haven’t got any Aoife :)

Again getting your facts wrong. You’re not even trying now.

Marion, what glacier were you thawed from?

That’s the most desperate argument of them all. Marriage is currently between two humans of opposing genders. So if we take away the opposing genders bit, then we must also take away the “two” and the “humans”, because.

Polygamy and incest are seperate issues, and you are changing the issue.

The issue is same sex couples marrying. You don’t have to like it, but that’s just the way things are.

There are many thing’s i don’t like. For example you bring up the church and child abuse alot. Which is interesting due to the child abuse dished out by the Church and the cover-up which they started. Only a tiny handful of priests have been taken to court over it. They abused kids, it got swept under the carpet for years and the offending priests moved to other parishes where they could abuse even more priests. And it happened over and over and over again. And not just in Ireland, it happened in numerous countries.

So before you go after other people trying to simply have the legal right to marry their single sex partner, just remember that bringing up an organisation the hid child abusers and swept it under the carpet will not help your cause.

Marion, I know it has been said before, but it is probably worth saying again, you are a moron. I wouldn’t worry about children being raised without a mother and a father as you worry about, I would worry about children born to people like you and the fact that someone as hateful and uneducated as you is allowed to reproduce! Crawl back under your rock!

Because if we permitted incest we’d have a lot more people like you, Marion.

I think Marion has been tucking into a bit too much of the communion wine in mass this morning.

Marion.
If a Muslim man wished to take more than one wife then his religion dictates that each woman must be treated equally, ie – if he buys something for one he must buy one for each of his wives. For this reason, many Muslim men, particularly in this country, marry one woman and that is more than enough.

As for incest, why is it we don’t permit it? Because it was commonplace for long enough and it’s how we discovered inbreeding was a bad idea.. Even the royal family have started to branch out because their IQs went down the toilet and the porphyria / pyroluria was rampant.

Not to mention the fact that your argument is a big straw man (as in, it’s got nothing to do with the topic at hand and is held up as though it represents the topic when it clearly doesn’t). Seems to be you bigots go to argument.. Pity it’s a load of excrement..

I hope that one day you might open your mind and learn something.. The more you close it off the more of your IQ you sacrifice..

Marion you are to be truly pitied to EPIC proportions. God love ye.

(although I thought God was love?..so where does that leave you?)

Marion u crack me up! I feel ignorant/lucky saying this, but I’ve never had the chance to deal with anyone like u. U’r a rare breed, thankfully, but not rare enough all the same. If consenting adults wanted to partake in a polygamist relationship, that’s their business and so let them do it as long as they aren’t harming anybody else. Incest is a different story altogether. Due to the intricacies of genetics, people who are blood relatives shouldn’t procreate with each other as there are high birth defect risks to the unborn child. The only outcome of a gay marriage is that gays marry. That’s it. No more, no less. It shouldn’t even be a topic of debate. Hopefully if this passes it will lead to the incredibly long and overdue separation of church and state. Here’s hopin’